165
Bloomberg is at it AGAIN : Swingers Discussion 2207551081
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsBloomberg is at it AGAIN
TOPIC: Bloomberg is at it AGAIN
GoTo Page: Less ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Start   81 to 90 of 95   End
User Details are only visible to members.
The reason you refuse to use the logic of our founding fathers is clear , as you know in reality Your arguments are FALSE, and Lack MERIT

Burlingham NY
 
 
Username hidden
(9618 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Outdoors, do you have a problem with using the logic of that time? Or does all of your attempts have to bring in current day possibilities? the argument you and all of your Bretheren use is that what our founding fathers meant, well using the mindset of the day they intended the private citizen have the ability to keep the government even our newly formed government in check, and if we use this as a reference point, using thier throught process they would not support the regulations that have already been placed by out current lawmakers.

I won't play your what if Game , you and many other state what you claim they meant , you cannot use any events or reasons from the future to make a definition.

Burlingham NY
 
 
Username hidden
(9618 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Maybe there's an equivalence here. Suppose the US Army in 1815 had an armory where they had stores of guns, ammunition and gunpowder.

If a rich person of the day decides he wants to fill his barn with kegs of gunpowder, and that barn is at the edge of town, do you suppose he's entitled to do that?

The private citizen doesn't have the Army's ability to safeguard such a dangerous stockpile. Even if it's a huge investment, he's likely to be a bit lax about it. A disaster is imminent.

Arguing that he may need to fight the US Army isn't going to get him anywhere. Arguing that the 2nd Amendment guarantees his right to own any firepower up to or exceeding that of the US Army isn't flying, either.

Since no citizen can actually assure that his ultra-dangerous armaments can never be taken by rogue elements, the citizen's right to own dangerous firepower can be reasonably regulated.

Flat Rock NC
 
 
Username hidden
(2984 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Why does Bloomberg hate the Constitution?

lol

Pittsburgh PA
 
 
Username hidden
(16572 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Well how would you like to interpret the second? Let us look at it this way. When the Amendment was crafted the populace owned firearms that were MODERN for the day, The citizenry had the same Arms that the military owned, If Our Founding fathers had wanted to restrict the firearms of the time they would have written such, Especially if you look at things as I am often pointed to do by Liberals hell bent on Pressing thier opinion.

To interpet something one has to look at the theory of the time it was written, not using todays standards mixed with yesterdays techonology.

Based upon the time , and what our forfathers had been through one could safely argue that Maybe our founders would have Maintained that ALL households Had automatic weapons to keep the govt Honest....

Remember you wanted to "interpet" it, let's do it properly.

Burlingham NY
 
 
Username hidden
(9618 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"... let's just move on down the line and get rid of them all, remember we have evolved as a society. "

Thankfully, such attitudes seldom get appointed to the Supreme Court, where official opinions become a matter of record.

I didn't realize you were making no point whatsoever. "Interpret" is not the same as "get rid of".

Flat Rock NC
 
 
Username hidden
(2984 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
if we do to all the amendents that we do to the second.we would have noting or do we have anything now.how is it you can lose one right and not anoter.it strange that this amendent is your right and this one is a privlege or this one is for the whole people and this one is individual right.I thought a right was for every body.how can they take some rights away and not others.if you are a citizen you have all rights.if not a citizen you only have some rights.if convicted of this crime you lose this right,and if you do this crime you lose that right.if I use one finger I'am being offenses,if I put my hand in my pocket I'am playing pocket pool.bloomberg wants power and he don't want anything in the way.new yorkers got what they deserve......BS

Kingston TN
 
 
Username hidden
(1991 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
right so maybe we no longer need any of them, let's give up the First Amendment ummmmm FIRST. then let's just move on down the line and get rid of them all, remember we have evolved as a society.

Burlingham NY
 
 
Username hidden
(9618 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
What is alarming about these quotes? You have to realize things change. It's just a question of what changes are going to work in the long run.

The Constitution is always being re-interpreted. Originally, "men" had rights. Later, amendments included women, blacks, etc.

Flat Rock NC
 
 
Username hidden
(2984 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Tell me about it. And yet they say we should trust the government. Yea ok!!

Berryville VA
 
 
Username hidden
(1750 posts)
GoTo Page: Less ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Start   81 to 90 of 95   End
TOPIC: Bloomberg is at it AGAIN