Impeach Gov. Andrew Cuomo 4 violating New Yorker's 2nd Amendment

Page 3 of 8 First 12345 ... Last
  1. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.46%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by MANotaur View Post
    that still doesnt contest or resolve the creator issue, i simply used your example of your mother being your creator. by that logic, your mother is your source of rights, not the government. So no matter how you interpret creator, the end result is the same. rights dont come from the government. so if they dont come from the government, they cant take them away.

    and there is a "wall of seperation of church and state", just because the laws of the land and the teachings of religous texts have common themes doesnt mean that a religion or church is the governing body

    ...your turn
    We are a land governed by the rule of law, which is created/crafted where? Government. Ironic isn't it.

  2. Diamond Member
    jimbuick's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    10,637
    Rep Power
    7726995
    Level
    99
    Lv. Percent
    90.57%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityActivity VeteranActivity RoyaltyPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post

    Lol@telling me I'm arguing over semantics, when that is EXACTLY what you're doing now.
    I guess so, although you haven't made any post in the past two pages that was anything but semantics.

    Hard to argue an opposing view point when there isn't one, especially considering you have ignored every post I have made except for the ones about semantics.
    Body Performance Solutions Representative

    Check out our products at www.bpsnutrition.net
    Check out our FaceBook page at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Body-Performance-Solutions/191322614238042
  3. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.46%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by jimbuick View Post
    I guess so, although you haven't made any post in the past two pages that was anything but semantics.

    Hard to argue an opposing view point when there isn't one, especially considering you have ignored every post I have made except for the ones about semantics.
    Because you NEVER offer anything of substance. You come in here with your "opinions" of what you "think" to be the case. I offered various writings from Thomas Jefferson himself, NOT my own assumptions, nor my own interpretations. What did you offer?
    •   
       

  4. Senior Member
    MANotaur's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,347
    Rep Power
    450149
    Level
    45
    Lv. Percent
    46.11%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    We are a land governed by a set of laws, which is created where? Government.
    so the constitution and bill of rights was written by govt, to set limititations on itself, which give and take away rights? i dont understand that logic. like you really have lost me there

    and frankly using your words "my mother created me". if my mother is my creator, then how can government also be my creator? also doesnt the constitution recognize the rights as individual liberties and not collective liberties? so I have an individual right to bear arms that was set forth by the government in the constution which was writen to limit its own powers to what rights they can and cant take away from me because they are rights that were given to me by my creator, which is govt. makes perfect sense

    i gues you win...damn didnt see this one coming
    Quote Originally Posted by iparatroop View Post
    I'm usually crying when people take naked pictures of me. Fcuking childhood.
  5. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.46%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by MANotaur View Post
    so the constitution and bill of rights was written by govt, to set limititations on itself, which give and take away rights? i dont understand that logic. like you really have lost me there

    and frankly using your words "my mother created me". if my mother is my creator, then how can government also be my creator? also doesnt the constitution recognize the rights as individual liberties and not collective liberties? so I have an individual right to bear arms that was set forth by the government in the constution which was writen to limit its own powers to what rights they can and cant take away from me because they are rights that were given to me by my creator, which is govt. makes perfect sense

    i gues you win...damn didnt see this one coming
    The Constitution is a framework outlining the role of government. I used Thomas Jefferson's writings to support the contention that he felt it should remain a living document, flexible and up for review and revisions every 19 years. Those examples are substantive, not based on Southpaw's opinions and/or interpretations. See these aren't my opinions, these are his expressions. "My mother created me," was figurative, NOT literal. :/
  6. Senior Member
    MANotaur's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,347
    Rep Power
    450149
    Level
    45
    Lv. Percent
    46.11%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    The Constitution is a framework outlining the role of government. I used Thomas Jefferson's writings to support the contention that he felt it should remain a living document, flexible and up for review and revisions every 19 years. See these aren't my opinions, these are his expressions. "My mother created me," was figurative, NOT literal. :/
    it is a framework of its role, and that role is to protect the rights of its citizens, which are endowed by their creator, whoever that may be. its to PROTECT the rights, not take them away or make it unreasonable to exercise them.
    Quote Originally Posted by iparatroop View Post
    I'm usually crying when people take naked pictures of me. Fcuking childhood.
  7. Senior Member
    MANotaur's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,347
    Rep Power
    450149
    Level
    45
    Lv. Percent
    46.11%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    The Constitution is a framework outlining the role of government. I used Thomas Jefferson's writings to support the contention that he felt it should remain a living document, flexible and up for review and revisions every 19 years. Those examples are substantive, not based Southpaw's opinions and/or interpretations. See these aren't my opinions, these are his expressions. "My mother created me," was figurative, NOT literal. :/
    i understand that it was figurative and not literal but even by that same logic becuase you contested my reference to the word creator by making an example that expresses that it is a secular term, not theological. i simply responded by using that same logical to illistrate that either way creator, no matter how subjective it is or if you choose to interpret it as secular or theological or literal, is not the government.
    Quote Originally Posted by iparatroop View Post
    I'm usually crying when people take naked pictures of me. Fcuking childhood.
  8. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.46%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by MANotaur View Post
    it is a framework of its role, and that role is to protect the rights of its citizens, which are endowed by their creator, whoever that may be. its to PROTECT the rights, not take them away or make it unreasonable to exercise them.
    Above all else, the document is NOT infallible, nor should it be inflexible per my examples.
    Our Constitution makes no mention of God. The omission was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate, in spite of Alexander Hamilton's flippant responses when asked about it: According to one account, he said that the new nation was not in need of "foreign aid"; according to another, he simply said "we forgot." But as Hamilton's biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot anything important.

    In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is mentioned only twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word, as Gore Vidal has remarked, in the "only Heaven knows" sense). In the Declaration of Independence, He gets two brief nods: a reference to "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God," and the famous line about men being "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." More blatant official references to a deity date from long after the founding period: "In God We Trust" did not appear on our coinage until the Civil War, and "under God" was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy hysteria in 1954 [see Elisabeth Sifton, "The Battle Over the Pledge," April 5, 2004].
    In 1797 our government concluded a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary," now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words:
    As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Musselmen—and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
    This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today.
    The Founding Fathers were not religious men, and they fought hard to erect, in Thomas Jefferson's words, "a wall of separation between church and state." John Adams opined that if they were not restrained by legal measures, Puritans—the fundamentalists of their day—would "whip and crop, and pillory and roast." The historical epoch had afforded these men ample opportunity to observe the corruption to which established priesthoods were liable, as well as "the impious presumption of legislators and rulers," as Jefferson wrote, "civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time."
    If we define a Christian as a person who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ, then it is safe to say that some of the key Founding Fathers were not Christians at all. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine were deists—that is, they believed in one Supreme Being but rejected revelation and all the supernatural elements of the Christian Church; the word of the Creator, they believed, could best be read in Nature. John Adams was a professed liberal Unitarian, but he, too, in his private correspondence seems more deist than Christian.
    SOURCE: Our Godless Constitution, Brooke Allen, THE NATION, February 21, 2005 issue
    Here is further evidence that God was not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution...
    It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts. This lack of any these words does not mean that the Framers were not spiritual people, any more than the use of the word Lord means that they were. What this lack of these words is expositive of is not a love for or disdain for religion, but the feeling that the new government should not involve itself in matters of religion. In fact, the original Constitution bars any religious test to hold any federal office in the United States.
  9. Elite Member
    ax1's Avatar
    Stats
    4'6"  170 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,473
    Rep Power
    1251927
    Level
    61
    Lv. Percent
    22.62%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    The subject was brought up by Manotaur (my mistake not you), with his response..."ive tried pointing out that the 2nd ammendment right is a godgiven right." Which means he invited it into the discussion, I simply responded. You can insult me, I don't mind. I lol @ most of that stuff considering who's making the argument.

    Just for clarification, you say I bring nothing to the discussion, yet I offered Thomas Jefferson's own words, and some of you offer nothing more than broad, simplistic interpretations based on opinion. And I'm the one who doesn't offer anything of substance to the discussion? Comedy.
    Wow...I go away for a couple of hours, Im still catching up...

    Anyways..I dont believe in God, but I dont see what the big deal is with the wording even if biased by personal belief.

    If someone says "godgiven right", I personally just interpret that as a natural right, god or not. Personal freedom is a natural right, or a right given by god of that's what you believe in....

    I dont see the purpose into clinging to the word "god" in the documents as relevant as to the rights themselves. Its just contributing to distracting away from the the issues.
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!
  10. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.46%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    There is some irony in saying that gun ownership is a god given right and cannot be taken away by man, in lieu of the fact that these documents were written by.... MEN.
  11. Elite Member
    ax1's Avatar
    Stats
    4'6"  170 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,473
    Rep Power
    1251927
    Level
    61
    Lv. Percent
    22.62%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    There is some irony in saying that gun ownership is a god given right and cannot be taken away by man, in lieu of the fact that these documents were written by.... MEN.
    So what? Why does that bother you so much?
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!
  12. Senior Member
    MANotaur's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,347
    Rep Power
    450149
    Level
    45
    Lv. Percent
    46.11%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Above all else, the document is NOT infallible, nor should it be inflexible per my examples.

    Our Constitution makes no mention of God. The omission was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate, in spite of Alexander Hamilton's flippant responses when asked about it: According to one account, he said that the new nation was not in need of "foreign aid"; according to another, he simply said "we forgot." But as Hamilton's biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot anything important.

    In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is mentioned only twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word, as Gore Vidal has remarked, in the "only Heaven knows" sense). In the Declaration of Independence, He gets two brief nods: a reference to "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God," and the famous line about men being "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." More blatant official references to a deity date from long after the founding period: "In God We Trust" did not appear on our coinage until the Civil War, and "under God" was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy hysteria in 1954 [see Elisabeth Sifton, "The Battle Over the Pledge," April 5, 2004].
    In 1797 our government concluded a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary," now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words:
    As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Musselmen—and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
    This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today.
    The Founding Fathers were not religious men, and they fought hard to erect, in Thomas Jefferson's words, "a wall of separation between church and state." John Adams opined that if they were not restrained by legal measures, Puritans—the fundamentalists of their day—would "whip and crop, and pillory and roast." The historical epoch had afforded these men ample opportunity to observe the corruption to which established priesthoods were liable, as well as "the impious presumption of legislators and rulers," as Jefferson wrote, "civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time."
    If we define a Christian as a person who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ, then it is safe to say that some of the key Founding Fathers were not Christians at all. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine were deists—that is, they believed in one Supreme Being but rejected revelation and all the supernatural elements of the Christian Church; the word of the Creator, they believed, could best be read in Nature. John Adams was a professed liberal Unitarian, but he, too, in his private correspondence seems more deist than Christian.
    SOURCE: Our Godless Constitution, Brooke Allen, THE NATION, February 21, 2005 issue
    Here is further evidence that God was not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution...
    It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts. This lack of any these words does not mean that the Framers were not spiritual people, any more than the use of the word Lord means that they were. What this lack of these words is expositive of is not a love for or disdain for religion, but the feeling that the new government should not involve itself in matters of religion. In fact, the original Constitution bars any religious test to hold any federal office in the United States.
    i dont understand how this accomplishes anything other than making my eyes hurt from reading lime green text. All i said is that no matter how you choose to interpret creator from any founding document, the end result is the same.

    Government does not create rights, nor should they take them away. individual liberties, not collective ones.
    Quote Originally Posted by iparatroop View Post
    I'm usually crying when people take naked pictures of me. Fcuking childhood.
  13. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.46%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    Wow...I go away for a couple of hours, Im still catching up...

    Anyways..I dont believe in God, but I dont see what the big deal is with the wording even if biased by personal belief.

    If someone says "godgiven right", I personally just interpret that as a natural right, god or not. Personal freedom is a natural right, or a right given by god of that's what you believe in....

    I dont see the purpose into clinging to the word "god" in the documents as relevant as to the rights themselves. Its just contributing to distracting away from the the issues.
    Read what you wrote again, you "interpret." I'm not in the business of interpreting someone else's meaning. I offered actual text taken from letters written by an American Founding Father, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and the third President of the United States. Not Southpaw's opinions....
  14. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.46%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by MANotaur View Post
    i dont understand how this accomplishes anything other than making my eyes hurt from reading lime green text. All i said is that no matter how you choose to interpret creator from any founding document, the end result is the same.

    Government does not create rights, nor should they take them away. individual liberties, not collective ones.
    Lol. So who created/crafted the bill of rights? If not governmental figures. Who crafted the Constitution? Was it not men who worked in various areas of governance? Oh I forgot ...it's the "creator."
  15. Elite Member
    ax1's Avatar
    Stats
    4'6"  170 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,473
    Rep Power
    1251927
    Level
    61
    Lv. Percent
    22.62%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Read what you wrote again, you "interpret." I'm not in the business of interpreting someone else's meaning. I offered actual text taken from letters written by an American Founding Father, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and the third President of the United States. Not Southpaw's opinions....
    Ok, maybe your not giving your opinion, but something is motivating your attraction to your selected text to exemplify a point.

    Anyways where you getting at here?
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!
  16. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.46%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    So what? Why does that bother you so much?
    Why does what bother me?
  17. Elite Member
    ax1's Avatar
    Stats
    4'6"  170 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,473
    Rep Power
    1251927
    Level
    61
    Lv. Percent
    22.62%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Lol. So who created/crafted the bill of rights? If not by governmental figures. Who crafted the Constitution? Was it not men who worked in various areas of governance? Oh I forgot ...it's the "creator."
    Protection for personal freedoms, empowering the individual to protect themselves from tyrannical governments are natural rights. If someone feels the opposite is true I prefer to stay away from them.
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!
  18. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.46%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    Ok, maybe your not giving your opinion, but something is motivating your attraction to your selected text to exemplify a point.

    Anyways where you getting at here?
    My point is I use valid references to support my points, not personal opinions, not radio personalities etc. When Manotaur states..."gun ownership is a god given right and cannot be taken away my man." I simply turn around and say, the document from which he is inferring that, was written by MEN. See where I'm going with that?
  19. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.46%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    Protection for personal freedoms, empowering the individual to protect themselves from tyrannical governments are natural rights. If someone feels the opposite is true I prefer to stay away from them.
    And that's awesome for you, as I love reading your various "OPINIONS."
  20. Diamond Member
    jimbuick's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    10,637
    Rep Power
    7726995
    Level
    99
    Lv. Percent
    90.57%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityActivity VeteranActivity RoyaltyPosting Pro

    Interesting. So you've posted none of your own thoughts in this thread?
    Body Performance Solutions Representative

    Check out our products at www.bpsnutrition.net
    Check out our FaceBook page at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Body-Performance-Solutions/191322614238042
  21. Elite Member
    ax1's Avatar
    Stats
    4'6"  170 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,473
    Rep Power
    1251927
    Level
    61
    Lv. Percent
    22.62%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Why does what bother me?

    "There is some irony in saying that gun ownership is a god given right and cannot be taken away by man, in lieu of the fact that these documents were written by.... MEN
    ."

    Whats the big deal if someone is religious and feel rights are given by a god? Does that bother you? If not what is your purpose of that post?
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!
  22. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.46%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by jimbuick View Post
    Interesting. So you've posted none of your own thoughts in this thread?
    And here I thought you were in the business of inferring. I've stated my points many times over. You still have access to guns...(there it is in a nutshell)
  23. Senior Member
    MANotaur's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,347
    Rep Power
    450149
    Level
    45
    Lv. Percent
    46.11%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Lol. So who created/crafted the bill of rights? If not by governmental figures. Who crafted the Constitution? Was it not men who worked in various areas of governance? Oh I forgot ...it's the "creator."
    cheeky sarcastic bastard lol

    and yes even though it was men that crafted the bill, but the bill they crafted was to limit its powers. if that was the case why did they choose to use words like "the government SHALL NOT infringe...."? why wouldnt they say "the governments GIVES these rights?

    it was to protect the rights of the individual citizens from future tyrants that could potentially take power later down the road and want to remove these rights from the citizens. they were smart enough to understand that what the "government giveth, the government can take away" but if the government doesnt give rights, they cant remove those rights.

    bottom line is, the rights are there and they wont be taken away by anybody, the american people wont allow it, and the consitution doesnt allow it. no matter how much you or jefferson or obama bitches about it. If you dont like it, move to a country where freedoms and liberties are privelages and not rights.
    Quote Originally Posted by iparatroop View Post
    I'm usually crying when people take naked pictures of me. Fcuking childhood.
  24. Elite Member
    ax1's Avatar
    Stats
    4'6"  170 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,473
    Rep Power
    1251927
    Level
    61
    Lv. Percent
    22.62%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    And here I thought you were in the business of inferring. I've stated my points many times over. You still have access to guns...(there it is in a nutshell)
    Thats not true, not everybody (and more importantly law abiding citizens) have access to guns, look at post #7 for a real example in this thread.

    Is there "freedom of the press" if a reporters editor selectively censors certain articles and topics?
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!
  25. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.46%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post

    "There is some irony in saying that gun ownership is a god given right and cannot be taken away by man, in lieu of the fact that these documents were written by.... MEN
    ."

    Whats the big deal if someone is religious and feel rights are given by a god? Does that bother you? If not what is your purpose of that post?
    You're inferring again. It has nothing to do with me. I'm not that self involved. I could care less one way or the other what someone believes. I'm not here to interpret. The fact is, the Constitution makes no mention whatsoever about GOD. Fact. Not opinion.
  26. Elite Member
    ax1's Avatar
    Stats
    4'6"  170 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,473
    Rep Power
    1251927
    Level
    61
    Lv. Percent
    22.62%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by MANotaur View Post
    bottom line is, the rights are there and they wont be taken away by anybody, the american people wont allow it, and the consitution doesnt allow it. no matter how much you or jefferson or obama bitches about it. If you dont like it, move to a country where freedoms and liberties are privelages and not rights.
    The problem is they already have taken our rights away. For example, the NDAA act has officially by law stripped the 5th amendment.

    Its one thing to follow the constitution, its another to preach it as a museum artifact.
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!
  27. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.46%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by MANotaur View Post
    cheeky sarcastic bastard lol

    and yes even though it was men that crafted the bill, but the bill they crafted was to limit its powers. if that was the case why did they choose to use words like "the government SHALL NOT infringe...."? why wouldnt they say "the governments GIVES these rights?

    it was to protect the rights of the individual citizens from future tyrants that could potentially take power later down the road and want to remove these rights from the citizens. they were smart enough to understand that what the "government giveth, the government can take away" but if the government doesnt give rights, they cant remove those rights.

    bottom line is, the rights are there and they wont be taken away by anybody, the american people wont allow it, and the consitution doesnt allow it. no matter how much you or jefferson or obama bitches about it. If you dont like it, move to a country where freedoms and liberties are privelages and not rights.
    Okay here's my point, if the government does not OFFER rights to its people as you've stated above, then who drafted/offered the Bill of Rights?
  28. Senior Member
    carpee's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Age
    27
    Posts
    2,607
    Rep Power
    83752
    Level
    38
    Lv. Percent
    58.23%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post

    Okay here's my point, if the government does not OFFER rights to its people as you've stated above, then who drafted/offered the Bill of Rights?
    INALIENABLE rights are not OFFERED to any man, by any government.
  29. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.46%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by carpee View Post
    INALIENABLE rights are not OFFERED to any man, by any government.
    And who wrote that?
  30. Senior Member
    MANotaur's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,347
    Rep Power
    450149
    Level
    45
    Lv. Percent
    46.11%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Okay here's my point, if the government does not OFFER rights to its people as you've stated above, then who drafted/offered the Bill of Rights?
    rights are self evident, privelages are given. nobody decided these are rights and those privelages. and my point is if the government wanted to control rights or privelages why was the language used to limit what they can and cant take away?
    Quote Originally Posted by iparatroop View Post
    I'm usually crying when people take naked pictures of me. Fcuking childhood.
  31. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.46%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by MANotaur View Post
    rights are self evident, privelages are given. nobody decided these are rights and those privelages. and my point is if the government wanted to control rights or privelages why was the language used to limit what they can and cant take away?
    Who wrote that text? "We hold these truths to be self-evident." <------Written by men in GOVERNMENT, NOT by some divine being.
  32. Senior Member
    carpee's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Age
    27
    Posts
    2,607
    Rep Power
    83752
    Level
    38
    Lv. Percent
    58.23%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post

    And who wrote that?
    who else would write it?
  33. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.46%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by carpee View Post
    who else would write it?
    Men in government...correct? Or incorrect?
  34. Elite Member
    ax1's Avatar
    Stats
    4'6"  170 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,473
    Rep Power
    1251927
    Level
    61
    Lv. Percent
    22.62%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    You're inferring again. It has nothing to do with me. I'm not that self involved. I could care less one way or the other what someone believes. I'm not here to interpret. The fact is, the Constitution makes no mention whatsoever about GOD. Fact. Not opinion.
    Usually you would find that in the preamble, and in the religion clauses. The US constitution's preamble was based off of the model of the preamble in the Articles of Confederation which did not use the word "god." It began as Articles of the Confederation and started listing the 13 states....which later was dropped to be simpler as "We The People." In 1787, it was most likely unimaginable that radical secularists groups would spin it the way they have.

    Anyways can carry on, and I know its debatable, but personally it doesnt matter to me.
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!
  35. Senior Member
    MANotaur's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,347
    Rep Power
    450149
    Level
    45
    Lv. Percent
    46.11%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Who wrote that text? "We hold these truths to be self-evident." <------Written by men NOT by some divine being.
    i never argued that i was some divine being, the point im making is that government cant take these rights away, nomatter who wrote them, man or divine being
    Quote Originally Posted by iparatroop View Post
    I'm usually crying when people take naked pictures of me. Fcuking childhood.
  36. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.46%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    Usually you would find that in the preamble, and in the religion clauses. The US constitution's preamble was based off of the model of the preamble in the Articles of Confederation which did not use the word "god." It began as Articles of the Confederation and started listing the 13 states....which later was dropped to be simpler as "We The People." In 1787, it was most likely unimaginable that radical secularists groups would spin it the way they have.

    Anyways can carry on, and I both know its debatable, but personally it doesnt matter to me.
    I already know the document's roots, as I've researched it at length so that I'm prepared. Lol.
  37. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.46%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by MANotaur View Post
    i never argued that i was some divine being, the point im making is that government cant take these rights away, nomatter who wrote them, man or divine being
    So essentially the government can write/propose law, but it CANNOT restrict them?
  38. Senior Member
    MANotaur's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,347
    Rep Power
    450149
    Level
    45
    Lv. Percent
    46.11%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    So essentially the government can write/propose law, but it CANNOT restrict them?
    semantics much?

    and thats what it says in the bill of rights isnt it? government SHALL NOT INFRINGE.
    and theres a difference in law and rights...again...

    law- dont kill people, its bad
    right- to own guns and protect myself

    law-dont steal, its bad
    right- to have/create a job to support myself and those that i so chose

    law-dont lie under oathe, its bad
    right- to express my thoughts and opinions openly without fear of consequence or punishment

    difference between law and right my friend. Government can write laws to protect its citizens and its citizens rights but it cannot pass legislation that removes my ability to exercise my right.
    Quote Originally Posted by iparatroop View Post
    I'm usually crying when people take naked pictures of me. Fcuking childhood.
  39. Senior Member
    carpee's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Age
    27
    Posts
    2,607
    Rep Power
    83752
    Level
    38
    Lv. Percent
    58.23%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post

    So essentially the government can write/propose law, but it CANNOT restrict them?
    restrict laws? or restrict freedoms?

    government restricts freedom every time a new law is passed.
  40. Senior Member
    MANotaur's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,347
    Rep Power
    450149
    Level
    45
    Lv. Percent
    46.11%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    So essentially the government can write/propose law, but it CANNOT restrict them?
    and ill state it again....if you dont like the way things are structure here in the US...move to a country that fits your beliefs.
    Quote Originally Posted by iparatroop View Post
    I'm usually crying when people take naked pictures of me. Fcuking childhood.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. New commercial from Nyc.gov
    By lartinos in forum General Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-02-2011, 11:01 PM
  2. New on TRT 2nd blood test results...
    By EPZ32 in forum Male Anti-Aging Medicine
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-03-2009, 05:54 PM
  3. New Yorkers on the mind
    By BigNemo in forum General Chat
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 06-27-2008, 06:39 PM
  4. Calling all New Yorkers
    By cliff_vtr in forum General Chat
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-20-2005, 08:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in