who cares about now. Think of the children.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
I don't care about "now" except that I am right in what I said. If someone wants to start a crusade to let felons, and the retarded vote, be my guest. I however will not be signing the petition.m3thod wrote:
who cares about now. Think of the children.
Alright... well, in that case, the states have too much power, and the feds don't have enough.lowing wrote:
Guys you are wrong.....voting is not a constitutional right. periodTurquoise wrote:
I don't understand the Constitutional obsession either, but a right doesn't have to be universal.Bertster7 wrote:
But under the 14th amendment the basis of representation would need to be reduced proportionally to the number of people denied the vote - unless they were denied it for rebellion.lowing wrote:
Here let me help: scroll down to "right to vote"
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html
Strange the way they call this privilege, which is not a right, a right in the text of the constitution - but then I never understood this obsession people seem to have with the constitution being this sort of sacred unchangable thing, when in fact it's had all sorts of stupid nonsense in it at one point or another, like the 18th ammendment.
Here let me try again
http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/politic … _vote.html
"As thousands of civil rights advocates celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in Atlanta last weekend, most media coverage conveyed the Act's importance in protecting minorities' political rights. Yet many of those same stories helped perpetuate a dangerous illusion by asserting that a right to vote is guaranteed by the 15th Amendment.
The trouble is the Supreme Court doesn't see it that way.
In its 2000 ruling, Alexander v Mineta, the Court decided the 600,000 or so (mostly black) residents of Washington D.C. have no legal recourse for their complete lack of voting representation in Congress (they have one “representative” in the House who can speak, but cannot vote). The Court affirmed the district court's interpretation that our Constitution "does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” And it's state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is “qualified.”
As a result, voting is not a right, but a privilege granted or withheld at the discretion of local and state governments."
VOTING IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. PERIOD
No. The States don't have enough power.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Voting is a right in a lot of our economic peers, by the way...
for example....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_C … d_Freedoms
It's kind of shameful that we don't technically have that right. It makes our system extremely vulnerable to the state governments.
for example....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_C … d_Freedoms
It's kind of shameful that we don't technically have that right. It makes our system extremely vulnerable to the state governments.
Well in that case you lot definitely need your guns for that armed uprising lowing mentioned earlier go all 1790s France on their arse.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
Either that or I suppose moving really does make sense.presidentsheep wrote:
Well in that case you lot definitely need your guns for that armed uprising lowing mentioned earlier go all 1790s France on their arse.
What's particularly insane about this is that we have instituted democracies in other countries that guarantee their citizens the right to vote, yet we don't afford ourselves that right in an absolute sense.
That means we could find a way to disqualify Democrats from voting.Turquoise wrote:
It's kind of shameful that we don't technically have that right. It makes our system extremely vulnerable to the state governments.
Technically, yes... or Republicans for that matter....Stingray24 wrote:
That means we could find a way to disqualify Democrats from voting.Turquoise wrote:
It's kind of shameful that we don't technically have that right. It makes our system extremely vulnerable to the state governments.
Knew there was a catch ...
Please look up the words debate and discussion.presidentsheep wrote:
well then your suspicions are baseless and therefore irrelevant to the discussion, move along.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
get the Key word ?presidentsheep wrote:
Any evidence to back that claim up?
I would like to see London's dodgy bits compared to say D.C. - L.A. - Baltimore or Detroit and the demographics of each.
For instance is your country subsidizing several generations of unwed teen* mothers to crank out babies ?
If a man fathers a child to a teen mother and cares for it and supports his family, Authorities swoop in and seize the child.
If a man fathers several children to several teen mothers, doesn't care for them or support his family ( probably doesn't know who has his children or for that matter how many he has )
We get them a nice apt. and pay for everything. This up-bringing and lack of a traditional functioning family can make for some seriously disturbed citizens. Many grow up to be fine but many others do not. The statistics are staggering on single mothers alone. It was not un-common in NYC for me to see children ( 3 kids ages approximately 3 6 and 9 ) out on the street at 2 am with no adult within a block or two of them.
It's a big part of the problem but not all off it.
* underage
I notice we moved away from the Rabid " PALIN DID IT ! " that started the thread.
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2011-01-13 17:01:27)
bet it beat starving to death ( in a completly, all Normal life ) snicker.presidentsheep wrote:
Well in that case you lot definitely need your guns for that armed uprising lowing mentioned earlier go all 1790s France on their arse.
I wish her a short safe and comfortable stay. I give you my best.SenorToenails wrote:
My mom is having a liver resection to remove a cancerous tumor.Macbeth wrote:
It's cool dude. Why are you in the hospital for? (if you don't mind me asking.)
There will be a race war before any armed insurrection against the govt.presidentsheep wrote:
Well in that case you lot definitely need your guns for that armed uprising lowing mentioned earlier go all 1790s France on their arse.
We used to have more guns per capita, Less gun laws and a safer country. Every house on my street had a gun rack or cabinet with 4 to 10 rifles in it, Ammo right in a draw shelf below. America was like that for generations. It was never a problem at all. Clearly easy access to guns is not the problem. America has different people in it now.presidentsheep wrote:
I see your point. The second amendment seems like it's its own problem and solution at the same time, kinda results in unnecessary firearms deaths though in my opinion.Pug wrote:
Exactly my point.presidentsheep wrote:
Because other countries have armies surely? What if no other country had an army, would you think having one was necessary then?
What is the chance of that happening? Zero.
The 2nd amendment is primarily about defending your property, with a good measure of "bearing arms"...meaning the right to defend your property any way you see fit.
For Americans, it means society doesn't see a handgun or rifle as something that is considered "overkill" to defend your property.
relating it to your metaphor of armies, everyone in Britain is allowed to own one just like you, however we can only arm ours with spoons. Seems to me to take away some of the risk but still allow them to fulfil some useful roles.
Granted I can't carry a handgun around with me on the off chance it'd be useful if someone tried to assassinate a political figure but then again it also prevents me from roaming the streets murdering people or accidentally shooting an innocent bystander.
so this is what you would do by " accident " if it was only in your power ? WTF !it also prevents me from roaming the streets murdering people or accidentally shooting an innocent bystander.
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2011-01-13 17:15:32)
What do ya mean? You were fine with the system 15 minutes ago!!Turquoise wrote:
Alright... well, in that case, the states have too much power, and the feds don't have enough.lowing wrote:
Guys you are wrong.....voting is not a constitutional right. periodTurquoise wrote:
I don't understand the Constitutional obsession either, but a right doesn't have to be universal.
Here let me try again
http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/politic … _vote.html
"As thousands of civil rights advocates celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in Atlanta last weekend, most media coverage conveyed the Act's importance in protecting minorities' political rights. Yet many of those same stories helped perpetuate a dangerous illusion by asserting that a right to vote is guaranteed by the 15th Amendment.
The trouble is the Supreme Court doesn't see it that way.
In its 2000 ruling, Alexander v Mineta, the Court decided the 600,000 or so (mostly black) residents of Washington D.C. have no legal recourse for their complete lack of voting representation in Congress (they have one “representative” in the House who can speak, but cannot vote). The Court affirmed the district court's interpretation that our Constitution "does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” And it's state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is “qualified.”
As a result, voting is not a right, but a privilege granted or withheld at the discretion of local and state governments."
VOTING IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. PERIOD
another thread.lowing wrote:
There will be a race war before any armed insurrection against the govt.presidentsheep wrote:
Well in that case you lot definitely need your guns for that armed uprising lowing mentioned earlier go all 1790s France on their arse.
I hear you but it won't be a RACE WAR exactly. More like a Class war with predominant races. Hopefully I will miss it.
More likely still a Series of riots. Short riots. Rioting was the hardest thing most of those people in LA ever did. I knew it wouldn't last.
10th Mountain was a pumped up thinking they were being sent there ( they ended up in Italy on exercises I think. ) I told those guys. " These people will all be asleep in a few hours. " That was the closest they came to an honest days work...most of em.
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2011-01-13 17:22:43)
Yeah, I suppose that is more of an accurate prediction.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
another thread. I hear you but it won't be a RACE WAR exactly. More like a Class war with predominant races. Hopefully I will miss it.lowing wrote:
There will be a race war before any armed insurrection against the govt.presidentsheep wrote:
Well in that case you lot definitely need your guns for that armed uprising lowing mentioned earlier go all 1790s France on their arse.
You'd be shocked how more well armed the Koreans (Asians in general tba) are now in SoCal.lowing wrote:
Yeah, I suppose that is more of an accurate prediction.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
another thread. I hear you but it won't be a RACE WAR exactly. More like a Class war with predominant races. Hopefully I will miss it.lowing wrote:
There will be a race war before any armed insurrection against the govt.
as a guy who has 7 Asian friends ( that are all named AL ? ? ? ) I would not be shocked. It was the " Als " that got me started collecting and shooting. They are all Patriots and Conservatives too. At least the ones I know. We met in collage.Ilocano wrote:
You'd be shocked how more well armed the Koreans (Asians in general tba) are now in SoCal.lowing wrote:
Yeah, I suppose that is more of an accurate prediction.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
another thread. I hear you but it won't be a RACE WAR exactly. More like a Class war with predominant races. Hopefully I will miss it.
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2011-01-13 18:37:33)
Helter skelter maaaan!lowing wrote:
There will be a race war before any armed insurrection against the govt.presidentsheep wrote:
Well in that case you lot definitely need your guns for that armed uprising lowing mentioned earlier go all 1790s France on their arse.
Fuck Israel
Well, witnesses report a dense crowd and the number of shots per victim support that. About the armed person in the crowd, I heard the rumor in several places, but cannot find any reliable source for it.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Didn't hear that first 'crowd density' rumor.RAIMIUS wrote:
To the case in Arizona:
Would a "good guy" with a legally carried firearm have helped or hurt?
We really don't know. This is one of those rare cases. The shooter was taken down after one magazine (rare for active shooter cases). It occured in a dense crowd, making it difficult to get a clean shot on the attacker. I have heard rumors of a person carrying legally who chose not to fire, due to crowd density. I have seen several news reports of a guy legally carrying who helped subdue the shooter. He did not draw his firearm because when he arrived the shooter's gun was already slide-locked (empty), and he was being wrestled on the ground.
I would argue it would have helped end it had the guy not been taken down when he did. An armed citizen was responding and holy shit he didn't draw his gun... Who could say that about the police typical response when they think they saw you holding a gun -who draws down faster?
We can thank the 60s and 70s for that ...Hunter/Jumper wrote:
America has different people in it now.
Asians are awesome
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Yeah, I was assuming our system wasn't fucking insane....lowing wrote:
What do ya mean? You were fine with the system 15 minutes ago!!Turquoise wrote:
Alright... well, in that case, the states have too much power, and the feds don't have enough.lowing wrote:
Guys you are wrong.....voting is not a constitutional right. period
Here let me try again
http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/politic … _vote.html
"As thousands of civil rights advocates celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in Atlanta last weekend, most media coverage conveyed the Act's importance in protecting minorities' political rights. Yet many of those same stories helped perpetuate a dangerous illusion by asserting that a right to vote is guaranteed by the 15th Amendment.
The trouble is the Supreme Court doesn't see it that way.
In its 2000 ruling, Alexander v Mineta, the Court decided the 600,000 or so (mostly black) residents of Washington D.C. have no legal recourse for their complete lack of voting representation in Congress (they have one “representative” in the House who can speak, but cannot vote). The Court affirmed the district court's interpretation that our Constitution "does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” And it's state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is “qualified.”
As a result, voting is not a right, but a privilege granted or withheld at the discretion of local and state governments."
VOTING IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. PERIOD