Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take long

[Goobieman]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

I really like Giuliani's position on gun control, saying that all gun owners should have to pass a written test proving they are competent to own, handle, and use firearms.

Should people pass a written test to vote?
Or exercise all of your other rights?

 

[Goobieman]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

After reading some of the gun related posts by Goobieman related to gun ownership I think there should be a middle ground. I mean obviously there are people who can use guns responsibly like Goobie. They shouldn't be denied this right. However I think people like Goobie should meet people like me half way and come to agreement when it comes to what sort of weapons should be allowed into the hands of citizens.

To comprimise means that both sides 'give' and 'take' a little.
In this istance, gun owners are asked to give up some of their rights to the anit-gun side. What does the anti-gun side give gun owners in return?

Given the reason for the 2nd Amendment, people "should be allowed" roll to keep and bear any and all weapons sutibale for service in the milita. You can argue where the edge of that definiton falls, but it clearly covers any handgun, shotgun, rifle or machinegun you might care to mention.

What does the anti-0gun side have to offer in return for me changing my position on this?

 

[Goobieman]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

Quote 26X I have no problem with guns or gun owners so long as they are licensed and tested the way we are to drive a car or a motorcycle

Wow. I agree.

You don’t need a license:
-to buy a car
-to own a car
-to transport a car
-to drive a car on private property

You don’t need to register a car:
-to buy a car
-to own a car
-to transport a car
-to drive a car on private property

You only need a license to drive a car on public property
You only need to register a car if you want to use it on public property
Your license and registration is good in all 50 states.

Guns should be treated like cars, indeed.

 

[Goobieman]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

With all the illegals our Gov is letting in we surely need some kind of band on assult weapons.

Based on... what?

I mean really why does any one need a assult weapon?

I dopnt really need to wear a jacket that says "F-ck the draft" into a courthouse or burn the flag -- but I have the right to do so.

I have hunted all my life, protected my family and I didn't need a assult weapon.

Good for you. How does that mean anything?

I hope by now everyone understands that assult weapons are only purchased by those that want to do harm to others.

I have 4. I know dozens of people that have more than one, and I know that literally thousands of people have at least one.
Please how how me or anyone of my fellow "assault weapon" owners want to do harm to others.

I don't see any one of my neighbors or hunting friends buying them.

Good for you. How does that mean anything?

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

I don't know how many people have read the second amendment, but it makes things pretty clear on the issue. Owning and carrying firearms is an innate and inalienable right. Permits alone are infringement enough, there should be no form of permit at all. Permits mean permission, permission mean privilege, privilege is not a right. Thus if something is a right, something held innately and inalienably, you don't have to ask permission to exercise it. There is no reason why I should have to ask the government's permission to have a gun, there is no reason why I should have to ask the government's permission to carry a gun. Especially since government's mere existence is one of the reasons I need guns in the first place. Tests, restrictions, unfair taxes and fees...these are infringements upon a natural right. I have the innate and inalienable right to protect life, liberty, and property. Guns are an essential tool, sadly enough, to do just that. The right to own and carry firearms must be upheld to its maximum. An armed and ready populace is a necessity for a free state.

__________
Second Amendment:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
____
The problem I see with this is that it could be interpreted in two different ways.
1-You have to be in a militia.
2- People have the right to bear arms.
I see nothing that says that we have a right to carry weapons on us where ever we go.
Our founding fathers did not know about any assault weapons or atomic boms which in essence is also a weapon. I am sure that the second amendment would have been reworded by them if they had these weapons back then.
They are not to clear on the second amendment.
Our founding fathers were very intellegent but that intellegence is out dated by even a high school education of today.
Any way, I guess people can take that any way they want to.
I see nothing wrong with up dating old out dated amendments to todays modern standards. I mean, really, who gave them the right to tell us what to do and what not to do 2-3 hundred years later? Our lifes should not revolve around a few beared men telling us what we can and cannot do 300 years later. That seems the same today as you saying that our gov should not be banning assult weapons and telling us what to do. Gov is Gov wether it was 300 years ago or today.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

Based on... what?


I dopnt really need to wear a jacket that says "F-ck the draft" into a courthouse or burn the flag -- but I have the right to do so.


Good for you. How does that mean anything?


I have 4. I know dozens of people that have more than one, and I know that literally thousands of people have at least one.
Please how how me or anyone of my fellow "assault weapon" owners want to do harm to others.


Good for you. How does that mean anything?

WOW! Great response! Just what I figure a con would say. Nothing means anything unless they say it.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

Why?



What does need have to do with it?



Again what does need have to do with it? Does everything you own or possess have a need?



That's totally not true. I own several, shot competively with them (As well as others) for years, so I darned sure did not purchase them wanting to do harm to others.

Tell you what answer these.

How does a folding or telescoping stock make a weapon more deadly?

How does a threaded barrel make a weapon more deadly? Silencers are already illegal, flash suppressors or muzzle brakes are not.

How does a pistol grip make a weapon more deadly?

How does a forward grip make a weapon more deadly?

How does a barrel shroud make a weapon more deadly?

Now balance your answers with the governments responsibility to protect your rights, all of them.

Regards,

"C.J."

________
Hummmm, you need to go back and read my post. I am talking about assult weapons, not pistol grips, foward grips and the other bull you are talking about.
I have shot competively also. In the 60's I was shooting 22's for money on 42 st. in N.Y. city in a building years ago and it was legal back then. What does you and I shooting competively have to do with assult weapons?
A little advise. Slow down, take your time and read before you post.

 

[Goobieman]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

The problem I see with this is that it could be interpreted in two different ways.
1-You have to be in a militia.
2- People have the right to bear arms.

The right belongs to the people, not the militia. You can interpret it that way, but there’s absolutely no support for that interpretation.

Our founding fathers did not know about any assault weapons or atomic boms which in essence is also a weapon.

They also did not know about telephones, the internet, or CNN. You’re arguing that these things are not protected by the constitution.

They are not to clear on the second amendment.

Only for those that don’t want them to be clear.
There’s absolutely NO support for the argument that the Founders meant the 2nd to protect the individual right to arms.

Our founding fathers were very intellegent but that intellegence is out dated by even a high school education of today.

LOL
Based on what?
Dunno about you, but I don’t want any – and that’s ANY -- of today’s high school students remotely close to something like writing a Constitution.

I see nothing wrong with up dating old out dated amendments to todays modern standards.

Why? The concepts and ideas behind them are timeless.

 

[Goobieman]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

WOW! Great response! Just what I figure a con would say. Nothing means anything unless they say it.

I'm sorry -- did you actually respond to what I said, or did you just dodge my post?

 

[Ikari]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

__________
Second Amendment:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
____
The problem I see with this is that it could be interpreted in two different ways.
1-You have to be in a militia.
2- People have the right to bear arms.

Both those are true. We are all in the militia, the militia is composed of citizens and meant to oppose government tyranny should it grow too great. Any able bodied person over the age of 18 is able to be in the militia and all it takes is a gun and active participation in the government. I think it was normally assumed in the past that any able bodied man of age was willing to be part of the militia, perchance that is not the case anymore but it should be. Also, people have the right to keep and bear arms. The militia is necessary to help secure liberty against government tyranny (which is why a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state), you get a militia by allowing the people to be armed.

I see nothing that says that we have a right to carry weapons on us where ever we go.

To Bear: to carry; bring:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Your ability, your innate right to carry a gun, shall not be infringed. What does that mean? That means the government can not rightfully stop or hinder your ability to carry a gun.

Our founding fathers did not know about any assault weapons or atomic boms which in essence is also a weapon. I am sure that the second amendment would have been reworded by them if they had these weapons back then.

This is true, and I think for a great many of things such as WMD's the founders would have agreed the people probably shouldn't have it. Though they would probably be abhorred by the fact that the government has these weapons...and a standing army. But the main point of the second amendment is still valid, an well regulated (ie ready) militia is necessary for a free state, we still need the ability to overthrow the government should its sins grow too great. So while we aren't getting WMDs or any of that jazz...firearms are most definitely within our rights to have. Some of the more offensive weaponry (like jets and huge bombs, and WMDs...etc) are reserved to the government, but I think many of the defensive weapons (firearms notably) fall within the realm of the people.

Our founding fathers were very intellegent but that intellegence is out dated by even a high school education of today.

Actually, I would disagree with this. Most high school educated only people aren't the....smartest of people. The founders were well educated, well read, and well practiced in public speaking/debate. I'm pretty sure they would still be smarter than the average high school student.

Any way, I guess people can take that any way they want to.
I see nothing wrong with up dating old out dated amendments to todays modern standards. I mean, really, who gave them the right to tell us what to do and what not to do 2-3 hundred years later? Our lifes should not revolve around a few beared men telling us what we can and cannot do 300 years later. That seems the same today as you saying that our gov should not be banning assult weapons and telling us what to do. Gov is Gov wether it was 300 years ago or today.

There is nothing wrong with debating over the second amendment, but I think people dismiss the Founders a bit too quickly these days. Yes they existed a few hundred years ago and things have changed and we need to adapt to these changes and incorporate them into our system. But their general warnings are still valid. Unchecked government is bad, all government trends to tyranny if left unchecked, it is the duty of the people to watch the government and control it. These are still true, while times have changed the entire course of human history has shown what government is capable of and how it will trend with time. That is why an armed and ready populace is a necessity to a free state, that is why the second amendment is still as valid today as it was when it was written. I would say it's become even more precious because of the ways the government has been able to arm itself. Assault Rifles fall into firearms, they are a necessity for the militia and hence a necessity for our very freedom and liberty. Sure, I can't drive a tank down the street shooting depleted uranium shells at the Kwiki Mart, but I can sure as hell own firearms, I can carry firearms at my leisure, and I must accept my responsibility as one of We the People and be prepared and ready to support the militia should it ever be called into service.

 

[Goobieman]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

Hummmm, you need to go back and read my post. I am talking about assult weapons, not pistol grips, foward grips and the other bull you are talking about.

These are the items used to define what an "assault weapon" is.
These things are whay differentiates an "assault weapon" from a "normal" weapon.
So the question as to how thse items make an otherwise "normal" weapon so much more dangerous that it needs to be banned is perfectly legitimate.

What does you and I shooting competively have to do with assult weapons?

Hmm. Maybe you've never heard of NRA Highpower amd NRA Long-Range

Camp Perry OH, National Rifle and Pistol matches

This is EXACTLY why the propoed legislation includes:

`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

These are the items used to define what an "assault weapon" is.
These things are whay differentiates an "assault weapon" from a "normal" weapon.
So the question as to how thse items make an otherwise "normal" weapon so much more dangerous that it needs to be banned is perfectly legitimate.


Hmm. Maybe you've never heard of NRA Highpower amd NRA Long-Range

Camp Perry OH, National Rifle and Pistol matches

This is EXACTLY why the propoed legislation includes:

_______
Humm, I have been a member of the NRA for nearly 30+? years and I shoot weekly at my gun club. I know what we shoot to. What does that mean?
NO way do I want to see gun control.
With that said I still do not feel comfortable knowing that anyone could be carrying a assault weapon.
Maybe I didn't make my self clear. I am NOT in favor of taking any guns from shooters like you and I that do things legaly. Its the avalibility of these assualt weapons to most anyone that wants to order one from another country and they ship them without any knowelge of the person they are sending these weapons too. Its common knowelge that this is being done.
We really need some sort of gun control for the many that do not do things legally like we do.
I do NOT agree with the proposed bill on board now.
_____
All it takes is being 18 years old, a gun and active partisipation in gov. to be in the militia. Where does it say that? And what is active partisipation in Gov. mean. I am willing to learn.

 

[C.J.]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

________
Hummmm, you need to go back and read my post. I am talking about assult weapons, not pistol grips, foward grips and the other bull you are talking about.

Perhaps you may want to reread the original post which in part states

(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a pistol grip;

`(iv) a forward grip; or

`(v) a barrel shroud.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ment-protection-act-2007-didnt-take-long.html

So my questions are not only valid concerning your post, but concerning what constitutes an assault weapon according to the proposed bill.

I have shot competively also. In the 60's I was shooting 22's for money on 42 st. in N.Y. city in a building years ago and it was legal back then. What does you and I shooting competively have to do with assult weapons?

Obviously you forgot what you wrote, so I will remind you. You stated that "assult weapons are only purchased by those that want to do harm to others".

With this in mind I simply stated that I own several and used them competitively. My point is that I acquired them for reasons other than for the purpose that you stated as the only reason for someone to purchase them.

Your statement:

hope by now everyone understands that assult weapons are only purchased by those that want to do harm to others. I don't see any one of my neighbors or hunting friends buying them.

A little advise. Slow down, take your time and read before you post.

I responded to exactly what you wrote. If you have a problem remembering what you wrote, or for that matter knowing what you wrote, there is literally nothing I can do to fix that.

Regards,

"C.J."

 

[Ikari]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

All it takes is being 18 years old, a gun and active partisipation in gov. to be in the militia. Where does it say that? And what is active partisipation in Gov. mean. I am willing to learn.

Yeah, I suppose that was worded poorly. The militia is composed of able bodied people (it was initially just men, but heck in this day and age of equality I'll throw in everyone), of course the gun was needed to fight. When called up, the militia would gather, arms in hand, and prepare to fight. It was and continues to be a necessity to a free state. Active participation in the government, I meant as actively engaging in the political scene. By that I mean keeping tabs on government, watching what they are saying and doing, making sure they are constrained by the Constitution so that you can actively and accurately gauge the actions and intent of the government. This is important so that the militia knows when it is time to act.

Now ideally you need to actually call upon the militia very infrequently. Going to arms should be a last resort when the crimes of the government have become to grave, and all control by the people is lost. But it must remain as an option for We the People because it is our duty to watch the government and dispose of bad government.

 

[Goobieman]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

_______
Humm, I have been a member of the NRA for nearly 30+? years and I shoot weekly at my gun club. I know what we shoot to. What does that mean?

Well, YOU said:

What does you and I shooting competively have to do with assult weapons?

"Assault weapons" are used for competition -- that's what it has to do with it.

Its the avalibility of these assualt weapons to most anyone that wants to order one from another country and they ship them without any knowelge of the person they are sending these weapons too. Its common knowelge that this is being done.

This is illegal under federal law.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

Yeah, I suppose that was worded poorly. The militia is composed of able bodied people (it was initially just men, but heck in this day and age of equality I'll throw in everyone), of course the gun was needed to fight. When called up, the militia would gather, arms in hand, and prepare to fight. It was and continues to be a necessity to a free state. Active participation in the government, I meant as actively engaging in the political scene. By that I mean keeping tabs on government, watching what they are saying and doing, making sure they are constrained by the Constitution so that you can actively and accurately gauge the actions and intent of the government. This is important so that the militia knows when it is time to act.

Now ideally you need to actually call upon the militia very infrequently. Going to arms should be a last resort when the crimes of the government have become to grave, and all control by the people is lost. But it must remain as an option for We the People because it is our duty to watch the government and dispose of bad government.

_____
LOL! Then lets start now. We have had bad gov for years.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

I think I may have the wrong understanding of just what makes a gun-rifle a assult weapon.

 

[Goobieman]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

I think I may have the wrong understanding of just what makes a gun-rifle a assult weapon.

Could be.
But then, so do the people that create the legislation that defines them and then bans them -- so dont feel -too- bad. :2razz:

 

[RightOfCenter]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

Our founding fathers were very intellegent but that intellegence is out dated by even a high school education of today.

You're kidding right? Have you read the Federalist Papers? The Constitution? The Declaration of Independence? I'd suggest an in depth reading of these before you make a claim such as yours. After you have tell me if a highschool student could do that.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

You're kidding right? Have you read the Federalist Papers? The Constitution? The Declaration of Independence? I'd suggest an in depth reading of these before you make a claim such as yours. After you have tell me if a highschool student could do that.

________
Yes! Around my area anyway. My area is probably on the high side of education and according to you your area must be on the low side of education.
With that said I have read all of those and I understand the complexity of them. However, there are many kids with a high school education that are brillant and I believe they could have written the same.
And yes! I did lump them all together. I should have said many but not all kids with a high school education could equal our fore fathers.
Just look at 20 years ago. Since then most high schools offer classes that I and many others took in our first year of college. Add that to the last 20 years and you will find even more college classes being taken in high school. Now go back a few hundred years ago and see how really uneducated they were compared to todays standards.
I suggest you do some in depth research to find the many brillant kids that come out of high school today.
I mean, how much of an education do you think our fore fathers had?
Yes! They were brillant men back then but not by todays standards.
Your seem to think that they were genius'.
I think its about time to "modernize" some of what they wrote. You can't be fool enough to think that the "constition" as they they wrote it will be valid 50-100 years from now.
I am a firm believer in modernizing, not holding on to things that are outdated.
Do you still believe that someone that steals a horse should be hung at the nearest oak tree?

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

You're kidding right? Have you read the Federalist Papers? The Constitution? The Declaration of Independence? I'd suggest an in depth reading of these before you make a claim such as yours. After you have tell me if a highschool student could do that.

________
Yes! Around my area anyway. My area is probably on the high side of education and according to you your area must be on the low side of education.
With that said I have read all of those and I understand the complexity of them. However, there are many kids with a high school education that are brillant and I believe they could have written the same.
And yes! I did lump them all together. I should have said many but not all kids with a high school education could equal our fore fathers.
Just look at 20 years ago. Since then most high schools offer classes that I and many others took in our first year of college. Add that to the last 20 years and you will find even more college classes being taken in high school. Now go back a few hundred years ago and see how really uneducated they were compared to todays standards.
I suggest you do some in depth research to find the many brillant kids that come out of high school today.
I mean, how much of an education do you think our fore fathers had?
Yes! They were brillant men back then but not by todays standards.
Your seem to think that they were genius'.
I think its about time to "modernize" some of what they wrote. You can't be fool enough to think that the "constition" as they they wrote it will be valid 50-100 years from now.
I am a firm believer in modernizing, not holding on to things that are outdated.
Do you still believe that someone that steals a horse should be hung at the nearest oak tree?

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

________

WHOOPS!!! Double post. Sorry.

I got rid of it.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

________
Yes! Around my area anyway. My area is probably on the high side of education and according to you your area must be on the low side of education.

D's get degress and that is the attitude that most high school students have.

With that said I have read all of those and I understand the complexity of them. However, there are many kids with a high school education that are brillant and I believe they could have written the same.

And I believe I could have thought of sticky notes, but guess what? I didn't.

And yes! I did lump them all together. I should have said many but not all kids with a high school education could equal our fore fathers.

And I'm saying you're wrong.

Just look at 20 years ago. Since then most high schools offer classes that I and many others took in our first year of college. Add that to the last 20 years and you will find even more college classes being taken in high school. Now go back a few hundred years ago and see how really uneducated they were compared to todays standards.

Yes, most people in the past were uneducated, but the writers of our Constitution were the elite. Thanks to the flexible set of laws they set down we are able to provide a minimum education to the masses.

I suggest you do some in depth research to find the many brillant kids that come out of high school today.

Yes, and they go on to college and do great things. I suggest you do some in depth research on how many ****ing retards come out of high school today.

I mean, how much of an education do you think our fore fathers had?

Thomas Jefferson:
In 1760 Jefferson entered the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg at the age of 16; he studied there for two years, graduating with highest honors in 1762. At William & Mary, he enrolled in the philosophy school and studied mathematics, metaphysics, and philosophy under W&M Professor William Small, who introduced the enthusiastic Jefferson to the writings of the British Empiricists, including John Locke, Francis Bacon, and Sir Isaac Newton (Jefferson would later refer to them as the "three greatest men the world had ever produced"[2]). He also perfected his French, carried his Greek grammar book wherever he went, practiced the violin, and read Tacitus and Homer. A keen and diligent student, Jefferson displayed an avid curiosity in all fields and, according to family tradition, frequently studied fifteen hours a day. His closest college friend, John Page of Rosewell, reported that Jefferson "could tear himself away from his dearest friends, to fly to his studies."
Thomas Jefferson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Don't see a lot of modern high school students studying 15 hours a day.

Benjamin Franklin:
Benjamin Franklin (January 17 [O.S. January 6] 1706 – April 17, 1790) was one of the most well-known Founding Fathers of the United States. He was a leading author, politician, printer, scientist, philosopher, publisher, inventor, civic activist, and diplomat. As a scientist he was a major figure in the history of physics for his discoveries and theories regarding electricity. As a political writer and activist he, more than anyone, invented the idea of an American nation[1], and as a diplomat during the American Revolution, he secured the French alliance that helped to make independence possible.

Franklin was a prodigious inventor. Among his many creations were the lightning rod, the glass harmonica, the Franklin stove, bifocal glasses, and the flexible urinary catheter. Although Franklin never patented any of his own inventions, he was a supporter of the concepts of limited-term patents and copyrights to benefit the public, and was responsible for inserting the provision for them into the United States Constitution
Benjamin Franklin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lot of high school students doing that kind of thing?

James Madison:
James Madison (March 16, 1751 – June 28, 1836), an American politician and fourth President of the United States of America (1809–1817), was one of the most influential Founding Fathers of the United States. More than anyone he designed the new Constitution of 1787, and is known as the "Father of the Constitution". In 1788, he wrote over a third of the Federalist Papers, still the most influential commentary on the Constitution. As a leader in the first Congresses he drafted many basic laws and was responsible for the first ten amendments to the Constitution, and thus he is also known as the "Father of the Bill of Rights".[1] As a political theorist Madison's most distinctive belief was that the new republic needed checks and balances to limit the powers of special interests, which Madison called factions.[2] He believed very strongly that the new nation should fight against aristocracy and corruption (especially of British origin), and was deeply committed to creating mechanisms that would make Republicanism in the United States work in practice.
James Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here I would suggest that you actually read the Federalist Papers to understand the complexity of the American government.

I could keep going if you would like. All of the founding fathers were brilliant and influential men.

Yes! They were brillant men back then but not by todays standards.
Your seem to think that they were genius'.

They were geniuses and they studied all of the material they had available to them. Madison forgot more social and political knowledge than you have even heard of. I can only imagine what they could do with todays modern knowledge behind them. These men had way beyond "average" intellects.

[QOUTE=stinger1]I think its about time to "modernize" some of what they wrote. You can't be fool enough to think that the "constition" as they they wrote it will be valid 50-100 years from now.[/QUOTE]
Jefferson actually wanted a constitutional convention every 50 years but it is much too late for that now. As to your question and calling me a fool (which was completely unneccesary) it has lasted for 220 years, so yes I think it will still be completely valid 50-100 years from now.

I am a firm believer in modernizing, not holding on to things that are outdated.

Good for you, but you would have to prove that the Constitution is outdated.

Do you still believe that someone that steals a horse should be hung at the nearest oak tree?

Cruel and Unusual punishment is actually written into the Constition. As the publics definitions of Cruel and Unusual have changed over the years so have laws related to crime and punishment. Crazy how these morons who's intellect could be dwarfed by any high school student could write something that could be so flexible and adaptive isn't it?

 

[danarhea]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

You know, I have a big problem with the debate on this subject. Want to know why? People are debating about whether sporting purposes should or should not be considered in giving citizens the PRIVILEGE of owning a gun. However, owning a gun is not a PRIVILEGE. It is an INALIENABLE RIGHT, and the government is NOT ALLOWED to, in any way, attempt to turn it into a PRIVILEGE (Read the 2nd Amendment in its entirety - Our forefathers were not afraid of criminals, but of despotism).

Also, if this passes, this will no longer be America. This will be yet another step on the road to a dictatorship, the prevention of which is one of the main purposes of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

D's get degress and that is the attitude that most high school students have.


And I believe I could have thought of sticky notes, but guess what? I didn't.


And I'm saying you're wrong.


Yes, most people in the past were uneducated, but the writers of our Constitution were the elite. Thanks to the flexible set of laws they set down we are able to provide a minimum education to the masses.


Yes, and they go on to college and do great things. I suggest you do some in depth research on how many ****ing retards come out of high school today.


Thomas Jefferson:
In 1760 Jefferson entered the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg at the age of 16; he studied there for two years, graduating with highest honors in 1762. At William & Mary, he enrolled in the philosophy school and studied mathematics, metaphysics, and philosophy under W&M Professor William Small, who introduced the enthusiastic Jefferson to the writings of the British Empiricists, including John Locke, Francis Bacon, and Sir Isaac Newton (Jefferson would later refer to them as the "three greatest men the world had ever produced"[2]). He also perfected his French, carried his Greek grammar book wherever he went, practiced the violin, and read Tacitus and Homer. A keen and diligent student, Jefferson displayed an avid curiosity in all fields and, according to family tradition, frequently studied fifteen hours a day. His closest college friend, John Page of Rosewell, reported that Jefferson "could tear himself away from his dearest friends, to fly to his studies."
Thomas Jefferson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Don't see a lot of modern high school students studying 15 hours a day.

Benjamin Franklin:
Benjamin Franklin (January 17 [O.S. January 6] 1706 – April 17, 1790) was one of the most well-known Founding Fathers of the United States. He was a leading author, politician, printer, scientist, philosopher, publisher, inventor, civic activist, and diplomat. As a scientist he was a major figure in the history of physics for his discoveries and theories regarding electricity. As a political writer and activist he, more than anyone, invented the idea of an American nation[1], and as a diplomat during the American Revolution, he secured the French alliance that helped to make independence possible.

Franklin was a prodigious inventor. Among his many creations were the lightning rod, the glass harmonica, the Franklin stove, bifocal glasses, and the flexible urinary catheter. Although Franklin never patented any of his own inventions, he was a supporter of the concepts of limited-term patents and copyrights to benefit the public, and was responsible for inserting the provision for them into the United States Constitution
Benjamin Franklin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lot of high school students doing that kind of thing?

James Madison:
James Madison (March 16, 1751 – June 28, 1836), an American politician and fourth President of the United States of America (1809–1817), was one of the most influential Founding Fathers of the United States. More than anyone he designed the new Constitution of 1787, and is known as the "Father of the Constitution". In 1788, he wrote over a third of the Federalist Papers, still the most influential commentary on the Constitution. As a leader in the first Congresses he drafted many basic laws and was responsible for the first ten amendments to the Constitution, and thus he is also known as the "Father of the Bill of Rights".[1] As a political theorist Madison's most distinctive belief was that the new republic needed checks and balances to limit the powers of special interests, which Madison called factions.[2] He believed very strongly that the new nation should fight against aristocracy and corruption (especially of British origin), and was deeply committed to creating mechanisms that would make Republicanism in the United States work in practice.
James Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here I would suggest that you actually read the Federalist Papers to understand the complexity of the American government.

I could keep going if you would like. All of the founding fathers were brilliant and influential men.



They were geniuses and they studied all of the material they had available to them. Madison forgot more social and political knowledge than you have even heard of. I can only imagine what they could do with todays modern knowledge behind them. These men had way beyond "average" intellects.

[QOUTE=stinger1]I think its about time to "modernize" some of what they wrote. You can't be fool enough to think that the "constition" as they they wrote it will be valid 50-100 years from now.

Jefferson actually wanted a constitutional convention every 50 years but it is much too late for that now. As to your question and calling me a fool (which was completely unneccesary) it has lasted for 220 years, so yes I think it will still be completely valid 50-100 years from now.


Good for you, but you would have to prove that the Constitution is outdated.



Cruel and Unusual punishment is actually written into the Constition. As the publics definitions of Cruel and Unusual have changed over the years so have laws related to crime and punishment. Crazy how these morons who's intellect could be dwarfed by any high school student could write something that could be so flexible and adaptive isn't it?[/QUOTE]
___________
Sad to hear that the kids that you know of are what YOU called "retards." However that still does not make the kids in my area retards.
You need to modernize and look beyond your nose and area.
FACT: You don't know what you are talking about: You don't know me so how can you say that Madison is smarter than me?
And how would you know the attitude of most high school students?
Your really talking out of your hat.
The great part of this country is that right or wrong we both can state our opinions.