Welcome to the Android Central Forums Create Your Account or Ask a Question Answers in 5 minutes - no registration required!
Page 16 of 185 FirstFirst ... 13141516171819 ... LastLast
Results 376 to 400 of 4617
Like Tree2067Likes
  1. #376  
    sledge007's Avatar

    Posts
    550 Posts
    Global Posts
    6,888 Global Posts
    ROM
    Wicked Sensations

    Default Re: Why no uproar over the 8th Amendment?

    It's on the front page....not like I came looking for it on purpose.
    Due to the cancellation of the penny, I no longer give 2 about anything. I may however, give a nickel
    Thanked by 2:
  2. #377  

    Default Re: Why no uproar over the 8th Amendment?

    But you did click on it, enter the thread and post in it. Interesting.

    I don't care what kind of phone you have, that's not how I judge someone's worth or intelligence.
    Thanked by:
    Ry 
  3. #378  
    rkeenan's Avatar

    Posts
    351 Posts
    Global Posts
    454 Global Posts
    ROM
    Vicious ROM

    Default Re: Why no uproar over the 8th Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by kilofox View Post
    I am not trying to diminish the 2nd Amendment, but am asking why some are absolutely non-compromising and vocal over 2nd Amendment and yet seem ambivalent about the Patriot Act and the 8th Amendment?

    Those fervent supporters of the 2nd Amendment, like most people, only care if it personally affects them?
    People shouldn't have to justify exercising their rights. I am not a fan of either party. I voted for Gary Johnson for President. I am against the Patriot Act and indefinite detention. Do not assume pigeon hole anyone until you know their actual stance. The reason most people don't care about the Patriot Act is because they do not know what it entails or they believe that they are not doing anything wrong. It is a breach of privacy but most people just give you a glassy eyed look when discussing it. I am for increasing background checks but I am against the banning of any weapons. I also think we need a better grasp of psychological disorders and how they are can worsen with SSRI use. A gun doesn't kill a person, it is the deranged person who is pulling the trigger. Cure the mental illness and these mass shootings will not happen as often.
    Thanked by:
    Woodsy 
    Synycalwon likes this.
  4. #379  
    rkeenan's Avatar

    Posts
    351 Posts
    Global Posts
    454 Global Posts
    ROM
    Vicious ROM

    Default Re: Why no uproar over the 8th Amendment?

    And the 8th amendment is about abolishing slavery, so idk what the OP is referring to.
  5. #380  

    Default Re: Why no uproar over the 8th Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by rkeenan View Post
    People shouldn't have to justify exercising their rights. I am not a fan of either party. I voted for Gary Johnson for President. I am against the Patriot Act and indefinite detention. Do not assume pigeon hole anyone until you know their actual stance. The reason most people don't care about the Patriot Act is because they do not know what it entails or they believe that they are not doing anything wrong. It is a breach of privacy but most people just give you a glassy eyed look when discussing it. I am for increasing background checks but I am against the banning of any weapons. I also think we need a better grasp of psychological disorders and how they are can worsen with SSRI use. A gun doesn't kill a person, it is the deranged person who is pulling the trigger. Cure the mental illness and these mass shootings will not happen as often.
    rkeenan... I said "some"... so I am not pigeon holing everyone exercising rights concerning the 2nd amendment. I am just going based on what I have encountered personally via discussion with co-workers, friends and my Facebook Feed.

    I dont think I'm alone in this experience. However, I could be wrong.

    You are spot on about the lack of knowledge about the Patriot Act.
  6. #381  

    Default Re: Why no uproar over the 8th Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by rkeenan View Post
    And the 8th amendment is about abolishing slavery, so idk what the OP is referring to.
    Sorry... 4th Amendment.
  7. #382  
    rexxman's Avatar

    Posts
    195 Posts
    Global Posts
    207 Global Posts

    Default Re: Why no uproar over the 4th & 6th Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by rkeenan View Post
    And the 8th amendment is about abolishing slavery, so idk what the OP is referring to.
    Nope. The 13th amendment abolished slavery.

    Blue 32gb Galaxy S3
  8. #383  
    rexxman's Avatar

    Posts
    195 Posts
    Global Posts
    207 Global Posts

    Default Re: US Constitution

    Wrong again, Free Speech was not suppressed. Honestly, do you think at all before posting?

    Here is an exercise I encourage you to try. Describe an inaugural parade protest scenario in which free speech is suppressed. (Hint: The linked story is not one)

    Blue 32gb Galaxy S3
  9. #384  
    rkeenan's Avatar

    Posts
    351 Posts
    Global Posts
    454 Global Posts
    ROM
    Vicious ROM

    Default Re: Why no uproar over the 4th & 6th Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by rexxman View Post
    Nope. The 13th amendment abolished slavery.

    Blue 32gb Galaxy S3
    My bad, was getting ed at by the gf when typing. 8th amendment is Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Thank you for the correction.
  10. #385  

    Default Re: Why no uproar over the 4th & 6th Amendment?

    It's because the people of this country have messed-up priorities. Don't you remember? It's only about the three "G's:" guns, god, and gays.
  11. #386  
    rexxman's Avatar

    Posts
    195 Posts
    Global Posts
    207 Global Posts

    Default Re: Why no uproar over the 4th & 6th Amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by rkeenan View Post
    My bad, was getting ed at by the gf when typing. 8th amendment is Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Thank you for the correction.
    Your'e welcome. :-)

    Blue 32gb Galaxy S3
  12. #387  

    Default Re: Possible 28th Amendment to The Constitution

    Here is a clarification. No member of congress should be entitled to a pension, period. Its not supposed to be a full time job. I don't mind if they collect SS providing they have accumulated 40 quarters in the process. Also the perks they receive should go. They should have zero extra benefits at the expense of the taxpayers, especially if the constituents are not eligible to receive the same benefit. On top of that, rules for both chambers should have to pass muster with the electorate and any law that is passed that impacts the electorate should also apply to the congress. They exempt themselves with regularity and that needs to stop. I also would not provide extra protection for anyone at taxpayer expense, let them fend for themselves at their own expense, its what we all have to do in our daily lives. No quarter should be given here as the people are supposed to be in charge of even their representatives. I also believe term limits are necessary so more people can be involved with the process of government. Any external funding of any kind should be outlawed, especially from foreign donors. Government is too large and history has already provided many lessons as to why that is a bad thing, do your homework, start with Rome. We are Rome!
  13. #388  

    Default Re: Possible 28th Amendment to The Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by Bratigan View Post
    Here is a clarification. No member of congress should be entitled to a pension, period. Its not supposed to be a full time job. I don't mind if they collect SS providing they have accumulated 40 quarters in the process. Also the perks they receive should go. They should have zero extra benefits at the expense of the taxpayers, especially if the constituents are not eligible to receive the same benefit. On top of that, rules for both chambers should have to pass muster with the electorate and any law that is passed that impacts the electorate should also apply to the congress. They exempt themselves with regularity and that needs to stop. I also would not provide extra protection for anyone at taxpayer expense, let them fend for themselves at their own expense, its what we all have to do in our daily lives. No quarter should be given here as the people are supposed to be in charge of even their representatives. I also believe term limits are necessary so more people can be involved with the process of government. Any external funding of any kind should be outlawed, especially from foreign donors. Government is too large and history has already provided many lessons as to why that is a bad thing, do your homework, start with Rome. We are Rome!
    If they pay into a pension plan.... both FERS & CSRS pensions require this (I know, I am an air traffic controller under a FERS retirement)... then they are absolutely entitled to a pension just as they are if they pay into SS. They absolutely pay into their pension plan, just as I did. Are you implying they get a free pension? If so....you are mistaken.

    Where does it say ANYWHERE that its not supposed to be a full time job other than your mind? Unless term limits are put in, its up to the voters to make it a part time gig.

    If there are no pension benefits, then only the rich can afford to run for office. What middle class person can afford to walk away from their job, lose their benefits, for a part time gig in congress?

    In the US congress members do not get protection, except for the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority leader or if a specific member has been threatened.

    But if a Congressman or Senator is going to a foreign country, then yes the Secret service can be assigned to protect them.

    You need to do some homework too.
  14. #389  

    Default Re: What do you think the best course of action is against mass shootings in schools?

    I found this over the weekend.

    the Heller decision was a Second Amendment case in which the high court affirmed the right to bear arms as an unalienable, individual right.

    First, lets read the Second Amendment as written: 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. Its the Amendments well-regulated Militia portion Progressive gun-grabbers have always seized upon. They insist the Second Amendment concerns the right of military personnel (state and federal) to possess arms not free individuals.

    Writing for the majority, Antonin Scalias brilliant Heller opinion goes for the throat of Progressive jurisprudential skulduggery, which attempts to amend the Constitution by redefining words, a trick that goes by the name deconstructionism.

    Scalia disposed of that nonsense quickly: Three provisions of the Constitution refer to the people in a context other than rights the famous preamble (We the people), Article I (providing that the people will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with the States or the people). Those provisions arguably refer to the people acting collectively but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a right attributed to the people refer to anything other than an individual right.

    To back up his claim, as the circuit court did in its Friday ruling, Scalia sought the source or natural meaning of the text by using what else dictionaries.

    The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnsons dictionary defined arms as weapons of offence, or armor of defense Timothy Cunninghams important 1771 legal dictionary defined arms as anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
    Last edited by Live2ride883; 01-28-2013 at 11:40 AM.
    I miss my friend Matt McQuinn he touched so many lives, and in the end gave his life to protect someone that he loved. I am proud to have known him, and of the choices he made when it mattered. You were a true hero.

    "You would not fear my weapon unless your intentions were to provoke my using it"
    ConTejas likes this.
  15. #390  
    ConTejas's Avatar

    Posts
    849 Posts
    ROM
    KK+Xposed+GB+Franco=Win

    Default Re: What do you think the best course of action is against mass shootings in schools?

    Apparently some of you haven't ever seen Tremors. How else would anyone have survived if that married couple didn't have an armory in their basement?!

    All joking aside, I read this entire thread and found plenty of it informative or at least entertaining. Of course, plenty of childish antics. Unfortunately, that's somewhat to be expected. Even happens with the adults on Capitol Hill

    I'm not a paranoid individual. I own an old, but well cared for shotgun I occasionally use to skeet shoot. I have it properly locked and would also consider it a means to defend my life and property. I would offer to say a ban on assult rifles would almost certainly not affect my day to day life in any sort of way, other than I consider myself to be a patriot. I believe the founding father's may have granted (or even believe they did) "the people" the right to bear most all of the other "absurd" or "military only" weapons and/or technology that exists today as their direct intention was to ensure "the people" would be properly armed, as a last resort, to protect themselves from and/or overthrow a tyrannical government. Plenty of people would say that it's absurd to think in 20XX "the people" would ever HAVE to do that. I'm inclined to agree, mostly, but crazier things have happened. I'm not sure even an assult rifle (by whatever definition) would really help "us" out in such an event, but it'd be better than some pea shooters and bird shot.

    The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
    ― Thomas Jefferson

    A free people ought...to be armed
    ― George Washington

    The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
    ― Thomas Jefferson

    A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who would attempt to abuse them, which would include their own Government.
    -George Washington

    Lastly - I like this quote I read somewhere else. " A gun is similar to a parachute in that in the event that if you need one, and don't have one, you'll likely never need one again."
    Thanked by 2:
  16. #391  
    ConTejas's Avatar

    Posts
    849 Posts
    ROM
    KK+Xposed+GB+Franco=Win

    Default Re: What do you think the best course of action is against mass shootings in schools?

    108th CONGRESS
    1st Session
    H. R. 648

    To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.

    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    February 5, 2003

    The Congress finds the following:

    (1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:

    (A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: `[C]ourts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community..

    (B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.

    (C) The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.

    (2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the following:
    (A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to DEFEND themselves against criminalsor more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

    (B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by WOMEN defending themselves against sexual abuse.

    (C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent MERELY BRANDISH their gun OR FIRE A WARNING SHOT to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker.
    Synycalwon likes this.
  17. #392  
    ConTejas's Avatar

    Posts
    849 Posts
    ROM
    KK+Xposed+GB+Franco=Win

    Default Re: What do you think the best course of action is against mass shootings in schools?

    Borrowed from "Ranger1965":

    UCLA professor emeritus James Q. Wilson, a respected expert on crime, police practices and guns, says, We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond a hundred thousand uses of guns for self-defense occur every year. We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as 2-and-a-half or 3 million. We dont know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, its not a trivial number.

    The Department of Justices own National Institute of Justice study titled Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, estimated that 1.5 million Americans use guns for defensive purposes every year.

    Former assistant district attorney and firearms expert David Kopel writes, [W]hen a robbery victim does not defend himself, the robber succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25 percent of the time. When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent.

    You dont need to apologize, I wouldnt believe its sincerity anyway. Youre just trying to score points, not have a meaningful discussion. But for what its worth think on this. The people you need to use a gun on, dont respond to reason, or words. Ever. Theyre broken inside, and only respect force. Its sad, but its true.and when seconds count, the police are minutes away.
  18. #393  

    Default Re: What do you think the best course of action is against mass shootings in schools?

    I think all these laws and gun scare is really unnecessary. The underlying factor of why these shooters did what they did seemed to be how society was treating them. That they were outcasted because they were different. If we all took the time to befriend these individuals who seem to be so withdrawn from the world, perhaps they wouldn't need a reason to shoot innocents. We don't have to be best friends with them, but just a Hi or starting up a conversation wouldn't hurt anyone. The golden rule is something we need to teach our kids so they don't become bullies that will one day provoke someone who's unstable. If guns were taken away, I'm sure other weapons of choice may be used. If someone wants to harm another person. guns is just an easy choice, but there are other weapons too.
    Thanked by 2:
  19. #394  
    backbeat's Avatar
    Banned

    Posts
    30 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts

    Default Re: What do you think the best course of action is against mass shootings in schools?

    Why is it such a leap of consciousness to understand the context in which the 2nd Amendment was originated? Madison must be doing high-velocity turns in his grave over the sheer stupidity and chosen blindness witnessed in modern-day fear and gnashing of teeth by the NRA and its defenders.

    To understand why the 2nd Amendment was even included in the Bill of Rights, one must understand the history behind it (eg. Boston Massacre, for example). Does anyone here bother? Generally not. Does anyone have a clue how "tyrannical government" had presented itself? Does anyone think this may be where the term "standing army" comes into play? Words have meaning. The words used in our Bill of Rights, their foundational documents, and completed Constitution were debated to exhaustion (real debate, not the debauchery of an internet forum), wrestled over, with specific context squeezed out of them so they could be as free of interpretation as possible. But, understanding them requires historical context beyond just the definition of individual words themselves.

    No one in authority has even made the wholesale suggestion that "guns be banned". The more firearms produced, the more weapons criminals have access to. In all practicality, ending the production of some models of firearms from the public market is beneficial to us as a civil society. Your right to bear arms remains fully in tact. You continue to be able to defend your property, your family, your life if and when necessary. When a firearms manufacturer decides to end production of a model, are they infringing your 2nd Amendment right in any way, shape, or form? Absolutely not. It's a product. And that is all it is. The market absence of a firearm model or type is not an infringement on your right or ability to defend yourself when necessary. Sober up, people.
  20. #395  

    Default Re: What do you think the best course of action is against mass shootings in schools?

    Defending your home is more difficult if you have a 7 round magazine and the intruder has a 30 round magazine....the criminal element does not care about your gun control law. Crack is illegal, people still get it. Do you really think the criminal element will be swayed by a law? I agree they need to enforce the current laws better and make it illegal to sale a gun to an individual without a proper background check.(especially individual to individual transactions.)

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Android Central Forums
    The Hustleman likes this.
  21. #396  

    Default Re: What do you think the best course of action is against mass shootings in schools?

    I think gun control laws are more about making us feel better and in many cases a false sense of security. There are so so so so many guns out there that any law to curtail them would achieve little success.

    I dare say it would be as effective as the War on Drugs or Prohibition in the past.

    Here is an example of how banning magazine capacity might.. and I say might, have a negligible effect on mass shootings. Granted, the person in the video is a highly trained shooter.... with a little practice, many can reload quickly.

    Synycalwon likes this.
  22. #397  
    backbeat's Avatar
    Banned

    Posts
    30 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts

    Default Re: What do you think the best course of action is against mass shootings in schools?

    Making it an arms race between civilized American society and a criminal element is a losing proposition which will only result in more innocent deaths. That is inevitable. In a civil society, that is unnecessary with wise choices.

    What part of ending production presents a mental roadblock? When products are no longer produced, criminals find it harder and harder to obtain them over time. Supply will dry up. DHS isn't about to overlook illegal weapons trafficking into, or out of, the US. Get real.
  23. #398  

    Default Re: What do you think the best course of action is against mass shootings in schools?

    Quote Originally Posted by carolinadroid View Post
    DHS isn't about to overlook illegal weapons trafficking into, or out of, the US. Get real.
    They will be as effective as the DEA is keeping drugs out of the country IMO. Its not a pretty truth, but it is nonetheless IMO. I would rather see the funds used on mental health care.

    Forgive the awful pun.... but we would get a bigger bang for the buck.
    Thanked by:
  24. #399  

    Default Re: What do you think the best course of action is against mass shootings in schools?

    These weapons would still be obtainable for quite sometime if only to the criminal element. Once again, disarming or under arming law abiding citizens. Law abiding citizens arent the problem.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Android Central Forums
  25. #400  
    backbeat's Avatar
    Banned

    Posts
    30 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts

    Default Re: What do you think the best course of action is against mass shootings in schools?

    Quote Originally Posted by cdmjlt369 View Post
    These weapons would still be obtainable for quite sometime if only to the criminal element. Once again, disarming or under arming law abiding citizens. Law abiding citizens arent the problem.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Android Central Forums
    When you can statistically demonstrate that high-capacity magazines are necessary for the defense of one's home/family due to the theoretical claim you are making, Americans will lend an ear. Until then, not so much. The FBI should prove to be a good source for you. Go for it.
    nolittdroid likes this.
Page 16 of 185 FirstFirst ... 13141516171819 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  2. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-04-2013, 05:40 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM

Posting Permissions