| 17 Oct 2006 08:02 pm |
King of the Gamer Army Rep: 38  Joined: 22 Nov 2005 Posts: 14,674 OFFLINE | kev360 wrote:
the21gamer wrote:
kev360 wrote:
21 wrote:
kev360 wrote:
21 wrote:
kev360 wrote:
hmm... reminds me of lincoln....
How so?
sry about how long this took, was doing other things.
becouse lincoln got rid of some right (something about not needing evedence to imprison someone, or something along those lines.)
I never heard of Lincoln doing that the but I have heard of Bush doing that, that’s bad.
ya, i dont do polotics, so i will stay out of this.
BUT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln#Civil_liberties_suspended
“During the Civil War, Lincoln appropriated powers no previous President had wielded: he used his war powers to proclaim a blockade, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, spent money without congressional authorization, and imprisoned 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial.“
If that’s true then that’s the 1st bad thing I’ve ever heard about him but I still think he was one of the best presidents.
same. im just saying, its an interesting fact. the presedent thats hailed as one of the best in american history did that.
True, nobody is prefect though.
He did it for what he believed was right and I respect him for that but I don’t agree with what he did if he really did do that.
 the21gamer wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Did you hear me? I’m a bigger better pussy than you’ll ever be.
Wtf...
| |
|
| 17 Oct 2006 08:04 pm |
I have earned my disillusionment. Rep: 52 Joined: 03 May 2006 Posts: 7,349 | the21gamer wrote:
Etain wrote:
the21gamer wrote:
21 wrote:
Etain wrote:
dark99 wrote:
21 wrote:
Etain wrote:
Bush does away with human rights just as he always wanted. Not good.
Democrats want to get rid of the 2nd ammendement, NOT good.
As for this new bill I have to read the entire thing and swee how it works out before I can make a decision because it seems both bad and good.
first... how the hell did you come up with the idea that democrats want to get rid of the 2nd ammendment... show me some proof of that...
and second... the 2nd amendment isn’t really that good, especially nowadays... unless you like everyone carrying around guns...
3rd most people don’t realize the 2nd amendment was actually put in place to refer to the militia. Remember that before the American Revolution the Brits tried to take away ammunition...hence why that amendment was put in. Historically speaking, it didn’t have anything to do with civilians being gun-happy 
4th the militia can be civilians but things change over time. It is also interpreted as the right to defend yourself.
Here’s the 2nd Ammenment. Read it and weep.
“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.“
Re-read what you just posted so you can understand the context
I see the part where it’s says to maintain a mitlita but you missed thpart where it says our rights to keep bear arms shall not be infringed.
So we don’t need to have a militia to do that and if you wanna be that way I’ll get my friends and form my own militia.
Yes but you completely missed that the entire purpose was to be able to form a militia. It says absolutely nothing about bearing arms for any other reason.
Back then civians had to form the militia (minutemen). Today we have a formal army for that.
 Last edited 17 Oct 2006 08:05 pm by Etain | |
| 17 Oct 2006 08:05 pm |
when you see it, you'll shit bricks Rep: 33 Joined: 10 Sep 2005 Posts: 15,385 OFFLINE | the21gamer wrote:
kev360 wrote:
the21gamer wrote:
kev360 wrote:
21 wrote:
kev360 wrote:
21 wrote:
kev360 wrote:
hmm... reminds me of lincoln....
How so?
sry about how long this took, was doing other things.
becouse lincoln got rid of some right (something about not needing evedence to imprison someone, or something along those lines.)
I never heard of Lincoln doing that the but I have heard of Bush doing that, that’s bad.
ya, i dont do polotics, so i will stay out of this.
BUT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln#Civil_liberties_suspended
“During the Civil War, Lincoln appropriated powers no previous President had wielded: he used his war powers to proclaim a blockade, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, spent money without congressional authorization, and imprisoned 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial.“
If that’s true then that’s the 1st bad thing I’ve ever heard about him but I still think he was one of the best presidents.
same. im just saying, its an interesting fact. the presedent thats hailed as one of the best in american history did that.
True, nobody is prefect though.
He did it for what he believed was right and I respect him for that but I don’t agree with what he did if he really did do that.
ya. its one of those things where its hard to tell if he was right or not. on the one hand, he was doing it to stop people who were anti civil war/ anti lincoln, which is something that could have hert the north very badly and probably would have ended up doing alot of damage, but on the other hand, he violated their rights. its hard to call.
 | |
| 17 Oct 2006 08:05 pm |
King of the Gamer Army Rep: 38Joined: 22 Nov 2005 Posts: 14,674 OFFLINE | Etain wrote:
the21gamer wrote:
Etain wrote:
the21gamer wrote:
21 wrote:
Etain wrote:
dark99 wrote:
21 wrote:
Etain wrote:
Bush does away with human rights just as he always wanted. Not good.
Democrats want to get rid of the 2nd ammendement, NOT good.
As for this new bill I have to read the entire thing and swee how it works out before I can make a decision because it seems both bad and good.
first... how the hell did you come up with the idea that democrats want to get rid of the 2nd ammendment... show me some proof of that...
and second... the 2nd amendment isn’t really that good, especially nowadays... unless you like everyone carrying around guns...
3rd most people don’t realize the 2nd amendment was actually put in place to refer to the militia. Remember that before the American Revolution the Brits tried to take away ammunition...hence why that amendment was put in. Historically speaking, it didn’t have anything to do with civilians being gun-happy
4th the militia can be civilians but things change over time. It is also interpreted as the right to defend yourself.
Here’s the 2nd Ammenment. Read it and weep.
“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.“
Re-read what you just posted so you can understand the context
I see the part where it’s says to maintain a mitlita but you missed thpart where it says our rights to keep bear arms shall not be infringed.
So we don’t need to have a militia to do that and if you wanna be that way I’ll get my friends and form my own militia.
Yes but you completely missed that the entire purpose was to be able to form a militia. It says absolutely nothing about bearing arms for any other reason.
It doesn’t say anything about having to be in a militia to bear arms. 
the21gamer wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Did you hear me? I’m a bigger better pussy than you’ll ever be.
Wtf...
| |
| 17 Oct 2006 08:06 pm |
I have earned my disillusionment. Rep: 52Joined: 03 May 2006 Posts: 7,349 | Read it through again....very slowly 21. Perhaps you’ll understand it
| |
| 17 Oct 2006 08:06 pm |
King of the Gamer Army Rep: 38Joined: 22 Nov 2005 Posts: 14,674 OFFLINE | kev360 wrote:
the21gamer wrote:
kev360 wrote:
the21gamer wrote:
kev360 wrote:
21 wrote:
kev360 wrote:
21 wrote:
kev360 wrote:
hmm... reminds me of lincoln....
How so?
sry about how long this took, was doing other things.
becouse lincoln got rid of some right (something about not needing evedence to imprison someone, or something along those lines.)
I never heard of Lincoln doing that the but I have heard of Bush doing that, that’s bad.
ya, i dont do polotics, so i will stay out of this.
BUT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln#Civil_liberties_suspended
“During the Civil War, Lincoln appropriated powers no previous President had wielded: he used his war powers to proclaim a blockade, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, spent money without congressional authorization, and imprisoned 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial.“
If that’s true then that’s the 1st bad thing I’ve ever heard about him but I still think he was one of the best presidents.
same. im just saying, its an interesting fact. the presedent thats hailed as one of the best in american history did that.
True, nobody is prefect though.
He did it for what he believed was right and I respect him for that but I don’t agree with what he did if he really did do that.
ya. its one of those things where its hard to tell if he was right or not. on the one hand, he was doing it to stop people who were anti civil war/ anti lincoln, which is something that could have hert the north very badly and probably would have ended up doing alot of damage, but on the other hand, he violated their rights. its hard to call.
Yeah, maybe sometimes it is right. They do it to kids.
the21gamer wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Did you hear me? I’m a bigger better pussy than you’ll ever be.
Wtf...
| |
| 17 Oct 2006 08:08 pm |
King of the Gamer Army Rep: 38Joined: 22 Nov 2005 Posts: 14,674 OFFLINE | Etain wrote:
Read it through again....very slowly 21. Perhaps you’ll understand it
I know that it was 'originally' for the militia, which is YOUR interpretation, NOT fact but it dose NOT say you have to be in one to keep and bears any arms.
Therefore I can own all the guns I want and I can hunt all I want, as well as shoot an dickhead’s head off if they try to kill me.
the21gamer wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Did you hear me? I’m a bigger better pussy than you’ll ever be.
Wtf...
| |
| 17 Oct 2006 08:10 pm |
King of the Gamer Army Rep: 38Joined: 22 Nov 2005 Posts: 14,674 OFFLINE | You missed the part where the 2nd ammendment quite liberal in the 2nd half.
the21gamer wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Did you hear me? I’m a bigger better pussy than you’ll ever be.
Wtf...
| |
| 17 Oct 2006 08:10 pm |
I have earned my disillusionment. Rep: 52Joined: 03 May 2006 Posts: 7,349 | Please employ logic 21 . It said that the purpose of bearing arms was to be able to form a militia. Because America had just been a British colony they did not have their own army. They needed to be able to form a militia with civilians.
Today we have something called an “army”. It is government run.
Although perhaps we’re all misreading it and it was really meant to be “the right to bare arms” 
| |
| 17 Oct 2006 08:24 pm |
King of the Gamer Army Rep: 38Joined: 22 Nov 2005 Posts: 14,674 OFFLINE | Etain wrote:
Please employ logic 21 . It said that the purpose of bearing arms was to be able to form a militia. Because America had just been a British colony they did not have their own army. They needed to be able to form a militia with civilians.
Today we have something called an “army”. It is government run.
Although perhaps we’re all misreading it and it was really meant to be “the right to bare arms”
Doesn’t mean there are other reasons and it means more than just to keep well regulated militias.
Please employ logic little one.
They spent God knows how long working on The Bill of Rights and they DELIBERATELY left it open for other reasons...otherwise they were all just idiots.
the21gamer wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Did you hear me? I’m a bigger better pussy than you’ll ever be.
Wtf...
| |
| 17 Oct 2006 08:29 pm |
I have earned my disillusionment. Rep: 52Joined: 03 May 2006 Posts: 7,349 | And how do you know they left it open? There are amendments for a reason...so things could be added! But nothing more has been added to do with bearing arms.
Actually I am employing logic . But apparently they no longer teach understanding sentence structure/reading comprehension in schools these days. Tsk tsk.
| |
| 17 Oct 2006 08:31 pm |
King of the Gamer Army Rep: 38Joined: 22 Nov 2005 Posts: 14,674 OFFLINE | Etain wrote:
And how do you know they left it open? There are amendments for a reason...so things could be added! But nothing more has been added to do with bearing arms.
Actually I am employing logic . But apparently they no longer teach understanding sentence structure/reading comprehension in schools these days. Tsk tsk.
Doesn’t change the fact it’s still open and that’s the way it should be. getting rid of the ammendment is not going to stop a killer. If someone wants to kill then the want to kill.
They obviously did nto teach old ones like you very well seeing that you do not know what open means.
the21gamer wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Did you hear me? I’m a bigger better pussy than you’ll ever be.
Wtf...
| |
| 17 Oct 2006 08:45 pm |
The drummer Rep: 19 Joined: 20 Aug 2005 Posts: 14,618 OFFLINE | Bush is a fucking good president! ---
<iframe src=“http://gamercard.xbox.com/REPLACE-THIS-WITH-YOUR-GAMERTAG.card” scrolling=“no” frameBorder=“0” height=“140” width=“204”>Put your gamertag here too.</iframe>
http://www.myspace.com/linkious
 | |
| 17 Oct 2006 08:56 pm |
I have earned my disillusionment. Rep: 52Joined: 03 May 2006 Posts: 7,349 | the21gamer wrote:
Etain wrote:
And how do you know they left it open? There are amendments for a reason...so things could be added! But nothing more has been added to do with bearing arms.
Actually I am employing logic . But apparently they no longer teach understanding sentence structure/reading comprehension in schools these days. Tsk tsk.
Doesn’t change the fact it’s still open and that’s the way it should be. getting rid of the ammendment is not going to stop a killer. If someone wants to kill then the want to kill.
They obviously did nto teach old ones like you very well seeing that you do not know what open means.
Yes but if you understood logic you would understand I wasn’t arguing the bill of rights to no longer have amendments. I was arguing that people don’t understand the historic basis of that amendment.
| |
| 17 Oct 2006 08:59 pm |
The Diabolical One... Rep: 3 Joined: 09 Jan 2006 Posts: 5,320 OFFLINE | Aaron McKay wrote:
Bush is a fucking good president!
wtf fuck are you talking about... did you even read that entire article... HE’S GOING TO SUSPEND HABIUS CORPUS...
fuckyfuckerfuckingmcfuckfuck69 wrote:
Someone with a comment that has thought to it? Blasphemy!
| |
| 17 Oct 2006 09:12 pm |
The drummer Rep: 19Joined: 20 Aug 2005 Posts: 14,618 OFFLINE | Yeah but he is keeping those douche bags off the streets of Iraq. Those people need to be locked up forever! ---
<iframe src=“http://gamercard.xbox.com/REPLACE-THIS-WITH-YOUR-GAMERTAG.card” scrolling=“no” frameBorder=“0” height=“140” width=“204”>Put your gamertag here too.</iframe>
http://www.myspace.com/linkious
| |
| 17 Oct 2006 11:39 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 45  Joined: 01 Jul 2006 Posts: 4,149 OFFLINE | the21gamer wrote:
Etain wrote:
the21gamer wrote:
21 wrote:
Etain wrote:
dark99 wrote:
21 wrote:
Etain wrote:
Bush does away with human rights just as he always wanted. Not good.
Democrats want to get rid of the 2nd ammendement, NOT good.
As for this new bill I have to read the entire thing and swee how it works out before I can make a decision because it seems both bad and good.
first... how the hell did you come up with the idea that democrats want to get rid of the 2nd ammendment... show me some proof of that...
and second... the 2nd amendment isn’t really that good, especially nowadays... unless you like everyone carrying around guns...
3rd most people don’t realize the 2nd amendment was actually put in place to refer to the militia. Remember that before the American Revolution the Brits tried to take away ammunition...hence why that amendment was put in. Historically speaking, it didn’t have anything to do with civilians being gun-happy
4th the militia can be civilians but things change over time. It is also interpreted as the right to defend yourself.
Here’s the 2nd Ammenment. Read it and weep.
“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.“
Re-read what you just posted so you can understand the context
I see the part where it’s says to maintain a mitlita but you missed thpart where it says our rights to keep bear arms shall not be infringed.
So we don’t need to have a militia to do that and if you wanna be that way I’ll get my friends and form my own militia.
just wanted to be part of the quote trend
PS3KICKS360 wrote:
I am a celebrity for all those gay porno’s I do in my spare time
| |
| 18 Oct 2006 08:16 am |
The Diabolical One... Rep: 3Joined: 09 Jan 2006 Posts: 5,320 OFFLINE | Aaron McKay wrote:
Yeah but he is keeping those douche bags off the streets of Iraq. Those people need to be locked up forever!
yeah that’s why 36 more people died yesterday in suicide and roadside bombings...
fuckyfuckerfuckingmcfuckfuck69 wrote:
Someone with a comment that has thought to it? Blasphemy!
| |
| 18 Oct 2006 06:22 pm |
King of the Gamer Army Rep: 38Joined: 22 Nov 2005 Posts: 14,674 OFFLINE | dark99 wrote:
Aaron McKay wrote:
Yeah but he is keeping those douche bags off the streets of Iraq. Those people need to be locked up forever!
yeah that’s why 36 more people died yesterday in suicide and roadside bombings...
That’s why they must be stopped.
the21gamer wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Did you hear me? I’m a bigger better pussy than you’ll ever be.
Wtf...
| |
| 18 Oct 2006 06:23 pm |
Who Dares Wins Rep: 25 Joined: 24 Dec 2005 Posts: 19,034 OFFLINE | Aaron McKay wrote:
Bush is a fucking good president!
Fuck yeah he is.
Zucas wrote:
Gaming is E for everyone.
Zucas wrote:
Jk,but seriously.
| |
|
|
Previous Page - Post Reply - Next Page |
»
Off-Topic
» Bush signs new terror bill
