Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Supreme ruled those gun laws constitutional, and therefore they are. The court is working exactly as it was intended to work. It just didn't rule as you wanted it to.
On the topic of guns, you are correct, they most certainly have not ruled the way I believe they should, but the entire point of this line of conversation was that I was interested in seeing how genuine your strict reading of the Constitution was in relation to other aspects besides the 4th Amendment.
Personally, I will always be consistent in my logic when it comes to the Constitution. There are many issues that I very strongly disagree with which I will defend vociferously based on my strict view of the only lawmaking authority in this nation and how badly it has been twisted and ignored over the years.
If you followed the thread -- guns were brought up as an examples when some people pick and choose when to follow the Constitution. For example choosing the Constitution on the S&F, but ignoring it the right to bear arms.
There you go again the main cheerleader chick "1,2,3 i love him, and will defend him no matter what yeaa"
I told you once. Let your boyfriend speak for himself. He doesn't need his chick to represent his thoughts.
After all the overly feminine posts you make on this forum, don't even try and come back at me with that. Get your own angle for me.
You consistently agree with any and all of the "progressives" on this forum about anything. Do I stoop to the immature level of calling you guys a circle jerk team or anything? (Hint: no). I happen to agree with a couple people on here, in the minority, about certain things. He's one of them. And I disagree with him on things as well. The fire dept being a big one. There are others I agree with on issues around here too. They just rarely post.
PS... I wear that badge with pride. And it is a badge nowadays. My best friend at work says that without my views on guns and the existence of social programs, I'd be considered a flaming hippy liberal by any sensible standard.
LISTEN YOU ALL, THE JUDGE HAS DETERMINED THAT STOP AND FRISK IS ILLEGAL. THE IDEA IS TO STOP AND FRISK ANYONE DEEMED OF SUSPISOUS BEHAVIOR AND/Or HAVE SOLID EVIDENCE THAT THE PERSON HAS OR WILL SOON COMMIT A CRIME.
THe NYPD misunderstood this and "stop anyone that looks like they commit crimes" and used bad judment 90% of time.
She said while stop and frisk was legal if it were done correctly, the NYPD is racist and cant handle a proper stop and frisk program.
They routinelly stop 10 people and statistically 9 are clean and ok And only 1 may have a gun or drugs. Therefore the NYPD is wrong (as they usually are) in actualizing and determining who should be stopped and why.
But the stop was still made...so the judge asked what determed this stop to be made .
This is where racist cops come in . The stops are usually made based on skin color. Which is ILLEGAL
I LOVE this judge in having a clear mind and now I can walk down the street and be calm and know that my $20 weed bag will not be confiscated !
Thank you Judge !!!! This is huge for minoritites that are subject to this everyday.
Next she will tackle discrimination in the NYCHA !!
After all the overly feminine posts you make on this forum, don't even try and come back at me with that. Get your own angle for me.
You consistently agree with any and all of the "progressives" on this forum about anything. Do I stoop to the immature level of calling you guys a circle jerk team or anything? (Hint: no). I happen to agree with a couple people on here, in the minority, about certain things. He's one of them. And I disagree with him on things as well. The fire dept being a big one. There are others I agree with on issues around here too. They just rarely post.
Shoot me something more original, guy...
LoL. I had a good laugh while reading this post so I'm gonna rep you.
Listen, you might call me effeminate but I'm not the one on this forum defending anyone or interpreting their posts like you do with this guy.
I'm not a cheerleader chick like you. Even when your man said your job is BS because you guys sleep while at work, you didn't have the balls to call hin out and defend your FDNY job. You are a submissive chick. I can tell.
You can call me what whatever you want but I'm an independent guy with no affiliation to any political party. I'm registered as an independent.
And as far the 2nd amendment goes it written with somewhat of an ambiguous language for a reason. 'Arm' and 'militia' can be thought of in various of ways.
I'm pretty sure they when wrote the amendment they never imagined today's gun nuts would be arguing for the 'right to bear' assault rifles.
Today's technology probably didn't even cross their mind when they wrote it.
In a way the same could be said about the Fourth amendment. They had no idea of today's technology and how the government could infringe on people rights by using widespread wire taps and other modern techniques.
The constitution and most of the amendments were written in another era where gun and police technologies were (by today's standards) primitive.
LoL. I had a good laugh while reading this post so I'm gonna rep you.
Listen, you might call me effeminate but I'm not the one on this forum defending anyone or interpreting their posts like you do with this guy.
I'm not a cheerleader chick like you. Even when your man said your job is BS because you guys sleep while at work, you didn't have the guts to call hin out and defend your FDNY job. You are a submissive chick. I can tell.
You can call me what whatever you want but I'm an independent guy with no affiliation to any political party. I'm registered as an independent.
And as far the 2nd amendment goes it written with somewhat of an ambiguous language for a reason. 'Arm' and 'militia' can be thought of in various of ways.
I'm pretty sure they when wrote the amendment they never imagined today's gun nuts would be arguing for the 'right to bear' assault rifles.
Today's technology probably didn't even cross their mind when they wrote it.
In a way the same could be said about the Fourth amendment. They had no idea of today's technology and how the government could infringe on people rights by using widespread wire taps and other modern techniques.
The constitution and most of the amendments were written in another era where gun and police technologies were (by today's standards) primitive.
I don't "defend" a soul on here, littleminas. I agree with certain people at times. You notice certain ones because there are such a select few rational thinkers on here, most of whom hardly post (S.I.B., Gantz, anon [although he posts pretty regularly]). And you do the same thing in terms of "defending" (if you need to put it that way) anything you view awesomely progressive by all of "your men" on here. It's the same thing, buddy. And yes, you converse more effeminate than most of the women on here (like putting your e-hand up and saying "please"). It's f'n bizarre because you claim to not be gay. Also, I'm not on the job. But I know the beef between PD and FD. I just laugh about it. There's nothing really to say on the matter. It's always gonna be that way. You would never understand something like that.
Last edited by availableusername; 08-18-2013 at 07:32 PM..
LISTEN YOU ALL, THE JUDGE HAS DETERMINED THAT STOP AND FRISK IS ILLEGAL. THE IDEA IS TO STOP AND FRISK ANYONE DEEMED OF SUSPISOUS BEHAVIOR AND/Or HAVE SOLID EVIDENCE THAT THE PERSON HAS OR WILL SOON COMMIT A CRIME.
THe NYPD misunderstood this and "stop anyone that looks like they commit crimes" and used bad judment 90% of time.
She said while stop and frisk was legal if it were done correctly, the NYPD is racist and cant handle a proper stop and frisk program.
They routinelly stop 10 people and statistically 9 are clean and ok And only 1 may have a gun or drugs. Therefore the NYPD is wrong (as they usually are) in actualizing and determining who should be stopped and why.
But the stop was still made...so the judge asked what determed this stop to be made .
This is where racist cops come in . The stops are usually made based on skin color. Which is ILLEGAL
I LOVE this judge in having a clear mind and now I can walk down the street and be calm and know that my $20 weed bag will not be confiscated !
Thank you Judge !!!! This is huge for minoritites that are subject to this everyday.
Next she will tackle discrimination in the NYCHA !!
SHE SHOULD RUN FOR MAYOR !!!!
I agree.
10 stopped 9 innocent, that alone tells you they stop guys for the hell of it, I know, I was s & F.
and no, I'm not over it, and not getting over it any time soon.
And yes, you converse more effeminate than most of the women on here (like putting your e-hand up and saying "please").
Have you noticed the marked turn towards name calling also? I'm surprised it hasn't been admonished by the mods yet; they are usually very quick with that here, even too fast. I use to be able to have a spirited disagreement with likeminas but now the first response immediately resorts to personal attacks so I refrain.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
