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.
Why do you suppose the founders wasted their time writing the rest of the Constitution, if the 2nd Amendment was all that was needed to maintain your kind of order? Why waste time with due process, of the only thing that counts for determining guilt or innocence is muzzle velocity?
Isn't it funny how every thread eventually turns into a gun-nut thread.
The "gun-nuts" are ignorant as to why the 2nd amendment was originally written and what the true meaning of it is, so you might be wasting your time trying to reason with them in terms of the Constitution. They usually cite the 2nd in their attempts to trample over all of the other amendments. This is where the 9th amendment becomes ironically effective and applicable:
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The Ten Original Amendments: The Bill of Rights is a near perfect guidline written to create the foundation of a peaceful law-abiding society. The framers knew that zealots and weird idealogues would come out of the woodwork trying to twist or distort the meaning of the document; they even made provisions to accommodate them and give them a platform for their pertinacious ideas to be heard. I think it is too funny and ironic that these zealots are the very people who always claim to be the true believers and followers of the Constitution, waving a rifle or a microphone in one hand and a flag in the other. Charlton Heston and Michael Savage are two examples that readily come to mind.
The framers knew that zealots and weird idealogues would come out of the woodwork trying to twist or distort the meaning of the document; .
The preamble to the Bill of Rights is often excluded from printed versions of the Constitution, and is not widely known. Within the preamble is the founders' rationale for adding the ten amendments:
in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers,
Why do you suppose the founders wasted their time writing the rest of the Constitution, if the 2nd Amendment was all that was needed to maintain your kind of order? Why waste time with due process, of the only thing that counts for determining guilt or innocence is muzzle velocity?
Isn't it funny how every thread eventually turns into a gun-nut thread.
Ain't it funny how some liberal makes snippy comments even though they didn't read.
Uh duhhhh..... hey dippo I said "DEFEND" which is entirely different than imposing order upon others.
Nice to respond to such balony today as we just came back from the shooting range with the kids. They love to shoot the .357 and are darned good at hitting the target.
Ain't it funny how some liberal makes snippy comments even though they didn't read.
.
What liberal are you talking about? The only person I saw responding to your gun reference is a gun-owning member of the NRA who supports the 2nd Amendment.
99% oif all Americans have gone their entire life without ever needing to defend themselves with a firearm. But if you insist on being in the wrong place at the wrong time and making an assshole of yourself when you get there, I guess you better be packing heat to defend yourself. I wouldn't know, I've never placed myself in that kind of a situation.
I have trouble understanding why a citizen voter attending a town meeting which is secured by the Secret Service finds it useful to carry a loaded firearm to "defend" himself. In terms of the 4th Amendment, do you really advocate using a firearm to defend yourself against what you perceive as a 4th Amendment violatioon by a government agent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by checking out
Best to own guns and ammo to defend thyself.
Hey, Dippo, no matter how good you are with a gun, there will always be somebody better. Good luck. And have fun killing people, instead of just turning around and walking away, like intelligent civilized people do.
The preamble to the Bill of Rights is often excluded from printed versions of the Constitution, and is not widely known. Within the preamble is the founders' rationale for adding the ten amendments:
in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers,
And to address potentiol zealots outside of government who would try to use the constitution as a weapon to support their twisted philosophies, is why they added the word misconstruction; a form of the word misconstrue: to misunderstand, misconceive, misinterpret, or misread. So my point was that one reason, among others, for adding the original 10 amendments was to deter fanatics and idealogical maniacs from MISREADING the Constitution.
What liberal are you talking about? The only person I saw responding to your gun reference is a gun-owning member of the NRA who supports the 2nd Amendment.
99% oif all Americans have gone their entire life without ever needing to defend themselves with a firearm. But if you insist on being in the wrong place at the wrong time and making an assshole of yourself when you get there, I guess you better be packing heat to defend yourself. I wouldn't know, I've never placed myself in that kind of a situation.
I have trouble understanding why a citizen voter attending a town meeting which is secured by the Secret Service finds it useful to carry a loaded firearm to "defend" himself. In terms of the 4th Amendment, do you really advocate using a firearm to defend yourself against what you perceive as a 4th Amendment violatioon by a government agent?
Hey, Dippo, no matter how good you are with a gun, there will always be somebody better. Good luck. And have fun killing people, instead of just turning around and walking away, like intelligent civilized people do.
[SIZE=3]We hold that a police officer receiving a credible report of a violation from an identified concerned citizen may properly enter onto private property through the normal route of access to investigate. Once there, publicly viewable evidence of a crime may properly be seized without a warrant, particularly when there is a need to act promptly to protect the health or safety of an-other, whether human or animal.
[/SIZE]
It's also called "Reasonable Cause".
Also, the health inspector was called for a maltreated animal in Mr. Trimble's care.
[SIZE=3]We hold that a police officer receiving a credible report of a violation from an identified concerned citizen may properly enter onto private property through the normal route of access to investigate. Once there, publicly viewable evidence of a crime may properly be seized without a warrant, particularly when there is a need to act promptly to protect the health or safety of an-other, whether human or animal. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
It's also called "Reasonable Cause".
Also, the health inspector was called for a maltreated animal in Mr. Trimble's care.
That's a different case than the one in the YouTube link.
That's a different case than the one in the YouTube link.
Yes, you are correct. However, the circumstances are nearly identical, a complaint was issued and a g'ment officail responded, the reason I used it.
Also, the person in the vid appeared to me to be doing a septic system for a house trailer. I worked contruction in my youth and I have done septic systems.
This does, indeed, come under the auspices of the health department here in NYS, and probrably in Indiana too. The ground needs to be perked, licensing issued, clearences to abode and water well checked, etc.
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.