SACair Forum

[quote="ukau"]No, canada is too cold for me. Remember I am the one who is ok with CA laws...Ill help you pack..lol

[quote="OPFOR"][quote="ukau"]No, canada is too cold for me. Remember I am the one who is ok with CA laws...Ill help you pack..lol

I understand the bill of rights and it dosnt matter what their intention was it matters how they are interpreted today..thats reality. We must understand that there are restrictions to the bill of rights. Regardless if they were originaly in there or later interpreted to be (via supreme court). Such as amend 1- free speech. What is the limit? Well you cant yell fire in a crowded place or insite a riot, obscenity etc.. That is a restriction on the 1st amendment isnt it?. 2nd amend.. Right to bear arms. We are discussing the restrictions now. 4th amend -Unreasonable search and seizures-the patriot act, sneek and peeks, the need not to specify what one is looking for, as stated in the amendment itself, those are restrictions. Whether we like it or not there are limits to our "rights" as americans and although they may not have been in the constitution or the b of R they have been interpreted via the supreme court. Then there are those who are strict constitutionist. Well without intrepretation we would not have many of the rights that we have today. Shoot, if we were stict constitutionist what presidents do is unconstitutional cause the role of the president as described by the framers was that of a person who would only deal with foriegn affairs, not budgets, or appointing judges, only our foriegn affairs.

EDIT: Forget it. I've already been sucked too deep into this. I promised myself I wouldn't get into political debates on the interweb, so I'm going to back out of this one. You win, junior. I'll concede.

I should have phrased it better. The document itself is not dynamic but it is in the way that it is intrepreted. Which it is, there is no argument in that the interpretation of the document does change. We do not follow the constitution word by word. It would be impossible to. That is why the supreme court exists. It has changed in the past and will in the future. Take Roe V. Wade. In the past it was intrepreted that it falls under privacy which also is not "stated" anywhere in the constitution but has been interpreted from the 4th amendment, yet people are afraid that these new conservative judges will "interpret" the constitution in that Roe V. Wade will be reversed.

No win or lose..discussion is great...I just wanted to argue with you so you would get tired and finish my gearbox!...lol...j/k :twisted: :D

I'm at work, you dork. I can't work on your gearbox right now. :?

Since Ukau and Opfor are talking about it can one of you please help me pack. I hate the laws here and Im moving to Alabama. :D 8)

[quote="ARES"]Since Ukau and Opfor are talking about it can one of you please help me pack. I hate the laws here and Im moving to Alabama. :D 8)[/quote]

[quote="ukau"]Exactly..."A well regulated militia". Not individual, citizen, person, etc. I feel that the framers were very intelligent men and that is why they stated "militia". If they wanted to solely express individual citizen they would have done so in detail and I feel thinking otherwise does not give them credit.

Yes that bo :) mb makes u look hella fAT. look at my sniper and mask and hooka smoke, it makes me look tight.

haha your FAT and im TIGHT!!!!

[quote="matt9074"]Yes that bo :) mb makes you look hella fAT. look at my sniper and mask and hooka smoke, it makes me look tight.[/quote]

somehow I don't think it phases him.

Thanks kahn, now I understand. Your right. My mom said I cant play with you anymore, your a bad influence. Sorry. :wink:

Whoa, everything he says is definitely sound. No disagreement what so ever. If only the rest of america could think with such clearty, I mean the as in the far right and far left elements of both parties.