quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: lickenforyou

In the case of TSA searches, I believe Mr Adams would be more concerned about not shittin his pants because he was about to get on a machine that would take him 30,000 feet in the air and across the country in 5 hours at 600 mph.

I disagree with this. 

The founding father's were not a bunch of ignoramuses.  I think he would be amazed.  Feelings of wonderment.  But not freaked out. 

It is not like he would be unable to follow the general science principles involved.

However, I think that he would look at our prison population and say, "Why have you not just hung most of these miscreants?"

quote:

Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: lickenforyou

I love it when people say they know what the founding fathers would think about a particular issue.

Hardly I know what the founding so called fathers SAID!   You are the one who is trying to construct what they would THINK!

In the case of TSA searches, I believe Mr Adams would be more concerned

you have NOTHING to draw that conclusion with but your vivid imaginaation

about not shittin his pants because he was about to get on a machine that would take him 30,000 feet in the air and across the country in 5 hours at 600 mph.

And I love it when people talk about the second amendment but only cite the last part of the sentence.

I love it when people misconstrue the second amendment and pretend its only for the purpose of the state.

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.

From that they somehow conclude that our fore fathers thought that all Americans have the right to keep a nuclear warhead in the basement.

Arms do you think they did not have bombs in those days?  You know bombs are weapons of mass destruction that are classified as ARMS? 

Of course hardware makes a difference and societies do evolve.

No they dont, only the hardware evolves.  To say that is a complete disconnect from the reality of the human nature and merely wishful thinking that you cannot provide any evidence to support and if you feel you can please do as I am very interested in reviewing this sort of phenomena.

If you only have a knife at a gunfight do you think you will win?  The word arms was used for precisely that purpose and if you are not aware people can buy nukes. LOL  Course they start at about a mil and a half...

You get that kind of solid footed knowledge by reading the history

They do not use the word knives, bows and arrows, and only in rare occasion guns, they use the word arms.  I hope I do not have to explain the word arms to you.


Alabama : Constitution of 1819

SEC. 23. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State.


Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777 (1)

XV. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Rhode Island; May 29, 1790

17th That the people have a right to keep and bear arms, that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state; that the militia shall not be subject to martial law except in time of war, rebellion or insurrection; that standing armies in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that at all times the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power; that in time of peace no soldier ought to be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, and in time of war, only by the civil magistrate, in such manner as the law directs.

I threw this last on here just for shitties and giggles and after posting it thought I better explain because I know that few if any of you would catch the meaning.

The army is to be under the civil power....  well guess what el-prezzyudante----with a title of the commander-and-chief doesnt sound real civilian now does it.  LOL

Of course like the land titles lets not believe the words lets believe what teacher martha taught us in 5th grade LOL

Any other homework you would like me to do for you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lickenforyou

You had me at "Heartless Bitch"

quote:

ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

However, I think that he would look at our prison population and say, "Why have you not just hung most of these miscreants?"

Amen!  I love that!

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
Now, could you please provide specific examples (links to their own words and not just your interpretations) of where they were loudly supporting that the government be able to read email, tap phones and search bank accounts... and ones where they are raving angry about TSA patdowns?

quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
Now, could you please provide specific examples (links to their own words and not just your interpretations) of where they were loudly supporting that the government be able to read email, tap phones and search bank accounts... and ones where they are raving angry about TSA patdowns?

Here is Charles Krauthammer in his own words supporting warrantless wiretapping;

Here is Charles Krauthammer in his own words supporting "enhanced interrogation";

Here is Charles Krauthammer- again in his own words- shrieking about the TSA in "Don't Touch My Junk"

Here is Rush Limbaugh (he is somewhat influential in conservative circles) supporting warrantless wiretapping;

Here is Rush Limbaugh supporting "enhanced interrogation";

Here is Rush Limbaugh shrieking about the TSA in "Don't Touch My Teabag!"

Here is a link to Michelle Malkin's blog proudly supporting warrantless wiretapping;

Now here is a link to the very same Michelle Malkin shrieking about the TSA patdowns;

This was the result of a few minutes of Googling- I could go on and on, but really, wtf? Do you think I just make this shit up?

I mean, what is your argument here- are you arguing that the conservative movement did not support the enlargement of government power for the past decade?

Or are you trying to argue that the conservative movement is not also leading the complaints about the TSA patdowns?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
Honestly... can you say that you seriously don't see any difference in those things: wiretapping international calls of suspected al Qaeda agents, enhanced interrogation of apprehended terrorist suspects, and physically searching everyone who boards an aircraft?

We've gone from "innocent until proven guilty (or a reasonable suspicion of guilt)" to "guilty (or presumed guilt) until proven innocent".

quote:

ORIGINAL: lickenforyou

I love it when people say they know what the founding fathers would think about a particular issue.

Hardly I know what the founding so called fathers SAID!   You are the one who is trying to construct what they would THINK!

This was in response to the OP.

well then maybe the OP will respond back to you?

In the case of TSA searches, I believe Mr Adams would be more concerned

you have NOTHING to draw that conclusion with but your vivid imaginaation

That was said sort of tongue in cheek.

Sorry not a mind reader.

I love it when people misconstrue the second amendment and pretend its only for the purpose of the state.

That is laughable. I simply posted the second amendment.

quote:

From that they somehow conclude that our fore fathers thought that all Americans have the right to keep a nuclear warhead in the basement.

oh you big fibber!

Arms do you think they did not have bombs in those days?  You know bombs are weapons of mass destruction that are classified as ARMS? 

They did not have bombs that could destroy entire cities. Come on man, use your head.

Neither can you afford one. and if they did it would not change the wording.  Hell I bet you have no clue why its even in there to begin with.    LOL

Of course hardware makes a difference and societies do evolve.

No they dont, only the hardware evolves.

This may be your most ignorant statement. Of course societies evolve. We no longer burn witches at the stake. You guys run them for office now (that is an attempt at humor in case you missed it again).

Thats not how I meant it but its not important so have it your way.

We have stopped, for the most part, lynching black men. You can still beat up a queer but if you get caught you could get in trouble.

No we (as in your evolved society) lynch muslims nowdays.

As for the STATE constitutions that you posted segments of. We were arguing the constitution of the United States.

Step away from Google and do some serious thinking on your own.

quote:

No we (as in your evolved society) lynch muslims nowdays.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: lickenforyou

I love it when people say they know what the founding fathers would think about a particular issue.

Hardly I know what the founding so called fathers SAID!   You are the one who is trying to construct what they would THINK!

This was in response to the OP.

well then maybe the OP will respond back to you?

In the case of TSA searches, I believe Mr Adams would be more concerned

you have NOTHING to draw that conclusion with but your vivid imaginaation

That was said sort of tongue in cheek.

Sorry not a mind reader.

I love it when people misconstrue the second amendment and pretend its only for the purpose of the state.

That is laughable. I simply posted the second amendment.

quote:

From that they somehow conclude that our fore fathers thought that all Americans have the right to keep a nuclear warhead in the basement.

oh you big fibber!

Arms do you think they did not have bombs in those days?  You know bombs are weapons of mass destruction that are classified as ARMS? 

They did not have bombs that could destroy entire cities. Come on man, use your head.

Neither can you afford one. and if they did it would not change the wording.  Hell I bet you have no clue why its even in there to begin with.    LOL

Of course hardware makes a difference and societies do evolve.

No they dont, only the hardware evolves.

This may be your most ignorant statement. Of course societies evolve. We no longer burn witches at the stake. You guys run them for office now (that is an attempt at humor in case you missed it again).

Thats not how I meant it but its not important so have it your way.

We have stopped, for the most part, lynching black men. You can still beat up a queer but if you get caught you could get in trouble.

No we (as in your evolved society) lynch muslims nowdays.

As for the STATE constitutions that you posted segments of. We were arguing the constitution of the United States.

Step away from Google and do some serious thinking on your own.

You were?

Give it a rest man, if you want understand something the usual methodology is to turn to other sources.  Sorry if it blew your fantasy position out of the water.

I gave you yale law library as a nice place to start, might try it.  google books is another really good source to get a better understanding of what makes the world tick.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
However, I think that he would look at our prison population and say, "Why have you not just hung most of these miscreants?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomImus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
However, I think that he would look at our prison population and say, "Why have you not just hung most of these miscreants?"

Tell me about it. I think the founding fathers would let out one huge collective cringe at the way the Constitution's protections for honest, decent citizens have been twisted to protect the rights of scumbag criminals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lickenforyou
This whole thing is getting too convoluted. I will address what's most important to me in this post and we can take on the second Amendment in another post.

I believe the constitution should reflect the times. If society evolves, and technology evolves, then the constitution must evolve. That is kind of the point of the whole amendment process isn't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: lickenforyou
This whole thing is getting too convoluted. I will address what's most important to me in this post and we can take on the second Amendment in another post.

I believe the constitution should reflect the times. If society evolves, and technology evolves, then the constitution must evolve. That is kind of the point of the whole amendment process isn't it?

no its not convoluted at all.  the second you walk through one of those things pr allow yourself to be patted down without probable cause you just made an implied contract waiving your 4th amendment rights, period.  Not only for that but at large.  They can now construe the matter unless you have a contract with them stating otherwise.

Its not convoluted at all its law.  People think all kinds of strange crap about the constitution and believe all kinds of crap about the constitution and in the end its not about your fleeting beliefs its about and derived from the foundation of natural law (well the bill of rights anyway) that dates back centuries.

Once you throw it away its hell to get back.  If that woman in the OP feels its ok to disect her well that her business but when lots of people "feel" its ok then it becomes a problem for those of us who do not as those of us who do not wind up doing it at the end of the barrel of a gun because people like yourselves have no respect for your rights and they try to suck people like us into the system accepted by people like you.

Since you think this that and the other about the constitution tell me if you are one of the People or one of the people?  Can you tell me?  

quote:

ORIGINAL: takemeforyourown

Yes, Here here, let's just change the Constitution to reflect our current fads and whims. Today, we are terrified of underwear bombers, tomorrow we will be terrified of aliens. Let's just fuck the whole Constitution. Liberty is overrated anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomImus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
However, I think that he would look at our prison population and say, "Why have you not just hung most of these miscreants?"

Tell me about it. I think the founding fathers would let out one huge collective cringe at the way the Constitution's protections for honest, decent citizens have been twisted to protect the rights of scumbag criminals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lickenforyou

quote:

ORIGINAL: takemeforyourown

Yes, Here here, let's just change the Constitution to reflect our current fads and whims. Today, we are terrified of underwear bombers, tomorrow we will be terrified of aliens. Let's just fuck the whole Constitution. Liberty is overrated anyway.

Please get serious. 3000 dead due to hijacked airplanes is hardly a fad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lickenforyou

I don't see it as an unreasonable search. You don't have to get on an airplane. It's not like you're walking down the street, or sitting at home and you're subjected to a search. If you think that it is an unreasonable search you can challenge it in the courts.