Timmay loves facebook lol

[sabresfaninthesouth]

In 1994 in MA they passed a law that said "no high capacity guns shall be sold in this state"

That meant that the highest amount of ammo that a gun can legally hold in MA is 8. Who has the right to tell me what type of gun I wish to own. Luckily they grandfathered all weapons pre ban. Thus I still carry my glock 19 with 15 in the clip and one in the tube.

That is shrinking of rights. I am greatly against anyone telling me what I can or cant do as far as my rights granted to us by the Declaration of Independence

Not here to start a gun-control debate, more a reasoned debate on Constitutional theory, if anything. But it is still opinion to call that a shrinking of rights, not a fact (I'm putting together elements of this post and your prior post, so if this is not one of those factual shrinkings you were referring to, my apologies).

There is a reasonable debate that's made on both sides of the argument related to many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd amendment.

Under originalist theory, one could argue that you never had a right to anything more than a single shot musket because that's what was generally understood as "arms" at the time that the Constitution was written.

Under the strict language theory, one could argue that you have a right to own anything and everything that could be classified as "arms" and that this definition of "arms" would evolve over time to include machines guns, high capacity magazines, etc. On the extreme end of this interpretation (which I don't think any sane person holds, just the theoretical extreme) is that any American has the right to own a nuclear warhead.

Then there's another opinion wherein people take the two halves of the second amendment together and argue that the right to bear arms is only guaranteed to those serving in militias and not to the average Joe on the street.

And of course it's generally understood for a large portion of the amendments (most frequently cited in the context of the 1st, 2nd, and 4th) that the rights of the individual guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are not absolute when they endanger other's rights. The most famous example cited being that you can't yell FIRE! in a crowded theory. It's also the same reason you can't carry a gun into an airport, courthouse, etc. and the exigent circumstance exception to the search and seizure rules.

 

[elocomotive]

Not here to start a gun-control debate, more a reasoned debate on Constitutional theory, if anything. But it is still opinion to call that a shrinking of rights, not a fact (I'm putting together elements of this post and your prior post, so if this is not one of those factual shrinkings you were referring to, my apologies).

There is a reasonable debate that's made on both sides of the argument related to many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd amendment.

Under originalist theory, one could argue that you never had a right to anything more than a single shot musket because that's what was generally understood as "arms" at the time that the Constitution was written.

Under the strict language theory, one could argue that you have a right to own anything and everything that could be classified as "arms" and that this definition of "arms" would evolve over time to include machines guns, high capacity magazines, etc. On the extreme end of this interpretation (which I don't think any sane person holds, just the theoretical extreme) is that any American has the right to own a nuclear warhead.

Then there's another opinion wherein people take the two halves of the second amendment together and argue that the right to bear arms is only guaranteed to those serving in militias and not to the average Joe on the street.

And of course it's generally understood for a large portion of the amendments (most frequently cited in the context of the 1st, 2nd, and 4th) that the rights of the individual guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are not absolute when they endanger other's rights. The most famous example cited being that you can't yell FIRE! in a crowded theory. It's also the same reason you can't carry a gun into an airport, courthouse, etc. and the exigent circumstance exception to the search and seizure rules.

What a reasonable, well thought out post..... NEGGED!! REPORTED!!!

 

[SLY]

 

[elocomotive]

In 1994 in MA they passed a law that said "no high capacity guns shall be sold in this state"

That meant that the highest amount of ammo that a gun can legally hold in MA is 8. Who has the right to tell me what type of gun I wish to own. Luckily they grandfathered all weapons pre ban. Thus I still carry my glock 19 with 15 in the clip and one in the tube.

That is shrinking of rights. I am greatly against anyone telling me what I can or cant do as far as my rights granted to us by the Declaration of Independence

 

[elocomotive]

Too many big words?

 

[SLY]

The way arms are monitored and the way it is viewed as a "privelege" is perfect right now. It would be completely unconstitutional to take that privelege/right away. As well as the other extreme of allowing someone to own a gun that could mow down a whole shopping mall.

I would even back a bill that would force the process to be even more thorough and hard to achieve a permit to handle ANY gun to avoid guns falling into the wrong hands. As well as making the penalty extremely greater for carrying a firearm illegally.

 

[SLY]

Too many big words?

Don't make me backhand you.

 

[elocomotive]

Don't make me backhand you.

Ruh roh....

 

[SLY]

 

[elocomotive]

I may be a dumb ass, but I'm not stupid enough to take on a guy with a gun.

 

[SLY]

haha, I cant see the vid.

 

[filosofy29]

I think it's hypocritical to come onto a message board and post your opinions saying Thomas shouldn't be going onto a message board to post his opinions. And save the "he's a professional athlete" crap. We all have careers so that makes us professionals also. Considering that only 25-30% of Americans even turn out to vote, yet 95% bitch about the government in one way or another makes me applaud Thomas even more. As I said before, everyday our government makes laws to take more and more of our freedoms away from us. This isn't opinion, it's a fact. We pay their salaries and they don't do what we want from them.

Why is it hypocritical? Tim Thomas didn't hide his identity by posting his thoughts as BruinsLover30. He let his stance be known on a public forum and then now doesn't want to answer questions about it. If I posted under my first name and last name on here and then I caught flack for my opinions, I'd be stupid to be upset about it. It's.....just.....gonna.....happen.

And can you really not differentiate between professional athletes, celebrities, musicians and professional laymen? There's a huge difference. They love the money that comes with the profession and some love the fame/press. Thomas likes to say controversial things in a public place and doesn't like being questioned on it. Once again, if you don't like the heat get your ass out of the kitchen. I have no problem if he wants to skip the White House. That was his own choice and I respect that. However, later when he went on his own accord to write a terrible analogy on a public forum using his own name.....well, you gotta answer the bell. Maybe it's just because my dad is a Marine and always told me (paraphrased of course) "you can do whatever you want, but you better damn well be accountable when the time comes". I'm sorry, but celebrities (and that's what professional athletes are nowadays) get zero sympathy from me when they premeditate saying controversial things and then tuck tail when the media bus comes running through.

I 100% agree with everything you said about the government AND the people who bitch that don't vote lol. So we got that going for us.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

just heard on the radio that Thomas will be writing a book (according to Eliotte Friedman)

i can see it it now ... "Tim Thomas, in his own words"

page 1: please refer to my facebook page

 

[puckhead]

just heard on the radio that Thomas will be writing a book (according to Eliotte Friedman)

i can see it it now ... "Tim Thomas, in his own words"

page 1: please refer to my facebook page

page 2: and I'm not going to say anymore about it

page 3: THIS BOOK IS OVER!!!

 

[dash]

Maybe it's just because my dad is a Marine.

Your dad is John Cena?!? Cool.

 

[filosofy29]

Your dad is John Cena?!? Cool.

lol, can't see the picture, but my dad.....John Cena he's not (too bad, I could use some more muscles). I've just learned that if you call a Marine an "ex-Marine" they give you shit eternally, lol. A couple of my buddies and my dad (all no longer active) never let me live that down.

 

[Darkstone42]

I worked for a Marine once. It was awesome.

 

[Comeds]

just heard on the radio that Thomas will be writing a book (according to Eliotte Friedman)

i can see it it now ... "Tim Thomas, in his own words"

page 1: please refer to my facebook page

page 2: and I'm not going to say anymore about it

page 3: THIS BOOK IS OVER!!!

Page 4: I'll have a new book out next month, but I don't want to talk about it.

 

[Eddie_Shack]

Page 5: My book publisher wants my book out before next summer. Swiiiiing lowww... sweet charrriot.....

 

[beantownmaniac]

Why is it hypocritical? Tim Thomas didn't hide his identity by posting his thoughts as BruinsLover30. He let his stance be known on a public forum and then now doesn't want to answer questions about it. If I posted under my first name and last name on here and then I caught flack for my opinions, I'd be stupid to be upset about it. It's.....just.....gonna.....happen.

And can you really not differentiate between professional athletes, celebrities, musicians and professional laymen? There's a huge difference. They love the money that comes with the profession and some love the fame/press. Thomas likes to say controversial things in a public place and doesn't like being questioned on it. Once again, if you don't like the heat get your ass out of the kitchen. I have no problem if he wants to skip the White House. That was his own choice and I respect that. However, later when he went on his own accord to write a terrible analogy on a public forum using his own name.....well, you gotta answer the bell. Maybe it's just because my dad is a Marine and always told me (paraphrased of course) "you can do whatever you want, but you better damn well be accountable when the time comes". I'm sorry, but celebrities (and that's what professional athletes are nowadays) get zero sympathy from me when they premeditate saying controversial things and then tuck tail when the media bus comes running through.

I 100% agree with everything you said about the government AND the people who bitch that don't vote lol. So we got that going for us.

Hey, the media can ask him anything they want, and he has the right to not answer if he chooses to. when he's at work, ask him work related questions. I think it's ridiculous to keep badgering him about his opinion on the Catholic church not wanting to provide birth control to it's employees. I don't think the government has the right to tell ANYONE they have to provide that. Like I said, WE pay their salaries. They shouldn't be forcing us to do shit we don't want to do. I don't see what the big deal is about what Thomas thinks. It's pretty pathetic when people let athletes, musicians, entertainers views affect their opinion. When I saw Ted Nugent in concert, I went to hear his music and when he started giving his political opinion, I wanted him to shut up even though I agreed with a lot of what he said. The only people who's political opinion I care about is are the people we put in office that can affect the laws. I could give 2 shits what Thomas thinks, or any other celebrity. By the way, read this again and think about it:

I think it's hypocritical to come onto a message board and post your opinions saying Thomas shouldn't be going onto a message board to post his opinions.

That's what I think is hypocritical.