Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo in 2013!!
I'm just sick of so much use of fear to control/manipulate people. Gone are most of the honest conversations between sane individuals. People's heads are so full of half-truths and misrepresented facts that it's hard even discussing basic things anymore. The first thing I do whenever I read any news thing is check a few other sources because I don't know whether I can trust it or not.
Everything has just gotten so vile. It's a really divided nation at this point.
Stupid people are like animals, they react rather than reason. What emotion gets a stronger reaction than fear?
It is really sick how these Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists have taken to harassing families of victims and calling them "crisis actors". I lose faith in humanity daily.
I'm seeing a point being put forth, primarily by Laggy, which I would like to refute.
There's been some mentions about the Bill Of Rights being infallible, that it can not or should not be altered. I beg to differ.
I've got a soft spot for the Bill Of Rights. When I was ten years old, original sheepskin copies of that document toured all fifty state capitols in a bicentennial tour. Even though I wasn't quite at a point in my education where we studied that stuff in depth, Dad took me to see that exhibit... and I guess it stuck. I went on to win my graduating class' Social Studies award, won my countywide Constitution contest and finished in the top half of those peers at the state level, majored in Political Science - including Constitutional Law courses - in college, interned for a U.S. Senator, got named Time's Person of the Year for activism, signed my name to the official papers putting our president on the nationwide ballot... and gave away literally hundreds of pocket Constitutions along the way. I'm no slouch in this department and want to weigh in.
The Bill Of Rights (and all our amendments) exist precisely because our founders realized the Constitution would not be wholly adequate for the unknown factors and circumstances their growing nation would need to address going forward. That's why they included an amendment process in the first place. So, Laggy, can I ask... why is the Constitution to be considered fallible by design while a group of later amendments built upon it should be considered infallible? This makes no sense to me.
I am now going to shoot this line of "amendments are infallible" false reasoning down in flames: The 21st Amendment to the Constitution repealed the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, bringing an end to Prohibition. Now, let me ask you... have any of us here ever consumed alcohol?
Once an amendment does not mean always an amendment. Last time I checked, an amendment is just as much a part of the amendable Constitution as the founders' original text - which, I might add, no longer stands in its entirety either. We The People have options.
Post by Launchpad McQuack on Jan 17, 2013 7:09:28 GMT -5
Deleted four people I was facebook friends with yesterday for posting and defending that conspiracy theory horse shiz. Anybody who believes any of that shiz quacking disgusts me.
5/11/13: Sweetlife Festival
5/16/13: The Flaming Lips
5/20/13: Fitz and the Tantrums
6/7-6/9: Governors Ball
6/13-6/16: Bonnaroo
6/21-23: Firefly (???)
7/11-13 Camp Bisco
8/31-9/1: Made In America
9/27-29 Tomorrowworld (???)
I'm seeing a point being put forth, primarily by Laggy, which I would like to refute.
There's been some mentions about the Bill Of Rights being infallible, that it can not or should not be altered. I beg to differ.
I've got a soft spot for the Bill Of Rights. When I was ten years old, original sheepskin copies of that document toured all fifty state capitols in a bicentennial tour. Even though I wasn't quite at a point in my education where we studied that stuff in depth, Dad took me to see that exhibit... and I guess it stuck. I went on to win my graduating class' Social Studies award, won my countywide Constitution contest and finished in the top half of those peers at the state level, majored in Political Science - including Constitutional Law courses - in college, interned for a U.S. Senator, got named Time's Person of the Year for activism, signed my name to the official papers putting our president on the nationwide ballot... and gave away literally hundreds of pocket Constitutions along the way. I'm no slouch in this department and want to weigh in.
The Bill Of Rights (and all our amendments) exist precisely because our founders realized the Constitution would not be wholly adequate for the unknown factors and circumstances their growing nation would need to address going forward. That's why they included an amendment process in the first place. So, Laggy, can I ask... why is the Constitution to be considered fallible by design while a group of later amendments built upon it should be considered infallible? This makes no sense to me.
I am now going to shoot this line of "amendments are infallible" false reasoning down in flames: The 21st Amendment to the Constitution repealed the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, bringing an end to Prohibition. Now, let me ask you... have any of us here ever consumed alcohol?
Once an amendment does not mean always an amendment. Last time I checked, an amendment is just as much a part of the amendable Constitution as the founders' original text - which, I might add, no longer stands in its entirety either. We The People have options.
The original bill of rights, which is, what... The first 10 amendments? Those amendments in particular are supposed to be our guaranteed rights as citizens. Can it be changed? Maybe. But imo it shouldn't be. If we can strike down the 2nd amendment how long before the 1st and 5th are eroding. Its a slippery slope
No it's not. The 2nd amendment is as archaic as the time it was written in.
"Everyone gets a gun", because in those times everyone was in danger at any point in time of someone literally busting down their door and claiming stuff as their own: foreign government, local government, neighbors, random scum.
They also wrote that law when a drive-by would've had to be done on horseback and you'd need to dismount and spend 60 seconds reloading your weapon and mounting your horse again.
Free speech is not archaic, since "speech" and "free" are words that mean the same thing now as they did then. A firearm then was a musket, so until guys are forced to pour gun powder into their AR-15 before every bullet is fired, I'm balking at the notion that the 2nd amendment is as important as the 1st, or the 5th, or any other one for that matter.
If our right to own firearms is not to be infringed upon, let's start handing out rocket launchers to people. Hey, we can't be hypocritical with these rights. Owning a rocket launcher is as important as voicing my personal/societal/religious/economic/racial/etc. beliefs using words. What a country!
I'm not one of the people who thinks stricter gun laws will prevent mass shootings (it will certainly reduce them, that is for sure), and I'm DEFINITELY not someone who thinks everyone needs assault weapons to protect ourselves from Obama's secret army of Communist robot soldiers or whatever it is that people are afraid of. I'm on the side of increased mental health access and awareness.
I am not a person who leans towards the idea of slippery slopes. I call slippery slopes "progress." As the world and nation evolves and changes, so must we.
All this being said, I could go either way on this issue and be okay with it. On the one hand, I am all about people's individual liberties to pursue their own happiness as long as it does not infringe on others, which is why issues such as gay marriage drive me crazy. I fought with my father about this all the time. How does two men or two women getting married effect YOU? His best answer was that it leads us to a slippery slope. He thinks that if we allow men to marry men and women to marry women, what is to keep him from marrying his dog, or a man to marry two women? I told him that first of all its insulting to so many people to compare homosexuality to bestiality, but secondly, if a man wants to marry two women, still what does that do to you personally? How does that effect your life or change your life?
I think it all comes down to whether or not you are ready or willing to accept change, which the conservative party, by definition, is trying to avoid. Do I think anyone needs an assault weapon? No. I can't personally think of any reason why I would ever need or want something that dangerous around myself or my wife. We don't have any guns in our house. We both know people close to use who used guns to kill themselves. Does that mean I don't want anyone to have guns? No, because if guns make people feel safe or happy, who am I to tell them they can't have them if they are "law-abiding" citizens? It would be hypocritical for me to feel that way. So I get it.
Bottom line, some people feel more comfortable owning or having the ability to own such weapons. I feel more comfortable if I knew there weren't so many out there available. Since there is only one winner in this debate, we need to make a compromise. We need a much larger and stronger mental health care system in place to keep these random acts from happening. We need more programs aimed at getting people out of dire life situations that leave them with nothing to live for but a heart full of rage.
And most of all, I'm tired of seeing every other Facebook message to be a pro-gun/anti-restrictions meme or quote that likens Obama to Hitler. (Aimed at one or two people in particular) Do you really have to post about this over ten times a day?!? Wouldn't one a day suffice, even if that is truly too often? We get it!! You are scared to lose your guns! And guess what? Now I'm afraid to ever visit you at home because you come off as so paranoid and armed that I'm afraid your house will explode or you will accuse me of being "one of them" and be a patriot and kill me.
I'm seeing a point being put forth, primarily by Laggy, which I would like to refute.
There's been some mentions about the Bill Of Rights being infallible, that it can not or should not be altered. I beg to differ.
I've got a soft spot for the Bill Of Rights. When I was ten years old, original sheepskin copies of that document toured all fifty state capitols in a bicentennial tour. Even though I wasn't quite at a point in my education where we studied that stuff in depth, Dad took me to see that exhibit... and I guess it stuck. I went on to win my graduating class' Social Studies award, won my countywide Constitution contest and finished in the top half of those peers at the state level, majored in Political Science - including Constitutional Law courses - in college, interned for a U.S. Senator, got named Time's Person of the Year for activism, signed my name to the official papers putting our president on the nationwide ballot... and gave away literally hundreds of pocket Constitutions along the way. I'm no slouch in this department and want to weigh in.
The Bill Of Rights (and all our amendments) exist precisely because our founders realized the Constitution would not be wholly adequate for the unknown factors and circumstances their growing nation would need to address going forward. That's why they included an amendment process in the first place. So, Laggy, can I ask... why is the Constitution to be considered fallible by design while a group of later amendments built upon it should be considered infallible? This makes no sense to me.
I am now going to shoot this line of "amendments are infallible" false reasoning down in flames: The 21st Amendment to the Constitution repealed the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, bringing an end to Prohibition. Now, let me ask you... have any of us here ever consumed alcohol?
Once an amendment does not mean always an amendment. Last time I checked, an amendment is just as much a part of the amendable Constitution as the founders' original text - which, I might add, no longer stands in its entirety either. We The People have options.
The original bill of rights, which is, what... The first 10 amendments? Those amendments in particular are supposed to be our guaranteed rights as citizens. Can it be changed? Maybe. But imo it shouldn't be. If we can strike down the 2nd amendment how long before the 1st and 5th are eroding. Its a slippery slope
Sent from my LG-MS770 using proboards
Sir. The 1st and 5th amendments have quite literally nothing to do with the right to bear arms. They are completely different laws with completely different legal doctrine/ history. Regulating guns will have ZERO effect on the 1st and 5th amendments. No need to worry.
However, if you're really worried about your 1st Amendment rights, maybe you should speak up about the Patriot Act. Talk about a slippery slope...
Post by iamthehorn on Jan 17, 2013 11:54:53 GMT -5
Your argument makes the implicit assumption that any amendments after #10, you know, little ones like ending slavery and giving women the right to vote, are lesser rights that don't deserve the same reverence as the right to own a gun or not quarter a soilder. That's messed up.
Your argument makes the implicit assumption that any amendments after #10, you know, little ones like ending slavery and giving women the right to vote, are lesser rights that don't deserve the same reverence as the right to own a gun or not quarter a soilder. That's messed up.
Lest forget: The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Post by Dave Maynar on Jan 17, 2013 12:31:32 GMT -5
Things I thought of today (not directed at anyone in particular):
My pro-gun people on facebook have been quoting the sh*t out of the Founding Fathers for the last two days. I wish they would expand their arguments because the Founding Fathers are the architects of the country and did many wonderful things, but they also thought women were incapable of voting properly and it was perfectly legit to own other people.
They also wrote that law when a drive-by would've had to be done on horseback and you'd need to dismount and spend 60 seconds reloading your weapon and mounting your horse again.
Dave, to be fair, that's not necessarily true. Many politicians pass laws that fail to coincide with their personal beliefs b/c their job is to pass laws representing the preferences of their constituents.
Like how Joe Biden "doesn't believe" same sex marriage comports with his Catholic beliefs, but he supports the right anyway because his constituents want same-sex marriage to be legal.
(sorry, I have a soft spot for some of the founders)
Post by Launchpad McQuack on Jan 17, 2013 12:42:11 GMT -5
I would just like to point out that stricter gun laws do not violate the second amendment... The second amendment gives every citizen the right to bare arms. It does not give every citizen the right to buy anything they want. Saying it's illegal to buy a particular type of gun does not infringe on your right to bare arms. You can still own that gun, you just can't buy it or sell it. This is also how we justify making it illegal for citizens to posses nuclear weapons. And I think even the craziest of gun nuts would agree that a private citizen shouldn't own a nuclear weapon (despite it being a form of armament that falls within the second amendment).
5/11/13: Sweetlife Festival
5/16/13: The Flaming Lips
5/20/13: Fitz and the Tantrums
6/7-6/9: Governors Ball
6/13-6/16: Bonnaroo
6/21-23: Firefly (???)
7/11-13 Camp Bisco
8/31-9/1: Made In America
9/27-29 Tomorrowworld (???)
Dave, to be fair, that's not necessarily true. Many politicians pass laws that fail to coincide with their personal beliefs b/c their job is to pass laws representing the preferences of their constituents.
Like how Joe Biden "doesn't believe" same sex marriage comports with his Catholic beliefs, but he supports the right anyway because his constituents want same-sex marriage to be legal.
(sorry, I have a soft spot for some of the founders)
If they had slaves, I think it's pretty much safe to say they were okay with it.
Which Founders do you have a soft spot for? Just curious.
Post by problem dog on Jan 17, 2013 21:54:48 GMT -5
It's crazy hard to amend the Constitution, and addressing a single amendment doesn't make it any easier to amend the other ones. As jimmyroo said, the 2nd amendment in substance has nothing to do with the 1st or 5th amendments, or any of the other ones for that matter. I would argue that it is easily the most dated part of the Bill of Rights, but that argument ultimately doesn't matter because the amendments aren't like dominoes. Nobody is arguing that we should reform the way we alter the Constitution.
The original bill of rights, which is, what... The first 10 amendments? Those amendments in particular are supposed to be our guaranteed rights as citizens.
The rights contained within the Bill Of Rights are as guaranteed to citizens as the base Constitution text and subsequent amendments. No more, no less. Amendments are part of the Constitution as it currently stands. End of discussion. You are drawing a distinction which does not, and needs not, exist.
Can it be changed? Maybe. But imo it shouldn't be.
This is not a maybe, this is a definite yes. I refer you to Article 5, which outlines the Amendment process. Your pronouncement that it shouldn't be is purely subjective, and dare I say it, contrary to the founding intent as expressed within the Constitution itself. This isn't some irrelevant part of the Constitution you are questioning. It is the very one which allows us to have a Bill Of Rights at all.
If we can strike down the 2nd amendment how long before the 1st and 5th are eroding. Its a slippery slope
I'm not going to directly accuse you of participating in the phenomenon itself, but your comment here sounds rather reminiscent of an excessively paranoid niche within American politics. This is not a discussion of eliminating the Second Amendment altogether. Those who make this out to be the case are alarmists, and in my opinion coming from the same part of the political spectrum which has been crying "The sky is falling!" for as long as I can remember without the sky ever actually falling.
This is about how to legislate in a manner which is consistent with both the public interest ("promote the general welfare" ring a bell?) and the individual right to bear arms within reason. It shouldn't be about whether to end the Second Amendment, but rather how to mend the Second Amendment.
(At which point, this rant kind of goes in a direction other than this direct reply and as such will occupy another post on the page...)
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a gree State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Am I the only one who finds this actual text to be a bit awkward? I can see how the first and second clauses fit together, and I can see how the third and fourth clauses fit together... but something about it just seems like it could use a bit of grammatical massaging at the very least. It just seems to me like one of the more (if not most) difficult sentences to read in the entire document. It just seems like it's missing a certain je ne sais quoi to me. Or is it just me?
With today being the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade (which im sure you know), I'm extremely glad you posted that. I was trying to think of something to say, but that poster sums it all up.
With today being the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade (which im sure you know), I'm extremely glad you posted that. I was trying to think of something to say, but that poster sums it all up.
That's why I shared it. I get kind of shrill about this since Randall Terry barged in on an interdenominational service I was at with his attitude and his bullhorn.
Random question for the guys: How many of us have heard an account of a procedure and the decision-making process that went behind it firsthand from a woman who's been through it?
Just curious.
I know I somehow made it into my thirties before I ever did.
