Jan 9 - War on the American people? Obama exploring executive orders to combat gun violence. (CNN)

most viewed right now
 106
Image(s) inside Yall thought Twitter on Big Sean was bad? Check out the comments about..
70 comments
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 62
Image(s) inside Learn the difference between a DR. Wife and a "Boxden Simp Thot"!
35 comments
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 62
Image(s) inside Sorry Em This Not It I Mean At Least You Tried
131 comments
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 56
NBA JAYSON TATUMS CAREER IS OFFICIALLY OVER :mjdamn:
52 comments
@sports

section   (0 bx goons and 1 bystanders) Share this on Twitter   Share this on Facebook
 

Props Slaps
 01-10-2013, 03:47 PM         #121
Bob Sacamano 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 psylence2k said:
In that quote specifically he doesn't go on to elaborate on the distinction but every time the word "constitution" is mentioned in both quotes it almost is always followed by a "and/or" and then the term laws.

So I think it's pretty safe to indicate he believed there was a distinction instead of them being interchangeable or synonymous. Now the rest of your statement pretty much explains the rest by saying the difference in between the treatment of the two are vast, with the constitution being treated as an unalterable authoritative work that out of tradition instead of practicality is kept from revising.

That's the ironic thing that the main advocate of the Bill of Rights which included the second amendment strongly believed that laws made by particular human beings at particular times became quickly antiquated (in his opinion , 19 years ) he understood how society and a nation vastly changed over time and believed laws AND constitutions should be reconsidered in their entirety after a certain period of time, yet this country is full of people that swear the constitution is a timeless and flawless piece of work that should remain unaltered even though certain components of it are almost 250 years old. To unquestionably follow 200 year old guide lines without taking heed to the warnings of the writer is like trying to operate a piece of machinery while neglecting the owner's manual.

Though it seems that certain politicians deceptively alter the constitution when they feel it's convenient for them, just like how the interpretation of the 2nd amendment was much closer to its' literal form until 2008 when the Supreme court changed it. So now it's being both interpreted AND enforced out of the context and purpose of which it was written.

I think Jefferson would agree that being unquestionably bound to the 240 year old constitution he wrote has dangerously turned this country's freedoms into handcuffs.
I was with you until that last statement. What is the evidence to support that statement? I don't see it.
 01-10-2013, 03:50 PM         #122
Bob Sacamano 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 kreuzberg61 said:
If you are right, the whole 'militia' argument falters. All those civilian guns would be superfluous then.

UN soldiers vs the American people? You must be smoking that good crack my breh

Only in America you will find people who are defending their right to own their little murder machines. Not saying this is bad. But certainly a singularity in this world.
You prick.
 5 years ago '06        #123
Yung Dilla 1478 heat pts1478
space
avatar space
space
$54,888 | Props total: 25676 25676
I'm not giving mine up. I got 3 including a glock I just bought.
 01-10-2013, 03:53 PM         #124
Bob Sacamano 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 kreuzberg61 said:
The right to defend yourself is not the same as the right to bear arms.

In fact, I think it is allowed in every country on this world to defend oneself against an unlawful attack.
And there's no overlap with the right to bear arms huh? Cause every ordinary shmuck should be Bruce Lee when defending themselves? Thats a joke.
 5 years ago '08        #125
arthurmack27 8 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$4,934 | Props total: 687 687
 killya said:
It doesnt have to be the 1700's. I understand what ur saying though. They do have enough power to take over already. Also the numerous sh*t thats in secret.

But whatever. They try to knock on doors asking for law abiding citizens to turn their guns in theres going to be alot of dead police and military men. Gun nuts down south do not play. They take the Constitution sh*t to another level.
guns wont disappear immediately but we have to start somewhere. every time a gun gets is obtained by law enforcement, melt it into a block...one gun at a time, saving one life at a time. itll take time but it also took time for millions of guns to flood america.
 01-10-2013, 03:59 PM         #126
killya 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 arthurmack27 said:
guns wont disappear immediately but we have to start somewhere. every time a gun gets is obtained by law enforcement, melt it into a block...one gun at a time, saving one life at a time. itll take time but it also took time for millions of guns to flood america.
1 life at a time? Yea thats not going to work. Ill turn my guns in when law enforcement starts turning their guns in. Then we can talk. Till then im keeping them locked away.
 01-10-2013, 04:00 PM         #127
Bob Sacamano 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 TheMindOf said:
They were the "best soldiers in the world" but technologically, they weren't that far ahead of us.

They had guns. We had guns.

They had bayonets. We had em.

They had cannons, We had cannons.


It aint like the Colonies only had muskets and England had drones, jets, missiles etc and we still won.

Their artillery was not so advanced that they were impossible to beat. It's not the same time anymore.

The government would massacre you gun nuts.






This is a.ssuming that EVERY person with a gun is a f!ghter and would be down for the cause.

All it would take is a few drone attacks destroying a couple of neighborhoods and half those people getting scared and falling back in line automatically.

Then all the other gun nuts get wiped out in less than a month. Game Over.
THats one potential scenario yeah, hah. A depressing one, but in that scenario I'm pretty sure the outrage would erupt and they would have to bomb their own entire country to 'win' and then what have they really won? These hypotheticals are funny, I'm just saying imagine a populous that has no access to guns, other than the 1-2% that is able to acquire them illegally. In any kind of serious situation the general populous is fu*ked, they would have to be subservient at least with guns we can f!ght for our freedom even if we lose in the end.
 01-10-2013, 04:03 PM         #128
WordOnThaStreet 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
executive order aka dictatorship in action
 01-10-2013, 04:19 PM         #129
Bob Sacamano 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 nightmare said:
did this cat really use a movie based on a comic book, to address a real world scenario?

secondly 295 million well not be f!ghting dumbass

more than half the US population is women and children to begin with

secondly not everyone agrees with you

thirdly, only a few people are brolic enough to even want to f!ght, most people will do what they are told

if your logic made sense, the govt would have been overthrown decades ago

Nah, cause we have a democracy and its pretty good, there is no need for revolt. I'm just sayin if there was, the people are fu*ked if they have no guns.
 5 years ago '05        #130
StateProperty88 34 heat pts34
space
avatar space
space
$39,881 | Props total: 8403 8403
 aclockworkred71 said:
So you disagree with my analogy? You wait for the last line of defense to defend your soil? I disagree, as a father I feel the individual should bear arms regardless of the help behind him (this also includes your every day incident where anti-gun idiots claim the police is your protection).

Anyways all I have to say to the rest is that it isn't far fetched or extreme, I am not a government conspiracy preacher, but I sure as hell am not naive, it is very possible and therefore has to be considered imo.
i dont disagree with your analogy, i disagree with the notion of certainty that the army would just join us if that time every came, but that wasnt really your argument to begin with (at least not that i saw)
 01-10-2013, 04:28 PM         #131
cloud69 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
the point is terribly being missed...gun control is the issue at hand yes. but to me the real underlying issue is the government being big brother and telling us what we can and cant have....lets be honest no sensible person actually believes that owning a gun makes u a k!ller. if u felt like going on a k!lling spree u could run in a school with a knife and go to work...

i have guns, i love guns and no i dont think they should be taken away but im no gun nut as u all keep throwing around, im a car nut. so lets put it in perspective, lets say its high performance cars and aftermarket parts they are trying to ban. if thats your thing then u (like me) is going to go ham...but to the people that could careless abt that stuff its like waterer. OR lets say they want to make it where the internet is controlled by the government and sites like BOXDEN are banned, if ure passionate abt anything then ure going to be up in a p!ss abt it too...

so stop with all the gun nut stuff and think abt it as people trying to protect our rights, and the little "freedom" we have left in the sorry sh*t of a country. because thats what they are f!ghting for, its not abt guns its abt the govt. controlling and deciding whats best for us. because i know alot of u who get on bx solely for pr0n will be ready to bomb the senate if pr0n was made illegal because they decide that the excessively easy access to pr0n is the cause for all the r*pes and s3xual crimes.
 5 years ago '12        #132
Di Warlord 8 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$11,499 | Props total: 10960 10960
 TheMindOf said:
Guy. This aint the 1700's

You think if the government wants too instate Martial Law your Wal-Mart gun is gonna protect you from drone strikes, f!ghter jets, missiles and all the other weaponry they have that you DONT.


If the government wanted to do it, they would still do it and there's really nothing that you can do about it.

That's why all this paranoia is retarded.


dude, you REALLY think that they would start drone striking and start sending missiles and f!ghter jets to the hoods of America? They don't care enough about anybody but the rich people for that sh*t to start happening
 5 years ago '10        #133
Trilluminati GA 433 heat pts433
space
avatar space
space
$49,866 | Props total: 13661 13661

#soon
 01-10-2013, 04:58 PM         #134
Bob Sacamano 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 RAZAH CUTS said:
Gun nuts man...

Lol.. So now Obama is fu*kin Stalin and Mao? Are y'all fu*kin kidding me?

There's murders and damn near lawlessness in fu*king Chicago, Newark, Detroit, Baltimore, Cleveland and a host of other new cities all over the country and ppl still wanna delay what needs to be done..

Frankly it's not that surprising, they've never cared about what happens in the hood, and but bow that all these mass shootings are happening in the burbs, you'd think they'd make some moves and just let it happen..
What needs to be done son? Arn't you referring to mostly illegal guns? Its just like drugs, there is no way to stop the flow, you can make strict laws but people will break the law, often cleverly and avoid being caught breaking the law, so what exactly is supposed to happen again? An instant solution to the urban crime environment? If you know of one lets here it.
 01-10-2013, 05:05 PM         #135
Bob Sacamano 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 WordOnThaStreet said:
executive order aka dictatorship in action
exactly that is my whole thing with this story, I don't own a gun, I'm just a poli-sci major and Obama better not have the balls to pull that sh*t.
 5 years ago '06        #136
nightmare 429 heat pts429
space
avatar space
space
$13,073 | Props total: 37 37
 Bob Sacamano said:
Destroyed is a stretch, its an unknown, I know there were key conflicts where we got help. I also know it was guerilla warfare from a well armed militia with strategic planning that beat the Brits. I guess just consider what the American population was then compared to what it is now if we are imagining civil war scenarios.
the point is, the americans would have lost without the french

and the other fallacy, is that you are a.ssuming that everyone is going to be on the same page. a very large population of this country is anti-gun. a 2nd civil war would be extremely long and devastating to this country, no true winners in my opinion, but i think the fed govt would win ultimately
 5 years ago '06        #137
nightmare 429 heat pts429
space
avatar space
space
$13,073 | Props total: 37 37
 Yung Dilla said:
I'm not giving mine up. I got 3 including a glock I just bought.
i got no problem with that, but for arguments sake, would you die for those 3 guns?
 5 years ago '06        #138
nightmare 429 heat pts429
space
avatar space
space
$13,073 | Props total: 37 37
 Di Warlord said:
dude, you REALLY think that they would start drone striking and start sending missiles and f!ghter jets to the hoods of America? They don't care enough about anybody but the rich people for that sh*t to start happening
he meant in the event of a revolution or insurgency against the govt

if they really wanted to pacify the hoods, all they would need is a military presence to be honest, its not that serious, but like said, they dont care enough
 5 years ago '05        #139
SquirrelXss 2 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$10,933 | Props total: 1383 1383
Im not giving up any of my guns.

Most of the people that call me a "gun nut" never even shot a gun in thier life. 2nd amendment protects the 1st amendment. What happens when they change one amendment? Then the precident is set to change the others.

Some people are just naive, we do not, and will never live in a utopia. sh*t is gonna happen regardless of laws.
 5 years ago '06        #140
nightmare 429 heat pts429
space
avatar space
space
$13,073 | Props total: 37 37
 SquirrelXss said:
Im not giving up any of my guns.

Most of the people that call me a "gun nut" never even shot a gun in thier life. 2nd amendment protects the 1st amendment. What happens when they change one amendment? Then the precident is set to change the others.

Some people are just naive, we do not, and will never live in a utopia. sh*t is gonna happen regardless of laws.
you willing to die for your guns? question isnt loaded, im curious
Home      
  
 

 






most viewed right now
 30
Video inside The Administration Kicked Me Out But I Went Round Back On They A@%
36 comments
2 days ago
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
 23
Image(s) inside 19 yo Becky with a phatty 🍑
99 comments
2 days ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 21
BOX Mayweather reveals comeback offer, fighting in ufc; poppin mad sh*t:"th..
67 comments
1 day ago
@sports
most viewed right now
 15
Image(s) inside P0rnstar Skyy Black IG Pics
79 comments
2 days ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 10
Image(s) inside X-MEN return to Marvel Studios in less than 48 hours
86 comments
1 day ago
@movies
most viewed right now
 9
Image(s) inside Who's jumping on this Tron(Trx) Spaceship??
89 comments
1 day ago
@misc
most viewed right now
 8
Image(s) inside Letís keep it real: is she a 6 in your area?
57 comments
1 day ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 5
Dec 11 - The bubble is here: People taking out mortgages to cop bitcoins
256 comments
2 days ago
@news
back to top
register contact Follow BX @ Twitter Follow BX @ Facebook search BX privacy