Does anyone know where NinjaNick has been?

[Kosmo]

[jagr]

She must have caught him with a bag of Cheetos and a bottle of lube.

Cheesedick.

[kawi kid]

Yes but he posts ALL the time. Plus, it was his bday the other day. I sent him a happy bday with with no response. He was always sending me pm's. I was just making sure he wasn't injured and laying up in a hospital somewhere.

Well the weather is beautiful and I left the hospital at noon today so i'm hoppin on my bike. See ya all lata!!!

i didnt get a pm

[John]

maybe wifey got pissed b/c he was sending private messages to other girls...

[Fonzie]

Todd#43 nick gave me a special message for you, he said he will always be your BFF, (best friend forever).

Does that title come with any extra "responsibilites" or does Todd have to buy Nick a "gift"?!? How does Todd go about "breaking it off" if he finds he doesn't like Nick or his posts anymore???

[e-flores]

fonzie I just read you obama quote in your sig. It made me lol, but the worst part is he actually said that. The man is a complete moron:nono:

You guys can go back being concerned with nick now:D

[kawi kid]

agreed

[Todd#43]

Does that title come with any extra "responsibilites" or does Todd have to buy Nick a "gift"?!? How does Todd go about "breaking it off" if he finds he doesn't like Nick or his posts anymore???

Yeah...that would be one I'd refuse. It's really no secret that I don't care for the guy so much.

If you're wondering why, I'd be happy to repost the 57 private messages he's sent me.

What a tool....

[fusion]

Actually the quote is:

"I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right," ---Obama

And technically he's correct. There's a reason the McCain camp doesn't make this a huge issue, they know it's correct also.

[Todd#43]

Actually the quote is:

"I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right," ---Obama

And technically he's correct. There's a reason the McCain camp doesn't make this a huge issue, they know it's correct also.

Care to explain how this is correct? As it applies to the second amendment, of course.

..."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

and further:

con·strain

1.to force, compel, or oblige: He was constrained to admit the offense.

2.to confine forcibly, as by bonds.

3.to repress or restrain: Cold weather constrained the plant's growth.

Main Entry:constrain

Part of Speech:verb

Definition:force; restrain

Synonyms:ban, bar, bind, bottle up, bridle, chain, check, coerce, compel, concuss, confine, constrict, cool off, cork, curb, deny, deprive, disallow, drive, hem in, hog-tie, hold back, hold down, hold in, immure, impel, imprison, incarcerate, inhibit, intern, jail, keep lid on, make, necessitate, oblige, pressure, pressurize, put half nelson on, shotgun, stifle, urge, withhold

Based on the definitions, "constrain" seems VERY similar to infringe:

in·fringe

1.to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

2.to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon): Don't infringe on his privacy.

Main Entry:infringe

Part of Speech:verb

Definition:violate

Synonyms:borrow, breach, break, contravene, crash, disobey, encroach, entrench, impose, infract, intrude, invade, lift, meddle, obtrude, offend, pirate, presume, steal, transgress, trespass

Not trying to pick nits, but it would seem to me that to constrain a right guaranteed by the Constitution would also infringe upon that right, no?

[fusion]

I'll try to explain this without getting into a debate over the 2nd amendment...

You have th right to bear arms, but not in any private owned establishment if they don't want you to. That is supported by laws passed by the state.

You have freedom of religion, unless it violates laws (bigomy, sacrifice, age restrictions...) or infringes on another's right.

You have freedom of speech, but you can't get in my face to say what you want. Could be considered harassement, threatening speech, blah blah, blah...

Every freedom has restrictions...

[Fonzie]

fonzie I just read you obama quote in your sig. It made me lol, but the worst part is he actually said that. The man is a complete moron:nono:

What....You don't like the quote by Obama's pastor in my avatar too???

[Dweezel]

freedom is not the absence of restraint, but the ability to live according to the restraints of the original design.

[Todd#43]

I'll try to explain this without getting into a debate over the 2nd amendment...

You have th right to bear arms, but not in any private owned establishment if they don't want you to. That is supported by laws passed by the state.

Since Obama's quote dealt with the second amendment, and I believe the context was the DC gun ban, lets keep it to that.

Restricting my ability to carry a weapon into an establishment that doesn't want me to have it there doesnt constrain my second amendment right. It may keep me from patronizing that establishment, but it doesn't do more than that. The DC gun ban was totally different.

You have freedom of religion, unless it violates laws (bigomy, sacrifice, age restrictions...) or infringes on another's right.

The key to your statement here is "infringing on another's right". With each freedom comes responsibility. I have all of my rights as long as they don't violate another's. This also has nothing to do with constraint.

You have freedom of speech, but you can't get in my face to say what you want. Could be considered harassement, threatening speech, blah blah, blah...

I may not be able to say what I want "in your face", but that doesn't keep me from saying it. Certainly there are limits to what I can say - slander, libel, etc. - and how I can say it - menacing, assault, etc. But it doesn't forbid me from saying it.

Every freedom has restrictions...

Freedom does not have "restrictions". Freedom, by its definition, is a "lack of restrictions" There are definable limits to a particular freedom, and freedom most certainly comes with responsibility.

You're confusing two concepts - a "right" (as in a birthright - we are all entitled to it because we are born free men) and a "freedom". For American Citizens the ability to bear arms is a right. Religion, press, assembly, etc., are freedoms. Two completely different concepts.

[fusion]

Since Obama's quote dealt with the second amendment, and I believe the context was the DC gun ban, lets keep it to that.

Restricting my ability to carry a weapon into an establishment that doesn't want me to have it there doesnt constrain my second amendment right. It may keep me from patronizing that establishment, but it doesn't do more than that. The DC gun ban was totally different.

Fair enough except he said,"I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right"

In other words he disagrees with the DC ban, but that doesn't mean there can't be restrictions.

The key to your statement here is "infringing on another's right". With each freedom comes responsibility. I have all of my rights as long as they don't violate another's. This also has nothing to do with constraint.

Only if you ignore where I said,"... unless it violates laws...". You can't have multiple wives even if it is part of your religion, it's illegal and doesn't infringe on anyones rights if you could.

I may not be able to say what I want "in your face", but that doesn't keep me from saying it. Certainly there are limits to what I can say - slander, libel, etc. - and how I can say it - menacing, assault, etc. But it doesn't forbid me from saying it.

That is still a law restricting your freedom of speech. You can't libel or slander as an example. The law tells you that you can't do those things spoken or written.

Freedom does not have "restrictions". Freedom, by its definition, is a "lack of restrictions" There are definable limits to a particular freedom, and freedom most certainly comes with responsibility.

You're confusing two concepts - a "right" (as in a birthright - we are all entitled to it because we are born free men) and a "freedom". For American Citizens the ability to bear arms is a right. Religion, press, assembly, etc., are freedoms. Two completely different concepts.

You're right.. I actually thought about that after I hit submit. I was meaning rights when I wrote freedoms in some instances. Just typing in a hurry in between working.

[Todd#43]

Fair enough except he said,"I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right"

In other words he disagrees with the DC ban, but that doesn't mean there can't be restrictions.

I disagree with your opinion. I believe that he saying, ok the constitution says you have an individual right to bear arms, but as the government, we know how best for you to exercise that right. I think if you look deeper into his stance on this issue you'll find that he agrees with the concept of limiting the second amendment.

Only if you ignore where I said,"... unless it violates laws...". You can't have multiple wives even if it is part of your religion, it's illegal and doesn't infringe on anyones rights if you could.

But it doesn't limit or keep me from being a member of that religion.

That is still a law restricting your freedom of speech. You can't libel or slander as an example. The law tells you that you can't do those things spoken or written.

This is a question of semantics. I can slander or libel you. No problem. However, I may be prosecuted for it.

You're right.. I actually thought about that after I hit submit. I was meaning rights when I wrote freedoms in some instances. Just typing in a hurry in between working.

Religion, speech and assembly are freedoms. Keeping and bearing arms is a right. I believe that there is a fundamental difference between the two.

The DC gun ban infringed on residents right to KEEP arms. The court was right in striking it down, and Obama is wrong if he thinks he can limit that right.

[Disclaimer]

How did people bear arms before arms were invented?

Did it become a right when weapons were invented?

[Todd#43]

How did people bear arms before arms were invented?

Did it become a right when weapons were invented?

You're not serious, are you?

Do you think we fought the revolutionary war with sticks?

It became a right when the constitution and the bill of rights was ratified.

[SWing'R]

How did people bear arms before arms were invented?

Better question is how the @#$ did a thread about Nick being MIA turn into a political debate about gun laws and freedoms???????

[Todd#43]

Better question is how the @#$ did a thread about Nick being MIA turn into a political debate about gun laws and freedoms???????

Apparently' date=' you're too lazy to read what happened. Let me bring you up to speed

Two reasons:

1. No one really gives a fuck about Nick
   
2. Someone questioned a quote from Barack Obama in someone's signature.
   

Not too difficult, really.

[Disclaimer]

You're not serious, are you?

Do you think we fought the revolutionary war with sticks?

It became a right when the constitution and the bill of rights was ratified.

I'm 1/2 serious. I know we fought the Revolutionary war with weapons, but you described the difference between a birthRIGHT and a freedom. And it's a RIGHT to bear arms. But, before ARMS were invented, it wasn't a right?

Maybe I'm just having a brainfart and am lost in why guns are the only man made THING in the constitution and became a right. Everything else is conceptual - assembly, speech, religion.. all concepts. Guns are the only tangible things mentioned.

If we had hover cars, or nuke weapons, or some other powerful 'thing' back during the constitution do you think our forefathers would've written that in there to as a RIGHT for everyone to have?

[wolfman]

1. No one really gives a fuck about Nick
   

There are several of us on this board that have actually met Nick in person and ridden with him and like him...me included. I think you are taking this "internet enemies" thing a little too far....same with the "internet friends."

[kawi kid]

i believe arms are the only thing tangible is cuz thats what we can have to protect the religion speech and the other stuff.

cars nukes and whatever arent a right they are a luxury.

ps i googled ninja nick and got nothing..........

[Todd#43]

I'm 1/2 serious. I know we fought the Revolutionary war with weapons, but you described the difference between a birthRIGHT and a freedom. And it's a RIGHT to bear arms. But, before ARMS were invented, it wasn't a right?

Maybe I'm just having a brainfart and am lost in why guns are the only man made THING in the constitution and became a right. Everything else is conceptual - assembly, speech, religion.. all concepts. Guns are the only tangible things mentioned.

If we had hover cars, or nuke weapons, or some other powerful 'thing' back during the constitution do you think our forefathers would've written that in there to as a RIGHT for everyone to have?

I think the term birthright is what's tripping you up. We have a right to bear arms in this country because of where we are born, not just because we were born. Think of it as an inheritance from Uncle Sam.

It's not so hard to understand why the founding fathers included that in the Bill of Rights. To them it was the most important "thing" - to be able to protect yourself from any type of uprising. Arming yourself is the only way to do that. I dont think hover cars would apply here.

[kawi kid]

I think the term birthright is what's tripping you up. We have a right to bear arms in this country because of where we are born, not just because we were born. Think of it as an inheritance from Uncle Sam.

It's not so hard to understand why the founding fathers included that in the Bill of Rights. To them it was the most important "thing" - to be able to protect yourself from any type of uprising. Arming yourself is the only way to do that. I dont think hover cars would apply here.

kinda what i was going for but mine was just not put as well