40 minutes ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

We won on Sunday.

Less to b!tc# about.

People ****ed about that too. 

59 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Apples to oranges. I assume your wife used the brace to walk around and other daily use. With linemen, lots of teams have their OL wear knee braces to protect from getting rolled into. The brace isn’t really weakening them in this instance because they’re not wearing it due to functional weakness or anatomical abnormalities like us normal folks. They have them a small level of protection for small periods.

It reduces side-to-side mobility. It also reduces risk. That's the bottom line and the trade off.

In Mailata's case he opted for increased side-to-side mobility, something that was obviously hampered when he wore the brace.

Ben Simmons sucks.

36 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

So you disagree with my historical content?  The country has a long history of laws restricting some arms and how they are carried, from anti concealed weapons laws that precede the revolution to laws restricting what sort of arms a person can bear.  For example, I cannot own a bomb. But there is also a long history of striking down or limiting laws pertaining to personal armament.   So it isn’t quite as clear as either you or AFan suggest. It isn’t strictly for militias but it also isn’t an unfettered right to any sort of armament either. 

Some historical context must be considered.  One aspect to consider was the resistance to a standing army in 1787.  A militia would do in most eyes.  Militias had to be funded and manned   But one must also consider individual protection in a time of threat from hostile natives.  In a time when most of the population was on farms, not towns, the militia might not be readily available.  The need for individual protection was well recognized.  I am sure that @greend will appreciate that the right to hunt was also recognized in argument but rarely in the constitutions themselves.  Each state had their own version of the Second Amendment.  Pennsylvania in its first Constitution (1776) stated:

VIII. That every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expence of that protection, and yield his personal service when necessary, or an equivalent thereto: But no part of a man's property can be justly taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of his legal representatives: Nor can any man who is conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms, be justly compelled thereto, if he will pay such equivalent, nor are the people bound by any laws, but such as they have in like manner assented to, for their common good.

Clearly, this article anticipates the contribution towards a common protection (militia) both in service and expense.  But interestingly, in the land of Quakers recognizes that an individual cannot be made to bear arms.

The original PA Constitution goes on to state:  

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.

In fact, throughout the first PA Constitution, mention of the militia is made:

SECT. 5. The freemen of this commonwealth and their sons shall be trained and armed for its defence under such regulations, restrictions, and exceptions as the general assembly shall by law direct, preserving always to the people the right of choosing their colonels and all commissioned officers under that rank, in such manner and as often as by the said laws shall be directed.

and

And no person shall be elected unless he has resided in the city or county for which he shall be chosen two years immediately before the said election; nor shall any member, while he continues such, hold any other office, except in the militia.

Thus, AFan is right about his militia assertion and you are right about your individual assertion but they are not mutually exclusive.  With the right to bear arms was an implied obligation to do so in the defense of others and the state, if not conscientiously objecting to bearing arms at all.  (Note that there was a huge difference in the arms of that time and what is available today.)

BTW, thank you and AFan for drawing me to pull out some essays and the original PA Constitution.  Ben Franklin presided over the body that wrote our Commonwealth’s first Constitution and I love how they addressed term limits.  The idea of citizen statesmen was not lost on them.  

Again.

The right to bear arms , 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" 

 

It does not state except any we wish you not to have, nor does it state "unless times change" it's not like these guys hadn't seen progress in arms and did not know they would improve. 

 

The consitution clearly spells out SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.   Those who wrote the document were smart enough not to include anything else, that those words alone spell it out clearly.  

Why was he driving so slow?  He must have been in a school zone.

2 minutes ago, Khani1 said:

Ben Simmons sucks.

Take it to CVON!

1 minute ago, TorontoEagle said:

Take it to CVON!

There is no conflict.  Everyone agrees that he blows.

4 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

Again.

The right to bear arms , 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" 

 

It does not state except any we wish you not to have, nor does it state "unless times change"

 

The consitution clearly spells out SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.   Those who wrote the document were smart enough not to include anything else. 

The same constitution that was written when it was OK to own people as property, or you had to be a white male land owner to vote.  Those things have changed, why is the right to bear arms the only thing that seem to be immune to change ??

1 hour ago, downundermike said:

100 times out of 100, this

beats this

Except Vietnam, Afghanistan....

15 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

People ****ed about that too. 

Not gonna lie I’m pretty good at ****ing just about anything 

3 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

Except Vietnam, Afghanistan....

And where exactly is jungle warfare going to break out in the US ?? 

1 minute ago, downundermike said:

And where exactly is jungle warfare going to break out in the US ?? 

I'd guess if it ever happened it would be in West Virginia 

8 minutes ago, downundermike said:

The same constitution that was written when it was OK to own people as property, or you had to be a white male land owner to vote.  Those things have changed, why is the right to bear arms the only thing that seem to be immune to change ??

The sins of those who wrote it are one thing, but show me anywhere in the constitution that supports Slavery or racism of ANY KIND. 

 

I'll wait. 

 

Hint there is nothing racist about the constitution. ZERO

 

2 minutes ago, garingovt2000 said:

I'd guess if it ever happened it would be in West Virginia 

Where couldn't it erupt? The plain states maybe? 

4 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

The sins of those who wrote it are one thing, but show me anywhere in the constitution that supports Slavery or racism of ANY KIND. 

 

I'll wait. 

 

Hint there is nothing racist about the constitution. ZERO

Did I say it was written in the constitution, I said it was written at a time that was OK.

Women could not vote, the constitution had to be amended so woman and minorities could vote.  Should that not have been changed ??

2 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

 

Left finger on lefty QB with hurt ribs.. Come on Texans

Just now, garingovt2000 said:

Left finger on lefty QB with hurt ribs.. Come on Texans

Texans hopefully get Tyrod back too.

Hot take - I'm starting to like Aidan Hutchinson more than Thibodeaux

1 minute ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Colorado Brah!!

 

Thought that movie was supposedly set in Arizona?

Just now, 4for4EaglesNest said:

GUYS -------> https://www.eaglesmessageboard.com/forum/23-conflicting-views-and-other-news/

 

 

3 minutes ago, garingovt2000 said:

Hot take - I'm starting to like Aidan Hutchinson more than Thibodeaux

Thought that movie was supposedly set in Arizona?

There's a world where we get one of them, Hamilton, and a top 4 CB. Unfortunately, it's Howie's world that we're living in.

14 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

Except Vietnam, Afghanistan....

The second amendment extends to citizens of Vietnam and Afghanistan?

Does it bother anyone else that this is "thanks" rather than a trophy signaling "winner"

Anywho

5 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

wrong again

Please explain how I am wrong.  The constitution had to be amended so women could vote.

Passed by Congress June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th amendment guarantees all American women the right to vote. Achieving this milestone required a lengthy and difficult struggle; victory took decades of agitation and protest. Beginning in the mid-19th century, several generations of woman suffrage supporters lectured, wrote, marched, lobbied, and practiced civil disobedience to achieve what many Americans considered a radical change of the Constitution. Few early supporters lived to see final victory in 1920.

5 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

 

 

Not allowed to root for the Texans this week. Long standing law of fandom I've been told