Second Amendment

[Ausinus]

Ok people. The Second Amendment states-

"A well regulated Milita, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

You actually could interpret this to mean that only militias have the right to bear arms. This is shown by the parts in bold.

"A well regulated Milita, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

What do you think?

Btw, I am not anti-gun, I think this amendment is necessary to prevent the government from becoming a tyranny. I am just pro gun control.

[General Septem]

I disagree. It still says "the right of the people".

[Nobody]

Ok people. The Second Amendment states-

"A well regulated Milita, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

You actually could interpret this to mean that only militias have the right to bear arms. This is shown by the parts in bold.

"A well regulated Milita, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

What do you think?

Btw, I am not anti-gun, I think this amendment is necessary to prevent the government from becoming a tyranny. I am just pro gun control.
.......Before you explain to us whats wrong with OUR constitution. Why don't YOU, tell us about your experence, when you walked the streets of Chicago, L.A., Detroit, Baltimore, N.Y. city, New Orleans, or Miami, and all those in between. How long did you spend in those places? What were the local laws like? If YOU can't. Shut the FUCK UP !!!!

[Ausinus]

Excuse you.

I was asking what people thought of this for intellectual debate.
I dont think your constitution is wrong. In fact I think it serves as a model for all democratic constitutions.

SO STFU ASSHOLE:mad:

[Nobody]

Excuse you.

I was asking what people thought of this for intellectual debate.
I dont think your constitution is wrong. In fact I think it serves as a model for all democratic constitutions.

SO STFU ASSHOLE:mad:
You tell it how you want. I'll tell it as I see it. You and your type are a cancer!

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

"A well regulated Milita, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

What do you think?


I believe that it was written to be left for interpretation. The founding fathers knew that their own preferences and beliefs on this subject will most likely differ from those of future generations, and so each generation will interpret it the way that best suits its people. Currently I'd say that it best suits the people by the interpretation that you are implying of it.

[Ausinus]

I agree. If it weren't for constitutional interpretation, we wouldn't have things like anti segregation laws and abortion.

THOMAS JEFFERSON RULEZ:D

[freakazoid]

I believe that it was written to be left for interpretation. The founding fathers knew that their own preferences and beliefs on this subject will most likely differ from those of future generations, and so each generation will interpret it the way that best suits its people. Currently I'd say that it best suits the people by the interpretation that you are implying of it.
I firmly believe that it is simple, straight forward and easy to understand. Owning arms is a right, NOT a privilege that can be taken away. The founding fathers of the U.S. knew beyond any doubt that there would be threats to the new republic and wisely saw to it that the common man would be armed in order to defend the country from those that hate freedom both external AND internal... It was, and still is, a very good idea. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

I firmly believe that it is simple, straight forward and easy to understand. Owning arms is a right, NOT a privilege that can be taken away.


Hold on a second. Would you allow a person who has shown that he is a threat to others when armed to retain this right to arms? I would definately take it away for the greater good, until this person can show that he has changed.

[Ausinus]

The constitution is always open to interpretation. Its not as straighfoward as you think.

Besides, how do you know what the founding fathers were thinking anyway?

It doesnt say AND the right to bear arms. If they meant it that way they would put it in there. Simple as that.

[freakazoid]

Hold on a second. Would you allow a person who has shown that he is a threat to others when armed to retain this right to arms? I would definately take it away for the greater good, until this person can show that he has changed.

No, of course not. I am referring to law abiding people.

[freakazoid]

The constitution is always open to interpretation. Its not as straighfoward as you think.

Besides, how do you know what the founding fathers were thinking anyway?

It doesnt say AND the right to bear arms. If they meant it that way they would put it in there. Simple as that.
RE: "The constitution is always open to interpretation."

...and if we are not careful, we will see it interpreted right out of existence.

RE: " It doesnt say AND the right to bear arms. If they meant it that way they would put it in there. Simple as that."

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You are correct, it says...COMMA, the right to bear arms...meaning that ammenment states several things, among them is that the people have the right to...

bear arms,
keep arms,
form militias, etc.

I like the way Pennsylvania states it...

Pennsylvania: 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

::::: See also...

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818).

Kentucky: [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792).

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence (1780).

North Carolina: [T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in 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 (1776).

Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (1842).

Tennessee: [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796).

Vermont: [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in 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 (1777).

Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

[Ausinus]

...and if we are not careful, we will see it interpreted right out of existence.

Well interpretation of the constituation is part of the democratic process so there.:p




[/I]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You are correct, it says...COMMA, the right to bear arms...meaning that ammenment states several things, among them is that the people have the right to...

No it is still open to interpretation. It could mean that the commas were actually parentheses, or it mean "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state IS the right of the people blah blah"


I like the way Pennsylvania states it...

Pennsylvania: 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

::::: See also...

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818).

Kentucky: [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792).

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence (1780).

North Carolina: [T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in 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 (1776).

Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (1842).

Tennessee: [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796).

Vermont: [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in 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 (1777).

Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

But the constitution overrides state definitions, so they wont count if its changed.

[freakazoid]

The constitution is always open to interpretation. Its not as straighfoward as you think.

Besides, how do you know what the founding fathers were thinking anyway?

It doesnt say AND the right to bear arms. If they meant it that way they would put it in there. Simple as that.
RE: " Besides, how do you know what the founding fathers were thinking anyway?"

Ever read the Federalists Papers? That's how...just like members of the U.S. Supreme Court know.

See - http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html

[Ausinus]

Its still open for interpretation. What do you think the judiciary is for anyway?

[freakazoid]

Its still open for interpretation. What do you think the judiciary is for anyway?

Yup, and they have always confirmed the right of the people to keep AND bear arms.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Yup, and they have always confirmed the right of the people to keep AND bear arms.


Please note that it says the right of "the people." It does not say the right of "each individual person" so it could simply mean the right that the people or society in general has to protect itself.

[Ausinus]

Yup, and they have always confirmed the right of the people to keep AND bear arms.

But it could change. Perhaps the new democratic judges (once the democrats are elected for president:D ) may change it. Perhaps not. I was just asking what people think.

Thanks for your input!:D

[freakazoid]

Please note that it says the right of "the people." It does not say the right of "each individual person" so it could simply mean the right that the people or society in general has to protect itself.
"The people" are comprised of individuals. With individual rights. That has always been understood.

[Ausinus]

"The people" are comprised of individuals. With individual rights. That has always been understood.

It could mean that a well regulated militia is the right of the people to bear arms though.

[who897]

The 2nd amendment was put in there just for me. Just because I'm waiting on the day when someones B/F or Husband tries to break into my dwelling because of their g/f or wife, I get to shoot someone legally.

The constitution has to give us individuals a right to have something where we can kill other folks without actually touching them, since driving a car is a privelidge, we need a right to bare arms.

[General Septem]

But it could change. Perhaps the new democratic judges (once the democrats are elected for president:D ) may change it. Perhaps not. I was just asking what people think.

Yes, and they'll get a bullet in the head. :D

[who897]

I think Chris Rock said it, Instead of having a 3 day wait on guns, let them buy guns. To really lower the death rate by guns, make the bullets $10,000 a peice, this way you know then that mother fucker deserved to get shot.

[Ausinus]

I think Chris Rock said it, Instead of having a 3 day wait on guns, let them buy guns. To really lower the death rate by guns, make the bullets $10,000 a peice, this way you know then that mother fucker deserved to get shot.

Haha, lol:D

[freakazoid]

It could mean that a well regulated militia is the right of the people to bear arms though.

It does mean that. And, also means that individuals have the same right. Note the all important comma (which means ALSO) between ...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, (COMMA) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[Ausinus]

It does mean that. And, also means that individuals have the same right. Note the all important comma (which means ALSO) between ...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, (COMMA) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The comma could mean anything. it could be ")" or "is". How the law is interpreted is based on the context.

[who897]

I tend to think of the comma as our forefathers using proper setence structure. Call me crazy, but that's what I think.

[General Septem]

I tend to think of the comma as our forefathers using proper setence structure. Call me crazy, but that's what I think.

Too bad nobody knows how to speak English anymore or we'd know what they were talking about. :D

[who897]

I'm just glad I'm speaking my broken english vrs the Proper British English.

[freakazoid]

It very obvious that they intended for "the people" to own arms. The people are you and me. What is the problem in understanding this? :rolleyes: It does not say "an organization," it merely states that "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms. If you say that the people have a right to own and drive a car, are you talking about an organization that controls a car or cars? No, you mean everyone may own and drive a car. It's simple. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon3.gif

[who897]

The sitty part, like I said before is, that you don't have a right to drive a car, into someone on purpose to kill em. Wait a minute, are we getting confused by all my comma's?

[General Septem]

It very obvious that they intended for "the people" to own arms. The people are you and me. What is the problem in understanding this? :rolleyes: It does not say "an organization," it merely states that "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms. If you say that the people have a right to own and drive a car, are you talking about an organization that controls a car or cars? No, you mean everyone may own and drive a car. It's simple. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon3.gif

I think the problem is that everyone's already made up their mind that people shouldn't have guns, so they refuse to read the Constitution objectively.

[General Septem]

The sitty part, like I said before is, that you don't have a right to drive a car, into someone on purpose to kill em. Wait a minute, are we getting confused by all my comma's?

But you're in the Coast Guard, don't you carry guns?

[Ausinus]

I think the problem is that everyone's already made up their mind that people shouldn't have guns, so they refuse to read the Constitution objectively.

People should have guns, it prevents the govt. from becoming a tyranny. This is for intellectual debate.

[General Septem]

People should have guns, it prevents the govt. from becoming a tyranny. This is for intellectual debate.

I agree they should, but I'm just saying some people who don't think so don't read the Constitution objectively, preferring to make the Constitution conform to their ideas rather than the other way around.

[who897]

But you're in the Coast Guard, don't you carry guns?

That's bout funny, but I guess you don't have much interaction with the CG. No, I own a personal gun. The CG's policy is something along the lines of borderline suicide for the members. I have never been issued a weapon, never will unless we come under attack, and that's still iffy. The only one's that carry guns are those on boarding teams or repelling teams. So, I own a gun because I am a target just by wearing the uniform.

[Ausinus]

I agree they should, but I'm just saying some people who don't think so don't read the Constitution objectively, preferring to make the Constitution conform to their ideas rather than the other way around.

The constitution is meant for interpretation, thats why we have the supreme court, and thats the way the Westminster system works. Anyway its just like any law, it has to conform to current society

[General Septem]

The constitution is meant for interpretation, thats why we have the supreme court, and thats the way the Westminster system works. Anyway its just like any law, it has to conform to current society

Then if we're going to do what we want anyway, why do we need the laws?

[Ausinus]

Then if we're going to do what we want anyway, why do we need the laws?

It doesnt let us do what we want, it interprets it in such a way that it best suits current society. Its better than an anarchy, where you literally can do anything you want.

[who897]

To give us guidelines as to what society expects from us.

[General Septem]

So let me get this straight. They conform the Constitution to whatever they feel like. What's the purpose of the Constitution then?

[Ausinus]

So let me get this straight. They conform the Constitution to whatever they feel like. What's the purpose of the Constitution then?

To set out the rights of the people and the powers of the various branches and levels of government.

[General Septem]

To set out the rights of the people and the powers of the various branches and levels of government.

But this is all largely up for interpretation, and apparently it can be "interpreted" any way a government official deems fit.

[freakazoid]

I think the problem is that everyone's already made up their mind that people shouldn't have guns, so they refuse to read the Constitution objectively.

Yup, good point. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon14.gif Also, I believe they fear such freedoms. Freedoms like these come with responsibilities also.

[Ausinus]

But this is all largely up for interpretation, and apparently it can be "interpreted" any way a government official deems fit.

No, only the supreme court can interpret it. Perhaps you should study political science more than just critisising it.

You cannot change the constitution without a referendum, but you can interpret it to mean something within the bounds of what it can possibly mean.

[General Septem]

No, only the supreme court can interpret it. Perhaps you should study political science more than just critisising it.

You cannot change the constitution without a referendum, but you can interpret it to mean something within the bounds of what it can possibly mean.

Which apparently is anything, if you're clever enough. You can even interpret it so that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not really inalienable human rights, even though it explicitly says they are.

[Ausinus]

Which apparently is anything, if you're clever enough. You can even interpret it so that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not really inalienable human rights, even though it explicitly says they are.

How else could you interpret it? Enlighten me please.

[General Septem]

How else could you interpret it? Enlighten me please.

You could go by what it actually says, and value ALL human life, not just the ones you can see without an ultrasound. And allowing all citizens to carry guns, not just the militia.

[Ausinus]

You could go by what it actually says, and value ALL human life, not just the ones you can see without an ultrasound. And allowing all citizens to carry guns, not just the militia.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

From the 14th Amendment. Foeti are not citizens do not have these rights as they are unborn. See.

[General Septem]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

From the 14th Amendment. Foeti are not citizens do not have these rights as they are unborn. See.

The right to life is an inalienable human right, not a right among American citizens. It is just as illegal to kill a Mexican as it is to kill another human.

[Ausinus]

The right to life is an inalienable human right, not a right among American citizens. It is just as illegal to kill a Mexican as it is to kill another human.

It may be, but the ninth amendment says -

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Which is why we can kill in self defense.

[General Septem]

It may be, but the ninth amendment says -

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Which is why we can kill in self defense.

But we cannot kill for convenience. That would infringe on another's right to life. If someone attempts to infringe upon your right to life, you can take their life if you must. Otherwise it doesn't count.

[Ausinus]

But we cannot kill for convenience. That would infringe on another's right to life. If someone attempts to infringe upon your right to life, you can take their life if you must. Otherwise it doesn't count.

Thats not the way the court construed it. In fact, they took the ninth amendment into acount as well as the first, fourth, fifth, and fourteenth.

[General Septem]

Thats not the way the court construed it. In fact, they took the ninth amendment into acount as well as the first, fourth, fifth, and fourteenth.

None of which are the second amendment, of which this thread is eponymous. But as I said, all they did was bastardize the Constitution, not interpret it.

You never did answer my question, though; if abortion is not a crime, why would the fifth amendment even need be taken into account?

[Ausinus]

None of which are the second amendment, of which this thread is eponymous. But as I said, all they did was bastardize the Constitution, not interpret it.

You never did answer my question, though; if abortion is not a crime, why would the fifth amendment even need be taken into account?

When they were making the law, abortion was a crime. So they just added it in to strengthen it.

Lets drop the abortion issue then.

[General Septem]

When they were making the law, abortion was a crime. So they just added it in to strengthen it.

Lets drop the abortion issue then.

If they were making it not a crime, they wouldn't need to add in that doctors shouldn't have to say they performed abortions... because it's not a crime. And if it had any merit then they wouldn't have needed to strengthen it.

Agreed.

[England Expects]

In an established democracy you dont need a civilian militia to defend your country.

I know very little about the US constitution, but I know it was written in a time when you were more vulnerable and at greater threat from foreign forces.

These days you have a nuclear deterrent and protection from the UN (which I know the US has no respect for) and NATO, which regards an attack on one member as an attack on ALL members.

We dont have gun rights in Europe and we're not ruled by military junta's or imperialist despots.

We also dont have the paranoid, violent society that the right to bear arms propagates.

[freakazoid]

So let me get this straight. They conform the Constitution to whatever they feel like. What's the purpose of the Constitution then?

That is exactly what courts and legislators are doing and it is the primary reason that we are seeing the gradual erosion of the US Constitution. Talk about BULLSHIT! http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

[freakazoid]

In an established democracy you dont need a civilian militia to defend your country.

I know very little about the US constitution, but I know it was written in a time when you were more vulnerable and at greater threat from foreign forces.

These days you have a nuclear deterrent and protection from the UN (which I know the US has no respect for) and NATO, which regards an attack on one member as an attack on ALL members.

We dont have gun rights in Europe and we're not ruled by military junta's or imperialist despots.

We also dont have the paranoid, violent society that the right to bear arms propagates.
RE: "In an established democracy you dont need a civilian militia to defend your country."

Congraulations! You win the Bullshit Award!

Are you crazy?! Standing armies have always been a threat to a free democracy. Citizen militias have always been a guard against that threat, that is why the creation and maintenance of such militias are declared as follows...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note the words "being necessary," NOT a mere suggestion.

[England Expects]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

What year was this written Freakazoid?

Tell me, has society not moved on since then? Does everything written then still apply now?

We dont have armed civilian militia in the UK or anywhere in the European Union.

Please tell me how this presents a threat to the security of our states.

"Standing armies have always been a threat to a free democracy"

Armed civilians are a threat to democracy. How many assasination attempts, sucessful or not, have been made against US Presidents. Compare that figure against British PM's.

[England Expects]

Just some figures.

1 British PM shot. Spencer Percival in 1812.

4 US Presidents killed.

Abraham Lincoln 1865
James Garfield 1881
William Mckinley 1901
John F Kenedy 1963

Assasination attempts on Presidents

Roosevelt T
Roosevelt F
Trueman H
Ford G
Reagan R

Guns threaten your democracy.

[freakazoid]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

What year was this written Freakazoid?

Tell me, has society not moved on since then? Does everything written then still apply now?

We dont have armed civilian militia in the UK or anywhere in the European Union.

Please tell me how this presents a threat to the security of our states.

"Standing armies have always been a threat to a free democracy"

Armed civilians are a threat to democracy. How many assasination attempts, sucessful or not, have been made against US Presidents. Compare that figure against British PM's.

RE: "What year was this written Freakazoid?"

Who cares what year. The threat still exists. Have you not studied the history of the world lately? Militaries are responsible for oppression in dozens of states and there is no guarantee that it will never happen in so-called “modern democracies.” RE: "We dont have armed civilian militia in the UK or anywhere in the European Union." ...well, all I can say is silly you, my friend. It doesn't hurt to have them.

[freakazoid]

Just some figures.

1 British PM shot. Spencer Percival in 1812.

4 US Presidents killed.

Abraham Lincoln 1865
James Garfield 1881
William Mckinley 1901
John F Kenedy 1963

Assasination attempts on Presidents

Roosevelt T
Roosevelt F
Trueman H
Ford G
Reagan R

Guns threaten your democracy.
And your point is...? Guns have secured far more democracy than they have threatened...by far. By the way...

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/3558/guncontrolac5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[England Expects]

If your hero's are Hitler, Stalin and Mao then thats fine. I'm fairly sure it was Mao that said "Power stems from the barrel of a gun"

Why are American men so power hungry that they need to carry a gun? Is it some kind of phallic compensation syndrome?

In a civilized society there is no real need for guns amongst the general populous. They may make you feel safer but your fear of crime is disproportionate to the real risk. Guns in the hands of the paranoid is just a recipe for danger.

The facts and statistics show that in societies where arms proliferation is prohibited, violent crime is low. America is the only country in the western world where murder rates are high.

If you can show me proof that I'm wrong the please do but dont reply with shit like:

"Everybody knows that...."
"You're full of bullshit"
"More guns = Less crime"

Wiithout something to back it up.

[Ausinus]

In australia, we rarely sell any sort of guns since the arms manufactuing plants in sydney closed and there has been a definite drop in the crime rate.

[freakazoid]

If your hero's are Hitler, Stalin and Mao then thats fine. I'm fairly sure it was Mao that said "Power stems from the barrel of a gun"

Why are American men so power hungry that they need to carry a gun? Is it some kind of phallic compensation syndrome?

In a civilized society there is no real need for guns amongst the general populous. They may make you feel safer but your fear of crime is disproportionate to the real risk. Guns in the hands of the paranoid is just a recipe for danger.

The facts and statistics show that in societies where arms proliferation is prohibited, violent crime is low. America is the only country in the western world where murder rates are high.

If you can show me proof that I'm wrong the please do but dont reply with shit like:

"Everybody knows that...."
"You're full of bullshit"
"More guns = Less crime"

Wiithout something to back it up.
RE: "If your hero's are Hitler, Stalin and Mao then thats fine."

Nope, not my kind of people. Yours?

RE: "I'm fairly sure it was Mao that said "Power stems from the barrel of a gun"

He did, but he was talking about the Communist Party owning all of the guns. Not exactly a recipe for freedom.

RE: "More guns = Less crime"

If that is true; than how come your county does not have less crime than ours? ...Oops http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon3.gif Guess you didn't think of that. The crime rates are just about equal. So much for your "gun control" which has not translated into "crime control."

[who897]

A defeated man has no need for violence. A man of peace secures peace through violent means. A politician will debate peace for years with no real outcome.

[General Septem]

What year was this written Freakazoid?

Tell me, has society not moved on since then? Does everything written then still apply now?

Absolutely. The definitions of peace, freedom, and life have not change and will never change, nor will the course of history. Every major country starts out free, becomes an empire, and then is brought down by a rebellion.

[General Septem]

Just some figures.

1 British PM shot. Spencer Percival in 1812.

4 US Presidents killed.

Abraham Lincoln 1865
James Garfield 1881
William Mckinley 1901
John F Kenedy 1963

Assasination attempts on Presidents

Roosevelt T
Roosevelt F
Trueman H
Ford G
Reagan R

Guns threaten your democracy.

These assassination attempts were only by citizens carrying out the intended purpose of the second amendment. Misguided or no, we could very well end up with a leader who actually is corrupt, and who will turn America into an empire, and you can bet I'll be the one looking at him from a view to a kill.

In your country there wouldn't be a damn thing anyone'd be able to do about it since you have no guns.

[freakazoid]

I really believe that people who want to ban guns simple fear freedom and the responsibilities it brings.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

A defeated man has no need for violence. A man of peace secures peace through violent means. A politician will debate peace for years with no real outcome.

I guess you can call me a politician then. I refuse to secure peace through violence and will never admit defeat!

[England Expects]

"I really believe that people who want to ban guns simple fear freedom and the responsibilities it brings."

Thats just insane bullshit.

"Misguided or no, we could very well end up with a leader who actually is corrupt, and who will turn America into an empire, and you can bet I'll be the one looking at him from a view to a kill."

Thou shalt not kill? GO TO HELL POPE-BOY!!!

"If that is true; than how come your county does not have less crime than ours? ...Oops Guess you didn't think of that. The crime rates are just about equal. So much for your "gun control" which has not translated into "crime control.""

Just saying that doesnt make it so. Show me the stats. I have proved previously that you have 5 times more homicides per head of population than the UK though.

I'm still convinced that you yanks need guns to feel important to compensate for your tiny penis's

[Ausinus]

Haha. Pommes and Aussies rule!

They lost the right to say 'bugger' and 'bloody when they split from Britain:D

[who897]

Haha. Pommes and Aussies rule!

They lost the right to say 'bugger' and 'bloody when they split from Britain:D
Have no idea waht the hell this is about but go ahead w/ your bad self.



Just saying that doesnt make it so. Show me the stats. I have proved previously that you have 5 times more homicides per head of population than the UK though.

I'm still convinced that you yanks need guns to feel important to compensate for your tiny penis's

Hey bossman, don't yall have another Jack the Ripper rip off running round? I for one will definatly take the high crime rate. Gun's helped secure this country from opressive rule and I would never like to see them go. cough cough.

[freakazoid]

"I really believe that people who want to ban guns simple fear freedom and the responsibilities it brings."

Thats just insane bullshit.

"Misguided or no, we could very well end up with a leader who actually is corrupt, and who will turn America into an empire, and you can bet I'll be the one looking at him from a view to a kill."

Thou shalt not kill? GO TO HELL POPE-BOY!!!

"If that is true; than how come your county does not have less crime than ours? ...Oops Guess you didn't think of that. The crime rates are just about equal. So much for your "gun control" which has not translated into "crime control.""

Just saying that doesnt make it so. Show me the stats. I have proved previously that you have 5 times more homicides per head of population than the UK though.

I'm still convinced that you yanks need guns to feel important to compensate for your tiny penis's

RE: "I really believe that people who want to ban guns simple fear freedom and the responsibilities it brings."

Thats just insane bullshit.

No, it's simply true. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

RE: ""Misguided or no, we could very well end up with a leader who actually is corrupt, and who will turn America into an empire, and you can bet I'll be the one looking at him from a view to a kill."

Open your eyes, we already are one, must have happened when you were giving up your guns. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

PS, you are obsessed with penis's...get over it.

[Ausinus]

Only ban assault weapons. Other guns are fine so long as your responsible with them.

[freakazoid]

Only ban assault weapons. Other guns are fine so long as your responsible with them.

What is an "assault weapon?" How do you determine what one is? http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon5.gif

[General Septem]

Thou shalt not kill? GO TO HELL POPE-BOY!!!

Correction: thou shalt not commit murder.

People who accuse others of having small penii often have small penii themselves.

[England Expects]

"Hey bossman, don't yall have another Jack the Ripper rip off running round? I for one will definatly take the high crime rate."

We have and its huge news. He's killed 5 prostitutes in Ipswich. At the end of the year though it'll make little difference to the overall stats. The UK will still have had fewer murders than New York city.

"Gun's helped secure this country from opressive rule and I would never like to see them go."

That I dont doubt but I think the western world has moved on. We (generally) respect elections. We have an international community to ensure thay are fair and valid.

We dont need guns to protect us from invading foreign forces because any real attack from abroad would start off with nukes. Having a gun in your house isnt going to help you when North Korea drop one of those on you.

"People who accuse others of having small penii often have small penii themselves"

I've not accused anybody. It's just a theory.

I always thought the same about men with moustaches. It's almost as if they need facial hair just to appear more masculine than a woman.

"Correction: thou shalt not commit murder."

Re-correction. King James version says "Thou shalt not kill". Other english versions say "You shall not murder". Just further reasons why the bible is unsound. You're still hell-bound either way.

[Ausinus]

Assault weapon;

Automatic Weapons and Chemical Projectile weapons

[General Septem]

I always thought the same about men with moustaches. It's almost as if they need facial hair just to appear more masculine than a woman.

I wear facial hair for a few reasons: so that when someone sees me from behind or from a long distance away, they don't think I'm a woman because of my long hair, because I don't look good without it, and because men who shave their facial hair are like men who get their nuts cut off. It's just not right, and if it was, Chuck Norris wouldn't have a beard. :D


Re-correction. King James version says "Thou shalt not kill". Other english versions say "You shall not murder". Just further reasons why the bible is unsound. You're still hell-bound either way.

I don't believe in the King James Version, and if all killing was wrong, Jesus would've told the Centurion to stop killing people, not to treat his soldiers better.

[England Expects]

If Jesus had meant you to carry a gun, maybe he would have!

I've always been suspicios of men with facial hair. They're all trying to hide something.

[who897]

Assault weapon;

Automatic Weapons and Chemical Projectile weapons

All guns are chemical projectile weapons....that little explosion is a chemical reaction. So I can't agree with that catagorization.


I wear facial hair for a few reasons: so that when someone sees me from behind or from a long distance away, they don't think I'm a woman because of my long hair, because I don't look good without it, and because men who shave their facial hair are like men who get their nuts cut off. It's just not right, and if it was, Chuck Norris wouldn't have a beard.

I have to shave everyday. I am in no way like a man w/ no nuts. I may be nuts, but I have a few.

[Ausinus]

Technically guns are Kinetic Projectile Weapons. What I mean by chemical projectile weapons is flamethrowers and shit like that.

[who897]

I know what you were saying I was being a smart ass. Although, I still think they are more of a chemically accelerated directional projectile weapons

[Ausinus]

True true,:D