That's why I'm stealing all the depleted u235 I can from Hanford and stockpiling that sh*t. Guns don't solve anything, but nukes....that'll leave somebody with a really bad sunburn.
Funny, those cases started around 1920, around when we started the federal reserve. The wealthy ruling class in the house of morgan, rockefellor and rothchilds don't like it when they can't use their pawns to fight wars in order to claim wealth. WHy are they so afraid of free speech?? So you really don't think the founding fathers knew how banking systems corrupt countries and steal their soverignty?? You really believe the founding fathers or anyone with a worldly brain (I do not claim to have one) would advocate giving up ANY FREEDOMS, especially guns??
see above
Yeah, yeah, yeah, That's cool. Don't take anything personally anyway. Most of these guys do the advocate thing to fish for stuff or just waste time. The devil can make some good points, but can also accidently reveal a truth that's being hidden.
an elderly guy who can no longer karate chop three bricks in a stack or a single woman who lives on her own may disagree with you.
That's some great rhetoric. Many people who have defended themselves with firearms will take exception to that.
I don't put myself into situations where I need a gun. The only time I've carried one was in New Orleans, and I was ordered to. Should I ever need a gun, I guess I'm f@cked because I won't have one.
True, but you can't ignore all the people that had a gun, used it, and didn't need to.
So if people can simply decide not to be victims of violent crime, why is anyone a victim of violent crime?
So basically you agree that it's rational for a person to carry a weapon to defend himself, but if that weapon happens to be a gun instead of a knife, then someone is "doing it wrong?" Are you saying that a gun is too effective a means of self defense then? Self preservation isn't exactly a gentleman's sport. If you agree that situations might arise in which a person may need to defend their life, why automatically handicap yourself by limiting your tools to a knife? If a situation is dangerous enough to require a knife for self defense, it's dangerous enough to require a gun.
You would have better luck in hoping Britney Spears will sew her cum ditch shut and join a monastery.
I disagree, a knife doesn't have the potential to kill 10 people in 10 seconds like a gun does. The argument isn't about self-defense, it is about how the weapon is used in a non-self-defense situation.
You can say the argument "isn't about self defense" until you're blue in the face if you want, but that won't change the reality of why most people carry.
It may be why many people carry, but it isn't why they are used in crimes.
Wait, so you're saying that the judges made an "activist" decision, rather than a "constructionist" one? But that's impossible; they're conservatives.
The court system has used the Constitution to say what it wants it to say since Marbury vs Madison. They haven't cared too much about what the Constitution allows and says for a long time, but all "activist" rulings aren't bad, mind you.
i was thinking rainbow actually.. but k..I haven't hid that they are a shade of pink
it works better when someone doesn't just go right out and say it
I couldn't take it anymore. Sorry.
If strict constructionism worked, we wouldn't need SCOTUS. The context in which our Constitution was written and the history of its interpretation, however, deserve due consideration in present implementation.
There are a few Iraqis who would be to differ as to feasibility of waging an insurgency with small arms. (And there are a lot of nutters who argue that private citizens SHOULD be able to own any weapon they desire; not my personal opinion, however.)
I think that is the point he was making, that strict constructionism isn't real, and the Supreme Court does whatever the hell it wants.
last I checked fully automatic AK-47s, RPGs, morters, and massive ordinances made from discarded artillery shells were still illegal...
Exactly, which is something that is not specifically in the 2nd amendment (except in as much as it's "self" defense FROM TYRANNY, but that isn't really self defense, it's group defense), but to me is almost the only logical argument for private gun ownership in our present society and one with which I agree with given that we can't turn back the clock 150 years and somehow prevent such a proliferation of guns. However, because of all this focus on founding fathers we spend an inordinate amount of time trying to (irrelevently) interpret what a militia is today.
I carry a knife because there are times a knife comes in handy, not for self defense. You are taking it WAY over the top. I understand your point about self defense, but my point is still if I fear for my life to the point I NEED to own a gun, then I would simply look to make a change in my life.
Well, gee, yeah, that's why I was agreeing with him.
That's flat-out wrong...you can't write 150-something page decisions about your reasoning, based on principle and precedent, if you're just "doing whatever the hell you want."
No, he's not. You brought it up, and one doesn't need to fear for one's life in order to own a gun...that's absurd. Recognizing a potentiality is quite different from "fearing" it.
That's entirely reasonable, and I don't think you should have to. Who has said you should? But the argument is about whether others CAN.
It's implicit in the operative clause concerning the bearing of arms.
Like you even know what to do with a gun. I submit case file photo of MikeD on the job:
You're skinnier than that guy, too.
