D.C. Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional!

Collin

onelongsong wrote:

why is sunday bloody sunday ringing through my head?

Because you don't have a real answer?

onelongsong

Collin wrote:

Because you don't have a real answer?

is there a real answer to a 13 year old stat? did he need to page through to find a stat that would suit his needs?
maybe it's because his people use bombs instead of guns to kill others. no; it's the memory of all those killed by the uk in the aquisition of new land.

Collin

dunkman is from Scotland by the way.

onelongsong

Collin wrote:

dunkman is from Scotland by the way.

sorry; he mentioned the uk and i ran with that.

however; he did not offer the current population for comparisson.

Collin

onelongsong wrote:

sorry; he mentioned the uk and i ran with that.

Well Scotland is, if I'm not mistaken a part of the UK. I don't think it had anything to do with Bloody Sunday.

onelongsong

Collin wrote:

Well Scotland is, if I'm not mistaken a part of the UK. I don't think it had anything to do with Bloody Sunday.

as canada is a part of north america.

Collin

onelongsong wrote:

as canada is a part of north america.

This reminds me of what my friend said to me yesterday, he just got back from Canada and I asked how it was, he replied:

It was nice, but I really want to go to the real America.

dunkman

onelongsong wrote:

but isn't it funny how the uk has been involved in more wars than any other country? and the uk has taken more territory than any other country. you've got a nice bunch of peace loving people there i see.

ahhh now you're just getting jealous!! well spotted about the peace loving people... i think all the true nutters left on some thing called "The Mayflower" ... i could be wrong

lucylespian

jeffbr wrote:

Well, shit. I guess you just invalidated our entire constitutional republic.

Or maybe this is completely tangential and irrelevant.

Axctually, it's prety relevant. When they decided on those statements, gun ownership would have out of the reach of most people, esp slaves. It was beyond their ability to envisage emancipation and eveleopment of the cities we have today, the guns of today, the transport systems etc. It's kind of likke applying Old Testamnet values to modern living. Pretty much everybody here agrees that "sharia law" is not valid in modern times, but supposedly this whole "guns are essentail" thinking is !!

FUrther, in those days, when rich people in power said "everybody", they really meant "everybody like us".

69charger

lucylespian wrote:

Axctually, it's prety relevant. When they decided on those statements, gun ownership would have out of the reach of most people, esp slaves. It was beyond their ability to envisage emancipation and eveleopment of the cities we have today, the guns of today, the transport systems etc. It's kind of likke applying Old Testamnet values to modern living. Pretty much everybody here agrees that "sharia law" is not valid in modern times, but supposedly this whole "guns are essentail" thinking is !!

You have a point! I'm sure the Founding Father's would support a complete revamp of the 1st Amendment if they could see the likes of Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore and the platform they gain in the "information age".

The freedom of speech, or any other right for that matter, is meaningless without the right to defend those freedoms.

Without the 2nd Amendment there can be no others.

Derrick

- Guns allow stupid folks to achieve their goals.
- Many Americans are stupid.

2+2=4

- Need money? Rob a convenience store.
- Hungry? grab some munchies on the way out
- Losing an argument? Shoot the opposition.
- Mad at your girlfriend? Threaten her with your gun.
- Don't like your lawyer? Go "quail-hunting" with him.

Assume 10 pct of gun owners are stupid criminals and 90 percent are smart, law-abiding gun owners. Chances are, the 90 percent ONLY have a gun to protect themselves from the 10 percent. Take away the guns from the 10 percent and the rest don't need them either.

Solution:
- Legalize Marijuana
- Offer a pound of weed for every firearm turned into the proper authorities
- Light up.
- Chill the fuck out.
- Live and let live.

Guns make people think they are the big shit. Get real. Each of us, we are nothing. Drops in the bucket of the sands of time. Your lifespan is so short that you should stop worrying about your right to bear arms and start worrying about enjoying the rest of your life....and letting others do the same.

jeffbr

Derrick wrote:

Your lifespan is so short that you should stop worrying about your right

Yeah! Fuck rights! Why stop at the 2nd Ammendment??? Fuck them all! Let's shred the Constitution and smoke that, too! Far out, man. Righteous call, dude.

dunkman

jeffbr wrote:

Yeah! Fuck rights! Why stop at the 2nd Ammendment??? Fuck them all! Let's shred the Constitution and smoke that, too! Far out, man. Righteous call, dude.

he never said that!!! why did you amend his quote... ?

angelica

dunkman wrote:

he never said that!!! why did you amend his quote... ?

Yikes. I agree. It's one thing to alter a quote legitimately, for example using ellipses, indicating the alteration. It's another to outrightly alter the quote and distort the message.

jeffbr

dunkman wrote:

he never said that!!! why did you amend his quote... ?

Stop with the bullshit righteous indignation.

I put [ ] in the quote, to indicate that it wasn't part of the original. If you've done any reading, you'll have encountered that in articles. And, here's the kicker, you can actually see his original quote 1 post up.

The point is, he doesn't care about a particular right. Why care about any of them?

jeffbr

angelica wrote:

Yikes. I agree. It's one thing to alter a quote legitimately, for example using ellipses, indicating the alteration. It's another to outrightly alter the quote and distort the message.

Oh, please. I explained about the [ ], and in addition, my post said "Why stop with the 2nd Amendment?" further indicating that I was moving beyond his original post. Come on, you people are bright enough to follow along. Are you just nitpicking?

Abookamongstthemany

jeffbr wrote:

The point is, he doesn't care about a particular right. Why care about any of them?

To be fair, you didn't seem to care to much for the protesters in tacoma and their right to peacefully assemble and protest. By this logic, you shouldn't care about your right to bear arms then.

angelica

jeffbr wrote:

Oh, please. I explained about the [ ], and in addition, my post said "Why stop with the 2nd Amendment?" further indicating that I was moving beyond his original post. Come on, you people are bright enough to follow along. Are you just nitpicking?

I don't accept any justification for distorting someone's message to suit your own purpose. There are acceptable ways to get across your point.

angelica

jeffbr wrote:

I put [ ] in the quote, to indicate that it wasn't part of the original.

"Square brackets are used to enclose explanatory or missing […] material, especially in quoted text. For example, "I appreciate it [the honor], but I must refuse". Or, "the future of psionics [See definition] is in doubt"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracket

The intent of the square bracket is not to distort the original meaning to the editor's purpose. That you are defending your ethical mis-step and directing your hositility at others is disappointing.

jeffbr

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

To be fair, you didn't seem to care to much for the protesters in tacoma and their right to peacefully assemble and protest. By this logic, you shouldn't care about your right to bear arms then.

I NEVER said that they didn't have a right to assemble or protest. I said they were silly for walking up to the cops with their hands behind their backs. You must have completely missed my point.