They were using a right that they were unconstitutionally being denied. If it meant being arrested, so be it. I think it takes guts not to just turn around and give up. They saw their rights as more important than being arrested...if only we all cared so much.
Maybe that's how law abiding gun owners should have worked to get the DC ban overturned.
getting little more than he deserves on the changing quote mistep. I understood what he was trying to say..express..even though probably poor way of doing it.....no on his positions on gun control....well that needs adjustment. (-:
The point is, he doesn't care about a particular right. Why care about any of them?
WRONG...DEAD WRONG. The implication you are making is wrong.
I care about rights. I just feel this particular "right" is outdated and no longer relevant in today's society.
I care about your right to free speech. I care about your right to make idiot statements that clearly show your intellectual capacity. I care about your right to get a job and have fun with life and go to pearl jam concerts.
I care about your right to vote. I care about your right to vote and not have to worry your vote won't count because you voted against the brother of your governor. I care about your right to a fair trial...I would have cared about Cheney's right to a fair trial when HE SHOT SOMEONE IN THE FACE but he WALKED AWAY SCOT FREE.
But if you ask me, you INDIGNANT MISQUOTING SLIME, if I care about your right to bear arms... the answer is plain and simple, NO. No, you do not have the maturity nor the common sense to BE IN A POSITION to instantly end someone's life with such ease. You sir, are an idiot, and people like you are the prime reason the Second Amendment, as it stands now, should be rewritten and forgotten about.
Did I make myself clear? Did I make myself crystal clear?
Or are you going to misquote this one too?
looks like i missed a lot. i guess the bottom line is that different people value different rights. gun owners value that right. you may value another. the only way to change the first 10 ammendments is with revolution. the founding fathers protected the constitution with the second ammendment because the people will not give up those first 10 ammendments. thus; they have the means to protect those rights. hitler had to disarm germany in order to become a dictator. if you look back in history you'll find every dictator had to.
so we can debate the issue until we're blue but the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed without a fight. if the government doesn't protect it; there's at least 50,000,000 to 100,000,000 citizens ready to protect it.
I care about your right to free speech. I care about your right to make idiot statements that clearly show your intellectual capacity. I care about your right to get a job and have fun with life and go to pearl jam concerts.
I care about your right to vote. I care about your right to vote and not have to worry your vote won't count because you voted against the brother of your governor. I care about your right to a fair trial...I would have cared about Cheney's right to a fair trial when HE SHOT SOMEONE IN THE FACE but he WALKED AWAY SCOT FREE.
But if you ask me, you INDIGNANT MISQUOTING SLIME, if I care about your right to bear arms... the answer is plain and simple, NO. No, you do not have the maturity nor the common sense to BE IN A POSITION to instantly end someone's life with such ease. You sir, are an idiot, and people like you are the prime reason the Second Amendment, as it stands now, should be rewritten and forgotten about.
Did I make myself clear? Did I make myself crystal clear?
Or are you going to misquote this one too?
I thank you for caring about the rest of my rights. You've shown yourself to be quite a caring and compassionate young man.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
At least you recognize it as a right. I just get annoyed when people start asking for my rights to be taken away from me.
I thank you for caring about the rest of my rights. You've shown yourself to be quite a caring and compassionate young man.
you handled that great. i think that post was way out of line and clearly against the rules of the board. it was the perfect argument for repealling the first ammendment.
At least you recognize it as a right. I just get annoyed when people start asking for my rights to be taken away from me.
I think it is an absurd right. I get annoyed when people misquote me and imply things I've clearly not stated.
I thank you for caring about the rest of my rights. You've shown yourself to be quite a caring and compassionate young man.
I really don't care for you as a person, based on the opinions you've expressed here. I have zero compassion for you. I don't even know you. That said, I do care about your rights as a citizen. I hope you can make that distinction.
Germany was essentially disarmed in the agreement that ended WWI. Previous to Hitler they were encumbered in their ability to build an army of any size. When his National Socialist party took control they basically said "fuck that" and just built up their army. No other country really cared because they were all in the middle of the great depression.
Germany was essentially disarmed in the agreement that ended WWI. Previous to Hitler they were encumbered in their ability to build an army of any size.
in 1937 hitler had all gun owning citizens registered; then disarmed the citizens. the army had the weapons at that point. i'll try to find the link to his 1937 speach.
"1935 will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." --Adolph Hitler 1935 'Berlin Daily' (Loose English Translation) April 15th, 1935, Page 3 Article 2, by Einleitung Von Eberhard Beckmann, "Abschied vom Hessenland!"
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -- --Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." -- Heinrich Himmler
"All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately ... The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon ... must be regarded as an enemy of the national government." -- SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933.
"1935 will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." --Adolph Hitler 1935 'Berlin Daily' (Loose English Translation) April 15th, 1935, Page 3 Article 2, by Einleitung Von Eberhard Beckmann, "Abschied vom Hessenland!"
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -- --Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." -- Heinrich Himmler
"All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately ... The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon ... must be regarded as an enemy of the national government." -- SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933.
A couple of those remind me of what Wesley Clark said during the '04 primaries.
and if we wish to debate the founding fathers intentions:
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
Well, now that we are semi-derailed anyways, the context of the original statement, I would argue he was already a "dictator" prior to 1937, and confiscated weapons from non-Aryans to make way for future oppression.
The original quote said he did this in order to become a dictator, which I kinda think the two sides of that were independant of each other.
Anyways, I truly hope people do not draw parallels between modern-day gun control initiatives and Hitler-era gun control. The motives for modern day gun control are the unecessarily high rates of gun violence, which I've not ever read were prevalent in post WWI Germany.
Well, now that we are semi-derailed anyways, the context of the original statement, I would argue he was already a "dictator" prior to 1937, and confiscated weapons from non-Aryans to make way for future oppression.
The original quote said he did this in order to become a dictator, which I kinda think the two sides of that were independant of each other.
Anyways, I truly hope people do not draw parallels between modern-day gun control initiatives and Hitler-era gun control. The motives for modern day gun control are the unecessarily high rates of gun violence, which I've not ever read were prevalent in post WWI Germany.
I would not draw parallels in the motives. I would only compare the possible outcomes. The gun violence in DC was already high. The murder rate per capita was fairly high. I am interested to see if lifting the ban actually increases the gun violence rate here. I am going to guess that it won't since the criminals still acquire guns no matter how many bans are passed.
Gun ban's demise is good news in both theory, practice
Posted: March 13, 2007
Patrick McIlheran
When a federal appeals court threw out the District of Columbia's gun ban last week, it didn't affect Wisconsin directly. It's still good for us, for two reasons.
First, it's another federal court deciding the Constitution means what it says. The U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. became the second such court to say the Second Amendment secures an individual's natural right, as does the rest of the Bill of Rights, and is not just a go-ahead for state militias.
The latter view had long prevailed. It's still held by most other federal appeals courts. But, as Judge Lawrence H. Silberman noted, there's lots of scholarship, new and old, and many decisions in state courts - not to mention 40 state constitutions - to say that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" really means "people" and "infringed" and "not" in the way normal humans use the words.
"If the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the right to be limited to the protection of state militias," Silberman wrote, "it is hard to imagine that they would have chosen the language they did."
The decision's good for us as well because it's a blow against the idea that danger lies in weapons rather than wrongdoers.
Washington officials now warn that crime might rise. It already did. A falling violent crime rate ceased falling when Washington outlawed handguns in 1976 and required any other guns be registered, disassembled, locked and unloaded. It then rose dramatically to a peak in the 1990s. Murders in Washington remain more likely to be committed by gun than elsewhere. Rates of violent crime remain far above Virginia and Maryland, the supposed holes in Washington's porous ban. Were they plugged, that's no help: Muggings and armed break-ins are soaring in Britain, that island reported, even with the strictest gun ban in Europe.
Guns weren't the problem. Criminals were. Washington's ban simply disarmed the good.
"We have no way to defend ourselves," Gillian St. Lawrence told The Washington Post. She's one of the Washingtonians who sued to overturn the ban. She said crime is rising in her neighborhood, and while she waited two years to get a permit, criminals have no such scruples. "Having a handgun at home can be the difference between life and death," said another plaintiff, Tom Palmer, a gay man who told The Post he used a gun years ago to chase off men threatening him because of his sexuality.
Their point is that if gun bans don't work, defense does. It usually works, say criminologists, by deterrence, either by raising enough doubt in would-be criminals' minds to keep an attack from starting or by evening the odds if it does.
It worked for Andres Vegas, the pizza delivery driver on Milwaukee's north side who, when approached by an armed robber in January, pulled out his .32 and shot the guy (who survived). Vegas, while charged for carrying a concealed weapon, survived as well, not at all a foregone conclusion.
James Fendry, an activist for the right to be armed, thinks that if Vegas is convicted, his case might have more effect in Wisconsin than the case in Washington would. Wisconsin doesn't ban guns; it just makes it unusually hard to carry them for defense. But Vegas was in a high-crime area. He'd previously been robbed at gunpoint. If ever a case clarified the distinction between using guns for defense and using them for crime, this is it.
Nor will a bloodbath ensue. Most of the time, say researchers, people who defend themselves don't even have to fire. "If the gun control folks were right, based on the number of permits in the U.S., we should be up to our armpits in corpses," writes Carol K. Oyster, a University of Wisconsin-La Crosse professor and scholar of the use of firearms. "Nothing of the sort has happened."
Of course not. The problem isn't people defending themselves. Anyone can see that, just as anyone can see the absurdity of arguing that the Second Amendment applies only to the National Guard. Judge Silberman did well last week, both for the Constitution and for the common-sense view that lower crime does not result from disarming criminals' prey.
Well, now that we are semi-derailed anyways, the context of the original statement, I would argue he was already a "dictator" prior to 1937, and confiscated weapons from non-Aryans to make way for future oppression.
The original quote said he did this in order to become a dictator, which I kinda think the two sides of that were independant of each other.
Anyways, I truly hope people do not draw parallels between modern-day gun control initiatives and Hitler-era gun control. The motives for modern day gun control are the unecessarily high rates of gun violence, which I've not ever read were prevalent in post WWI Germany.
hitlers germany had open relations with other countries and was respected as a leader. it was after he disarmed the citizens he gained the power to become a dictator. he first gained the trust of the people and the world to put his master plan in action. you can verify this by looking in any history book.
if you look back a few pages; you will see that about 10,000 homicides were commited with a firearm. about 5,000 were committed with other weapons. you will also see that the population is over 301,000,000 making gun deaths a fraction of a percent of the population. clearly not a big enough percentage to start taking away rights. if we're going to use this train of thought:
1) more people slander others than gun deaths so the 1st ammendment must be repealled.
2) more criminals elude justice because of bail; so that must be abolished.
i can go through the bill of rights and show you abuse in each; but what we do is punish those who abuse those rights; not take away the rights of everyone.
master plan in action. you can verify this by looking in any history book.
if you look back a few pages; you will see that about 10,000 homicides were commited with a firearm. about 5,000 were committed with other weapons. you will also see that the population is over 301,000,000 making gun deaths a fraction of a percent of the population. clearly not a big enough percentage to start taking away rights.
The homicide rate for children in the United States was five times higher than that for children in the other 25 countries combined (2.57 per 100,000 compared with 0.51) (Table_1).
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
uh..I'm just concerned with one aspect of the bill of rights :-)
anyways, back to my original post, I really think your country would be a happier place if you replaced all firearms with MJ.
And find a non-lethal way to arm yourself so that you can bear something that doesn't carry more responsibility that you are prepared to handle.
i noticed that. you have tunnel vision on our second ammendment even though it doesn't effect you in any way. it makes me wonder why you don't want americans to be able to protect their rights. if the iraqi's could've defended their rights against hussain; there wouldn't be a war right now trying to win their freedom back. if the german people could have defended their rights when hitler went overboard; there wouldn't have been WWII. if europe could have defended itself america wouldn't have had to step in. but it was alright to restore europeans freedom but it's wrong to help the iraqis attain freedom.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
"1935 will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." --Adolph Hitler 1935 'Berlin Daily' (Loose English Translation) April 15th, 1935, Page 3 Article 2, by Einleitung Von Eberhard Beckmann, "Abschied vom Hessenland!"
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -- --Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." -- Heinrich Himmler
"All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately ... The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon ... must be regarded as an enemy of the national government." -- SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933.
are you comparing your govt to the nazis now? i know its pretty bad over there but i think you'll be a democracy for the foreseeable future
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
The homicide rate for children in the United States was five times higher than that for children in the other 25 countries combined (2.57 per 100,000 compared with 0.51) (Table_1).
the biggest cause of death for children in the us is directly or indirectly related to alcohol. (per madd publication)
using the link hippiemom provided; there are 10,000 gun deaths in the us in 2004. so how were these children killed? you blurt out a statement without showing the correlation with the subject.
the stats also showed about 16,000 homicides. that's total for 2004. 16,000 compared to a population over 301,000,000 is quite a low percentage.
if europe could have defended itself america wouldn't have had to step in. but it was alright to restore europeans freedom but it's wrong to help the iraqis attain freedom.
Europe did defend itself and it did so admirably.. i cant recall having any German soldiers march into my country? you probably know this but are refusing to acknowledge it but the Russians had practically defeated the Germans anyway... it would have taken longer without US intervention but it would have been done... and any restoration of our 'freedoms' god i hate that phrase, has been done at considerable financial cost to the UK government at least.. i believe we finally paid off our loan to you a few months ago... so dont try and make it out like you came stepping in at the last minute to save the day... you made millions/billions out of the second world war .... it wasnt a charitable venture for freedoms!
we gave you the technology for the atom bomb.. should we take the credit for you defeating Japan now?
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Comments
Maybe that's how law abiding gun owners should have worked to get the DC ban overturned.
WRONG...DEAD WRONG. The implication you are making is wrong.
I care about rights. I just feel this particular "right" is outdated and no longer relevant in today's society.
I care about your right to free speech. I care about your right to make idiot statements that clearly show your intellectual capacity. I care about your right to get a job and have fun with life and go to pearl jam concerts.
I care about your right to vote. I care about your right to vote and not have to worry your vote won't count because you voted against the brother of your governor. I care about your right to a fair trial...I would have cared about Cheney's right to a fair trial when HE SHOT SOMEONE IN THE FACE but he WALKED AWAY SCOT FREE.
But if you ask me, you INDIGNANT MISQUOTING SLIME, if I care about your right to bear arms... the answer is plain and simple, NO. No, you do not have the maturity nor the common sense to BE IN A POSITION to instantly end someone's life with such ease. You sir, are an idiot, and people like you are the prime reason the Second Amendment, as it stands now, should be rewritten and forgotten about.
Did I make myself clear? Did I make myself crystal clear?
Or are you going to misquote this one too?
Peacefully assemble and protest? I like doing that myself. It's not breaking any laws.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Or willfully breaking a law to prove its absurdity.
so we can debate the issue until we're blue but the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed without a fight. if the government doesn't protect it; there's at least 50,000,000 to 100,000,000 citizens ready to protect it.
At least you recognize it as a right. I just get annoyed when people start asking for my rights to be taken away from me.
I thank you for caring about the rest of my rights. You've shown yourself to be quite a caring and compassionate young man.
you handled that great. i think that post was way out of line and clearly against the rules of the board. it was the perfect argument for repealling the first ammendment.
I really don't care for you as a person, based on the opinions you've expressed here. I have zero compassion for you. I don't even know you. That said, I do care about your rights as a citizen. I hope you can make that distinction.
Got any proof whatsoever for this?
naděje umírá poslední
in 1937 hitler had all gun owning citizens registered; then disarmed the citizens. the army had the weapons at that point. i'll try to find the link to his 1937 speach.
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -- --Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." -- Heinrich Himmler
"All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately ... The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon ... must be regarded as an enemy of the national government." -- SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933.
A couple of those remind me of what Wesley Clark said during the '04 primaries.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
i guess i should have posted a link.
http://www.trollcave.com/2nd_Amendment.html
i'm still trying to find the entire speech. it's almost like people here are quoting hitler.
That's what I think too. I don't like the "Hitler clause" but there are some similarities.
The original quote said he did this in order to become a dictator, which I kinda think the two sides of that were independant of each other.
Anyways, I truly hope people do not draw parallels between modern-day gun control initiatives and Hitler-era gun control. The motives for modern day gun control are the unecessarily high rates of gun violence, which I've not ever read were prevalent in post WWI Germany.
I would not draw parallels in the motives. I would only compare the possible outcomes. The gun violence in DC was already high. The murder rate per capita was fairly high. I am interested to see if lifting the ban actually increases the gun violence rate here. I am going to guess that it won't since the criminals still acquire guns no matter how many bans are passed.
Gun ban's demise is good news in both theory, practice
Posted: March 13, 2007
Patrick McIlheran
When a federal appeals court threw out the District of Columbia's gun ban last week, it didn't affect Wisconsin directly. It's still good for us, for two reasons.
First, it's another federal court deciding the Constitution means what it says. The U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. became the second such court to say the Second Amendment secures an individual's natural right, as does the rest of the Bill of Rights, and is not just a go-ahead for state militias.
The latter view had long prevailed. It's still held by most other federal appeals courts. But, as Judge Lawrence H. Silberman noted, there's lots of scholarship, new and old, and many decisions in state courts - not to mention 40 state constitutions - to say that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" really means "people" and "infringed" and "not" in the way normal humans use the words.
"If the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the right to be limited to the protection of state militias," Silberman wrote, "it is hard to imagine that they would have chosen the language they did."
The decision's good for us as well because it's a blow against the idea that danger lies in weapons rather than wrongdoers.
Washington officials now warn that crime might rise. It already did. A falling violent crime rate ceased falling when Washington outlawed handguns in 1976 and required any other guns be registered, disassembled, locked and unloaded. It then rose dramatically to a peak in the 1990s. Murders in Washington remain more likely to be committed by gun than elsewhere. Rates of violent crime remain far above Virginia and Maryland, the supposed holes in Washington's porous ban. Were they plugged, that's no help: Muggings and armed break-ins are soaring in Britain, that island reported, even with the strictest gun ban in Europe.
Guns weren't the problem. Criminals were. Washington's ban simply disarmed the good.
"We have no way to defend ourselves," Gillian St. Lawrence told The Washington Post. She's one of the Washingtonians who sued to overturn the ban. She said crime is rising in her neighborhood, and while she waited two years to get a permit, criminals have no such scruples. "Having a handgun at home can be the difference between life and death," said another plaintiff, Tom Palmer, a gay man who told The Post he used a gun years ago to chase off men threatening him because of his sexuality.
Their point is that if gun bans don't work, defense does. It usually works, say criminologists, by deterrence, either by raising enough doubt in would-be criminals' minds to keep an attack from starting or by evening the odds if it does.
It worked for Andres Vegas, the pizza delivery driver on Milwaukee's north side who, when approached by an armed robber in January, pulled out his .32 and shot the guy (who survived). Vegas, while charged for carrying a concealed weapon, survived as well, not at all a foregone conclusion.
James Fendry, an activist for the right to be armed, thinks that if Vegas is convicted, his case might have more effect in Wisconsin than the case in Washington would. Wisconsin doesn't ban guns; it just makes it unusually hard to carry them for defense. But Vegas was in a high-crime area. He'd previously been robbed at gunpoint. If ever a case clarified the distinction between using guns for defense and using them for crime, this is it.
Nor will a bloodbath ensue. Most of the time, say researchers, people who defend themselves don't even have to fire. "If the gun control folks were right, based on the number of permits in the U.S., we should be up to our armpits in corpses," writes Carol K. Oyster, a University of Wisconsin-La Crosse professor and scholar of the use of firearms. "Nothing of the sort has happened."
Of course not. The problem isn't people defending themselves. Anyone can see that, just as anyone can see the absurdity of arguing that the Second Amendment applies only to the National Guard. Judge Silberman did well last week, both for the Constitution and for the common-sense view that lower crime does not result from disarming criminals' prey.
Patrick McIlheran is a Journal Sentinel editorial columnist. His e-mail address is pmcilheran@journalsentinel.com
hitlers germany had open relations with other countries and was respected as a leader. it was after he disarmed the citizens he gained the power to become a dictator. he first gained the trust of the people and the world to put his master plan in action. you can verify this by looking in any history book.
if you look back a few pages; you will see that about 10,000 homicides were commited with a firearm. about 5,000 were committed with other weapons. you will also see that the population is over 301,000,000 making gun deaths a fraction of a percent of the population. clearly not a big enough percentage to start taking away rights. if we're going to use this train of thought:
1) more people slander others than gun deaths so the 1st ammendment must be repealled.
2) more criminals elude justice because of bail; so that must be abolished.
i can go through the bill of rights and show you abuse in each; but what we do is punish those who abuse those rights; not take away the rights of everyone.
anyways, back to my original post, I really think your country would be a happier place if you replaced all firearms with MJ.
And find a non-lethal way to arm yourself so that you can bear something that doesn't carry more responsibility that you are prepared to handle.
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm
The homicide rate for children in the United States was five times higher than that for children in the other 25 countries combined (2.57 per 100,000 compared with 0.51) (Table_1).
i noticed that. you have tunnel vision on our second ammendment even though it doesn't effect you in any way. it makes me wonder why you don't want americans to be able to protect their rights. if the iraqi's could've defended their rights against hussain; there wouldn't be a war right now trying to win their freedom back. if the german people could have defended their rights when hitler went overboard; there wouldn't have been WWII. if europe could have defended itself america wouldn't have had to step in. but it was alright to restore europeans freedom but it's wrong to help the iraqis attain freedom.
no
are you comparing your govt to the nazis now? i know its pretty bad over there but i think you'll be a democracy for the foreseeable future
the biggest cause of death for children in the us is directly or indirectly related to alcohol. (per madd publication)
using the link hippiemom provided; there are 10,000 gun deaths in the us in 2004. so how were these children killed? you blurt out a statement without showing the correlation with the subject.
the stats also showed about 16,000 homicides. that's total for 2004. 16,000 compared to a population over 301,000,000 is quite a low percentage.
Europe did defend itself and it did so admirably.. i cant recall having any German soldiers march into my country?
we gave you the technology for the atom bomb.. should we take the credit for you defeating Japan now?
WHAT? our courts upheld our right. however; we can compare those wanting to remove those rights with hitler reasoning and mentality.