You probably don't. You need to watch his show "Spirit of the Wild". He needs to not smell as to not alert the animals.
yeah. that's my nine year old son's excuse too. though being underage and with no access to firearms of any kind, he has to kill them animals with his bare hands. LMAO!!
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
yeah. that's my nine year old son's excuse too. though being underage and with no access to firearms of any kind, he has to kill them animals with his bare hands. LMAO!!
I love how the guy tries to give me the reason for Nugent's questionable hygiene when I was just trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to make a joke.
one foot in the door
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
I thought the fact that after the President offered condolences and his shock and horror, etc....that he felt it necessarry to add that he supports people's rights to bear arms was disgusting.
he knows it's a vote winner... he's as thick as his electorate
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.
So you think that inaction, and silence on this issue is the way to proceed?
First thanks for putting words in my mouth. Secondly each side of this issue will use this tragedy as a political tool which to me is disgusting. The only way top prevent this type of incident from happening is to sompletely eliminate the production of fire arms. Even with the strictest of gun control laws illegal fire arms still make out on the street and people still get killed. For all we know the student that did this bought those fire arms illegally.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I thought the fact that after the President offered condolences and his shock and horror, etc....that he felt it necessarry to add that he supports people's rights to bear arms was disgusting. What a fucking idiot. That was totally dispicable and inapropriate.
First thanks for putting words in my mouth. Secondly each side of this issue will use this tragedy as a political tool which to me is disgusting. The only way top prevent this type of incident from happening is to sompletely eliminate the production of fire arms. Even with the strictest of gun control laws illegal fire arms still make out on the street and people still get killed. For all we know the student that did this bought those fire arms illegally.
And you think that eliminating the production of fire arms can be achieved independently of politics? Of course it's a political issue. This is what we elect and pay the fuckers for. They are there to implement and enforce the will of the people, or so we're lead to believe. Incidents like this should be seen to be catalysts for change. The alternative is to do nothing and carry on as normal, like you did after Columbine, e.t.c, e.t.c.
the most ironic thing about this debate is it's distance from reality. nobody suggests a logical solution; they only throw personal opinions back and forth.
americans will always have guns.
1) every oath of office requires the oathee to swear to protect the constitution. failure to do so is an impeachable offence.
2) should congress try to remove this right; armed americans will protect the constitution.
3) as of 2005; 23 states issue conceiled weapons permits and an additional 11 agree to respect that permit in their jurisdiction. thus; passing of any legislation is impossible.
4) the supreme court has always upheld the second ammendment and the right of a citizen to protect himself. this right includes the right to protect oneself against the government.
based on these facts; the only logical solution is education. if laws stopped crime; we'd be a crime free society.
the most ironic thing about this debate is it's distance from reality. nobody suggests a logical solution; they only throw personal opinions back and forth.
americans will always have guns.
1) every oath of office requires the oathee to swear to protect the constitution. failure to do so is an impeachable offence.
2) should congress try to remove this right; armed americans will protect the constitution.
3) as of 2005; 23 states issue conceiled weapons permits and an additional 11 agree to respect that permit in their jurisdiction. thus; passing of any legislation is impossible.
4) the supreme court has always upheld the second ammendment and the right of a citizen to protect himself. this right includes the right to protect oneself against the government.
based on these facts; the only logical solution is education. if laws stopped crime; we'd be a crime free society.
1) if the constitution is amended, then that oath would no longer protect the 2nd amendment.
2) if the constitution is amended, it would not be congress who removed that right and these armed americans would be conidered what they are: crazy militia terrorists who would be hunted down and jailed for breaking the law.
3) you're right, as of now, there is nowhere near enough popular support to amend the constitution so this is all moot. but this kind of public discourse and a repeated pattern of tragedies like this might change public sentiment. we shall see. in the meantime, people's right to talk about their ideas and opinions RE the guns is ALSO a constitutionally protected one.
4) scotus has upheld the 2nd amendment, but it has also upheld reasonable restrictions on guns. also, again, if the constitution was amended, scotus would stop protecting guns becos it upholds the constitution as it is written. it cannot deny gun rights becos it is in the constitution and if it was not in the constitution, it could do what it damn well pleased with guns.
Our nation is shocked and saddened by the news of the shootings at Virginia Tech today. The exact total has not yet been confirmed, but it appears that more than 30 people were killed and many more were wounded.
I've spoken with Governor Tim Kaine and Virginia Tech President Charles Steger. I told them that Laura and I and many across our nation are praying for the victims and their families and all the members of the university community who have been devastated by this terrible tragedy. I told them that my administration would do everything possible to assist with the investigation, and that I pledged that we would stand ready to help local law enforcement and the local community in any way we can during this time of sorrow.
Schools should be places of safety and sanctuary and learning. When that sanctuary is violated, the impact is felt in every American classroom and every American community.
Today, our nation grieves with those who have lost loved ones at Virginia Tech. We hold the victims in our hearts, we lift them up in our prayers, and we ask a loving God to comfort those who are suffering today.
Thank you.
Just in case anyone forgot what the President actually said during his televised comments reacting to what happened. And from the White House Press briefing later that day:
Q Dana, going back to Virginia Tech, what more does this White House think needs to be done as it relates to gun issues? The President says current laws need to be strengthened, anything beyond that -- you had a conference on school violence with guns -- what more needs to be done?
MS. PERINO: I would point you back to the fact that President, along with Secretary Spellings, hosted last October -- October 10, 2006 -- a conference on school gun violence after the Amish school shooting and the other shootings that had happened, because the tragedies are the ones that just collectively break America's heart and are ones that we deeply feel, because all of us can imagine what it would be like to have been at your own school, your own college, and to have something happen. And those of us who are parents, or brothers or sisters of people at the schools have to take that into consideration.
As far as policy, the President believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed. And certainly bringing a gun into a school dormitory and shooting -- I don't want to say numbers because I know that they're still trying to figure out many people were wounded and possibly killed, but obviously that would be against the law and something that someone should be held accountable for.
Q Columbine, Amish school shooting, now this, and a whole host of other gun issues brought into schools -- that's not including guns on the streets and in many urban areas and rural areas. Does there need to be some more restrictions? Does there need to be gun control in this country?
MS. PERINO: The President -- as I said, April, if there are changes to the President's policy we will let you know. But we've had a consistent policy of ensuring that the Justice Department is enforcing all of the gun laws that we have on the books and making sure that they're prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Q Lastly, in Texas, if I'm correct, he passed legislation, no age restriction on possession of weapons, if I'm correct. Should there be some kind of federal age limit, as far as the President is concerned, raising the age for gun possession in this country?
MS. PERINO: Unfortunately, I'm going to have to go back and look at what the record was in Texas.
I thought the fact that after the President offered condolences and his shock and horror, etc....that he felt it necessarry to add that he supports people's rights to bear arms was disgusting. What a fucking idiot. That was totally dispicable and inapropriate. Whoever wrote that speech or was pulling his puppet strings should be ashamed of themselves. It made me want to puke.
You know what's pretty despicable and inappropriate? Taking quotes from a public figure AND public record and twisting it into that which it is plainly and clearly not. If anyone should be ashamed, it's this poster and everyone else who's jumped on the bandwagon.
Just in case anyone forgot what the President actually said during his televised comments reacting to what happened.
Didn't he throw in a "ahem cough...buy more guns...cough...shop at Walmart...cough.....Iraq still has WMD"?
lol..... so you're saying there was no mention of Gun control?
was there a fox only edited version of the speech?!
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
1) if the constitution is amended, then that oath would no longer protect the 2nd amendment.
2) if the constitution is amended, it would not be congress who removed that right and these armed americans would be conidered what they are: crazy militia terrorists who would be hunted down and jailed for breaking the law.
3) you're right, as of now, there is nowhere near enough popular support to amend the constitution so this is all moot. but this kind of public discourse and a repeated pattern of tragedies like this might change public sentiment. we shall see. in the meantime, people's right to talk about their ideas and opinions RE the guns is ALSO a constitutionally protected one.
4) scotus has upheld the 2nd amendment, but it has also upheld reasonable restrictions on guns. also, again, if the constitution was amended, scotus would stop protecting guns becos it upholds the constitution as it is written. it cannot deny gun rights becos it is in the constitution and if it was not in the constitution, it could do what it damn well pleased with guns.
when i studied law; i had no time to play with anything let alone sit on the internet all day.
1) the act of attempting to amend the second ammendment would spark enough disent it would never happen. get your head out of your arse. talk to someone who knows the law. wannabe lawyers are no experts.
2) see above.
3) in a fight where 1 million plus people with guns stand against 2 million people without guns; who will win?
4) see #1
And you think that eliminating the production of fire arms can be achieved independently of politics? Of course it's a political issue. This is what we elect and pay the fuckers for. They are there to implement and enforce the will of the people, or so we're lead to believe. Incidents like this should be seen to be catalysts for change. The alternative is to do nothing and carry on as normal, like you did after Columbine, e.t.c, e.t.c.
The thing is the complete elimination of fire arm production will never happen. Change is necessary but what change would you suggest. You can't completely ban fire arms. There are people who use them for sport and are responsible people. Then you have people who us ethem for crime and I would bet that the majority of the people who use fire arms for criminal purposes obtained the weapon illegally so banning fire arms would do very little in that sense.
After every tragic incident like this you have peolple and their knee jerk reactions popping up. I have heard everything from allowing students to carry weapons in school to completely banning all weapons. Neither of these proposed solutions will solve the problem. We need to stop focusing on the political ramifications and seriously discuss the issue and come up with a solution that will work.
This is not a 2nd amendment issue but people make it one to further their agenda.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
when i studied law; i had no time to play with anything let alone sit on the internet all day.
1) the act of attempting to amend the second ammendment would spark enough disent it would never happen. get your head out of your arse. talk to someone who knows the law. wannabe lawyers are no experts.
Where did you get your law degree?
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
The thing is the complete elimination of fire arm production will never happen. Change is necessary but what change would you suggest. You can't completely ban fire arms. There are people who use them for sport and are responsible people. Then you have people who us ethem for crime and I would bet that the majority of the people who use fire arms for criminal purposes obtained the weapon illegally so banning fire arms would do very little in that sense.
After every tragic incident like this you have peolple and their knee jerk reactions popping up. I have heard everything from allowing students to carry weapons in school to completely banning all weapons. Neither of these proposed solutions will solve the problem. We need to stop focusing on the political ramifications and seriously discuss the issue and come up with a solution that will work.
This is not a 2nd amendment issue but people make it one to further their agenda.
Interesting thing I've noticed. The most vocal anti-gun people in this forum aren't even from America.
when i studied law; i had no time to play with anything let alone sit on the internet all day.
1) the act of attempting to amend the second ammendment would spark enough disent it would never happen. get your head out of your arse. talk to someone who knows the law. wannabe lawyers are no experts.
2) see above.
3) in a fight where 1 million plus people with guns stand against 2 million people without guns; who will win?
4) see #1
1) that's not what you were saying yesterday, mr genius legal scholar. you know you didnt have shit yesterday, so now you're trying to backtrack. all im saying is it COULD happen, not that it will.
2) ditto.
3) in a fight with 1 million redneck idiots with guns against the entirety of american police, military and citizenry, you'd get our asses kicked. however, that was not the issue. the issue was public discourse and democratic change. i love your selective respect for the constitution... guns are ironcald and cannot be changed, but if someone exercises their first amendment right to advocate using constitutional procedures to amend the constitution, you threaten to shoot them in the street. you're a credit to your cause.
4) see number 1. it is legal and possible to change the constitution and no amount of testosterone fueled bullshit from you is going to change the fact that apparently, despite posting here throughout the day, i know more about the constitution than your dumb ass learned from rapt attention.
probably the same school he learned to play guitar in a famous rock band, did militia drilling, and was declared a medical miracle. im guessing it was a mail order college program... you know, we give you a video tape and a paper degree for $50.
No... no... you mustn't drink from the poisoned well...lol
Well, I just took a look around the net and it would seem this place has the only mention of it. So I believe you are correct.
aye carumba...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Interesting thing I've noticed. The most vocal anti-gun people in this forum aren't even from America.
I personally never want to be near a fire arm, but I know people who own them and use them responsibly. Completely banning fire arms seems is ridiculous to me because it may not solve the problem. You would still have to contend with the illegal fire arms that anyone can buy off the street, which are probably the majority of weapons that are used in criminal acts.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
So would you say that it's slightly disingenuous and convenient to put words in the mouth of the President based on what was ACTUALLY said?
given the evidence provided (takes hand off bible) yes.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Hey ... How is this any different than immediately shrieking about the need for more gun control?
In both cases, people are disregarding the victims and the deeper causes of violence, and are instead turning this tragedy into a political issue.
Hey ... How is this any different than immediately shrieking about the need for more gun control?
In both cases, people are disregarding the victims and the deeper causes of violence, and are instead turning this tragedy into a political issue.
It's not any different.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Hey ... How is this any different than immediately shrieking about the need for more gun control?
In both cases, people are disregarding the victims and the deeper causes of violence, and are instead turning this tragedy into a political issue.
One difference is that it is the president. If I immediately use it to talk about gun control (which I did not), that may be inappropriate, but unlike me, the president does have an affect on what happens here and it does matter what he says. Frankly, he should know better--his office comes with some responsibilities including in the area of taste. If we are going to hold the president to higher moral and personal standards, than we can hold him to a higher standard here.
If a representative or Senator uses it to talk about the need for more gun control, then I am right there with you...
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
1) that's not what you were saying yesterday, mr genius legal scholar. you know you didnt have shit yesterday, so now you're trying to backtrack. all im saying is it COULD happen, not that it will.
2) ditto.
3) in a fight with 1 million redneck idiots with guns against the entirety of american police, military and citizenry, you'd get our asses kicked. however, that was not the issue. the issue was public discourse and democratic change. i love your selective respect for the constitution... guns are ironcald and cannot be changed, but if someone exercises their first amendment right to advocate using constitutional procedures to amend the constitution, you threaten to shoot them in the street. you're a credit to your cause.
4) see number 1. it is legal and possible to change the constitution and no amount of testosterone fueled bullshit from you is going to change the fact that apparently, despite posting here throughout the day, i know more about the constitution than your dumb ass learned from rapt attention.
i will not try to reason with an unreasonable person. IF you are in law school; talk to your teacher about this. because i had to leave yesterday has nothing to do with proving anything to you. i posted several examples one proving the court ruled that many of the current laws are unconstitutional in US vs MILLER. anyone with the money to pursue this has precident behind them. your inability to understand case law is not my concern.
the bill of rights are deemed rights given by God and cannot be repealed.
if the military; police; and citizens are so good; why are there gangs? why are we still in iraq losing to a handfull of disidents? in fact; why is there still crime? if you knew any law; you would know that the military cannot be deployed on american soil unless marshal law is declared. america cannot declare war upon itself. the national guard can and is deployed yet these guardsmen; while armed; cannot stop 1 million unarmed mexicans from crossing the border each year. YET; 1 "redneck" with a rifle can hide his scent and sneek up on an animal with superior speed; sight; scent and hearing. most of these "rednecks" can put a bullet in a circle the size of a coffee cup at 200 yards too. considering the government will never bomb it's own citizens; who has the superior firepower?
1) that's not what you were saying yesterday, mr genius legal scholar. you know you didnt have shit yesterday, so now you're trying to backtrack. all im saying is it COULD happen, not that it will.
2) ditto.
3) in a fight with 1 million redneck idiots with guns against the entirety of american police, military and citizenry, you'd get our asses kicked. however, that was not the issue. the issue was public discourse and democratic change. i love your selective respect for the constitution... guns are ironcald and cannot be changed, but if someone exercises their first amendment right to advocate using constitutional procedures to amend the constitution, you threaten to shoot them in the street. you're a credit to your cause.
4) see number 1. it is legal and possible to change the constitution and no amount of testosterone fueled bullshit from you is going to change the fact that apparently, despite posting here throughout the day, i know more about the constitution than your dumb ass learned from rapt attention.
furthermore; this citizenry you speak of is unarmed. if armed; they would be fighting for the right to defend themselves. anti-gun forces bearing arms to protect themselves makes no sense what so ever.
you also forget that military and guardsmen are fighting and dying to protect their rights. in the history of the us; hundreds of thousands of people died protecting the constitution. with most of these people being owners of personal weapons; they too will join these "rednecks" and secret militias.
Interesting thing I've noticed. The most vocal anti-gun people in this forum aren't even from America.
yes; i pointed that out earlier.
a man with a gun is a citizen; a man without a gun is a subject.
i guess our ability to police our government causes jealousy in those who can't.
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henery Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment)
yes; i pointed that out earlier.
a man with a gun is a citizen; a man without a gun is a subject.
i guess our ability to police our government causes jealousy in those who can't.
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henery Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment)
Comments
yeah. that's my nine year old son's excuse too.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I love how the guy tries to give me the reason for Nugent's questionable hygiene when I was just trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to make a joke.
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
he knows it's a vote winner... he's as thick as his electorate
Nice Bill Hicks signature by the way.
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
I might have to change mine to
Hairy Bobbing Man Ass
or
Squeegee Your Third Eye
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
First thanks for putting words in my mouth. Secondly each side of this issue will use this tragedy as a political tool which to me is disgusting. The only way top prevent this type of incident from happening is to sompletely eliminate the production of fire arms. Even with the strictest of gun control laws illegal fire arms still make out on the street and people still get killed. For all we know the student that did this bought those fire arms illegally.
What else did you expect from him?
And you think that eliminating the production of fire arms can be achieved independently of politics? Of course it's a political issue. This is what we elect and pay the fuckers for. They are there to implement and enforce the will of the people, or so we're lead to believe. Incidents like this should be seen to be catalysts for change. The alternative is to do nothing and carry on as normal, like you did after Columbine, e.t.c, e.t.c.
americans will always have guns.
1) every oath of office requires the oathee to swear to protect the constitution. failure to do so is an impeachable offence.
2) should congress try to remove this right; armed americans will protect the constitution.
3) as of 2005; 23 states issue conceiled weapons permits and an additional 11 agree to respect that permit in their jurisdiction. thus; passing of any legislation is impossible.
4) the supreme court has always upheld the second ammendment and the right of a citizen to protect himself. this right includes the right to protect oneself against the government.
based on these facts; the only logical solution is education. if laws stopped crime; we'd be a crime free society.
1) if the constitution is amended, then that oath would no longer protect the 2nd amendment.
2) if the constitution is amended, it would not be congress who removed that right and these armed americans would be conidered what they are: crazy militia terrorists who would be hunted down and jailed for breaking the law.
3) you're right, as of now, there is nowhere near enough popular support to amend the constitution so this is all moot. but this kind of public discourse and a repeated pattern of tragedies like this might change public sentiment. we shall see. in the meantime, people's right to talk about their ideas and opinions RE the guns is ALSO a constitutionally protected one.
4) scotus has upheld the 2nd amendment, but it has also upheld reasonable restrictions on guns. also, again, if the constitution was amended, scotus would stop protecting guns becos it upholds the constitution as it is written. it cannot deny gun rights becos it is in the constitution and if it was not in the constitution, it could do what it damn well pleased with guns.
Just in case anyone forgot what the President actually said during his televised comments reacting to what happened. And from the White House Press briefing later that day:
You know what's pretty despicable and inappropriate? Taking quotes from a public figure AND public record and twisting it into that which it is plainly and clearly not. If anyone should be ashamed, it's this poster and everyone else who's jumped on the bandwagon.
Didn't he throw in a "ahem cough...buy more guns...cough...shop at Walmart...cough.....Iraq still has WMD"?
lol..... so you're saying there was no mention of Gun control?
was there a fox only edited version of the speech?!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
when i studied law; i had no time to play with anything let alone sit on the internet all day.
1) the act of attempting to amend the second ammendment would spark enough disent it would never happen. get your head out of your arse. talk to someone who knows the law. wannabe lawyers are no experts.
2) see above.
3) in a fight where 1 million plus people with guns stand against 2 million people without guns; who will win?
4) see #1
The thing is the complete elimination of fire arm production will never happen. Change is necessary but what change would you suggest. You can't completely ban fire arms. There are people who use them for sport and are responsible people. Then you have people who us ethem for crime and I would bet that the majority of the people who use fire arms for criminal purposes obtained the weapon illegally so banning fire arms would do very little in that sense.
After every tragic incident like this you have peolple and their knee jerk reactions popping up. I have heard everything from allowing students to carry weapons in school to completely banning all weapons. Neither of these proposed solutions will solve the problem. We need to stop focusing on the political ramifications and seriously discuss the issue and come up with a solution that will work.
This is not a 2nd amendment issue but people make it one to further their agenda.
Interesting thing I've noticed. The most vocal anti-gun people in this forum aren't even from America.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
1) that's not what you were saying yesterday, mr genius legal scholar. you know you didnt have shit yesterday, so now you're trying to backtrack. all im saying is it COULD happen, not that it will.
2) ditto.
3) in a fight with 1 million redneck idiots with guns against the entirety of american police, military and citizenry, you'd get our asses kicked. however, that was not the issue. the issue was public discourse and democratic change. i love your selective respect for the constitution... guns are ironcald and cannot be changed, but if someone exercises their first amendment right to advocate using constitutional procedures to amend the constitution, you threaten to shoot them in the street. you're a credit to your cause.
4) see number 1. it is legal and possible to change the constitution and no amount of testosterone fueled bullshit from you is going to change the fact that apparently, despite posting here throughout the day, i know more about the constitution than your dumb ass learned from rapt attention.
probably the same school he learned to play guitar in a famous rock band, did militia drilling, and was declared a medical miracle. im guessing it was a mail order college program... you know, we give you a video tape and a paper degree for $50.
No... no... you mustn't drink from the poisoned well...lol
Well, I just took a look around the net and it would seem this place has the only mention of it. So I believe you are correct.
aye carumba...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I personally never want to be near a fire arm, but I know people who own them and use them responsibly. Completely banning fire arms seems is ridiculous to me because it may not solve the problem. You would still have to contend with the illegal fire arms that anyone can buy off the street, which are probably the majority of weapons that are used in criminal acts.
given the evidence provided (takes hand off bible) yes.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
In both cases, people are disregarding the victims and the deeper causes of violence, and are instead turning this tragedy into a political issue.
It's not any different.
One difference is that it is the president. If I immediately use it to talk about gun control (which I did not), that may be inappropriate, but unlike me, the president does have an affect on what happens here and it does matter what he says. Frankly, he should know better--his office comes with some responsibilities including in the area of taste. If we are going to hold the president to higher moral and personal standards, than we can hold him to a higher standard here.
If a representative or Senator uses it to talk about the need for more gun control, then I am right there with you...
i will not try to reason with an unreasonable person. IF you are in law school; talk to your teacher about this. because i had to leave yesterday has nothing to do with proving anything to you. i posted several examples one proving the court ruled that many of the current laws are unconstitutional in US vs MILLER. anyone with the money to pursue this has precident behind them. your inability to understand case law is not my concern.
the bill of rights are deemed rights given by God and cannot be repealed.
if the military; police; and citizens are so good; why are there gangs? why are we still in iraq losing to a handfull of disidents? in fact; why is there still crime? if you knew any law; you would know that the military cannot be deployed on american soil unless marshal law is declared. america cannot declare war upon itself. the national guard can and is deployed yet these guardsmen; while armed; cannot stop 1 million unarmed mexicans from crossing the border each year. YET; 1 "redneck" with a rifle can hide his scent and sneek up on an animal with superior speed; sight; scent and hearing. most of these "rednecks" can put a bullet in a circle the size of a coffee cup at 200 yards too. considering the government will never bomb it's own citizens; who has the superior firepower?
furthermore; this citizenry you speak of is unarmed. if armed; they would be fighting for the right to defend themselves. anti-gun forces bearing arms to protect themselves makes no sense what so ever.
you also forget that military and guardsmen are fighting and dying to protect their rights. in the history of the us; hundreds of thousands of people died protecting the constitution. with most of these people being owners of personal weapons; they too will join these "rednecks" and secret militias.
yes; i pointed that out earlier.
a man with a gun is a citizen; a man without a gun is a subject.
i guess our ability to police our government causes jealousy in those who can't.
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henery Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment)
I can't disagree more.
A man is a man, man.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.