[Hoijdxvh]

[evalayCap]

Posting self-shot photos on the forum, who are you ? , The new Acupuncture ??

--- Post Update ---

How are we still confusing laws and rights?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Bill_of_Rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution

For the purpose of the context in this thread it's a right, not a law.

Ok so its not a Law, Its a Right.

Who the f*ck cares ?

dead people sucking on some moldy cinema carpet, maybe ?

[Kiariitf]

Who the f*ck cares ?

Anyone who puts any emphasis on factual correctness.

[SergeyMaikov]

Anyone who puts any emphasis on factual correctness.

I meant about another mass gun shooting, not the difference between Rights and Laws !!

[tsamprasxx]

I meant about another mass gun shooting, not the difference between Rights and Laws !!

I am fully aware that the real issue here isn't whether it's a right or a law.

[FateHostera]

Posting self-shot photos on the forum, who are you ? , The new Acupuncture ??

My right eye slants down, not my left like Will's.

[giturbewan]

I meant about another mass gun shooting, not the difference between Rights and Laws !!

Well, when you have crazy people, they will do things... and if the press spends weeks day and night on someone after they've committed such a crime, other crazies decide that dying is worth the fame.

In any case, what people fail to realize is that rights are about people exercising a choice. For example, I would much rather have the one in a zillion chance of being a victim in a mass terror attack, than know with 100% certainty that the government monitors and records my every communication, and that at any time in the future I may be persecuted for something I said or didn't say.

Likewise, many Americans, consciously or not, are willing to accept the risk of being killed by a gun, versus the certainty of giving up the right to own or carry one.

But none of that matters, since we have been wisely assured that right by our Constitution's writers.

Those who try to eliminate guns by virtue of regulating them out of existence are committing a crime against the Constitution, not unlike those who detain prisoners indefinitely with no trial, or conduct mass surveillance without a warrant.

[egexgfczc]

Well, when you have crazy people, they will do things... and if the press spends weeks day and night on someone after they've committed such a crime, other crazies decide that dying is worth the fame.

In any case, what people fail to realize is that rights are about people exercising a choice. For example, I would much rather have the one in a zillion chance of being a victim in a mass terror attack, than know with 100% certainty that the government monitors and records my every communication, and that at any time in the future I may be persecuted for something I said or didn't say.

Likewise, many Americans, consciously or not, are willing to accept the risk of being killed by a gun, versus the certainty of giving up the right to own or carry one.

But none of that matters, since we have been wisely assured that right by our Constitution's writers.

Those who try to eliminate guns by virtue of regulating them out of existence are committing a crime against the Constitution, not unlike those who detain prisoners indefinitely with no trial, or conduct mass surveillance without a warrant.

Terrorists/Prisoners of War don't fall under the confines of the US Constitution, especially in times of war. However, I personally believe that the US Constitution applies to all people who the US engages, both violently and nonviolently. The fact of the matter is that modern Constitutional interpretations remain marred by Bush's conservative court. The Citizens United ruling was treason and the ones that voted for it will go down in history as the Republicans that ruined democracy. Money does not equal free speech.

[ivandiadser]

The Citizens United ruling was treason and the ones that voted for it will go down in history as the Republicans that ruined democracy. Money does not equal free speech.

Citizen United was disastrous in every way, shape, and form, but it's not treason. People like Gnius may honestly believe that simply violating the Constitution is an act of treason, but ironically, the Constitution says otherwise.

[BqTyG9eS]

Well, when you have crazy people, they will do things... and if the press spends weeks day and night on someone after they've committed such a crime, other crazies decide that dying is worth the fame.

In any case, what people fail to realize is that rights are about people exercising a choice. For example, I would much rather have the one in a zillion chance of being a victim in a mass terror attack, than know with 100% certainty that the government monitors and records my every communication, and that at any time in the future I may be persecuted for something I said or didn't say.

Likewise, many Americans, consciously or not, are willing to accept the risk of being killed by a gun, versus the certainty of giving up the right to own or carry one.

But none of that matters, since we have been wisely assured that right by our Constitution's writers.

Those who try to eliminate guns by virtue of regulating them out of existence are committing a crime against the Constitution, not unlike those who detain prisoners indefinitely with no trial, or conduct mass surveillance without a warrant.

Figured I'd getting flamed for my post, But I actually agree with yours.

Even though I understand its a right "to bear arms", I guess your forefathers at the time it was written were more interested in allowing themselves to keep firearms not to suppress a Government Dictatorship, but to fend off angry bears, coyotes, cougars and assorted wildlife that you don't normally see in the woods when you walk a dog in the UK.

With regards to the Militia side of it, I guess they weren't thinking that the world would become a place filled with WMD's and tanks etc and that firearms would progress as much as they have.

But since that's happened and everyone man and his dog has a weapon in USA, you'd think that the 2dn Amendment would still be valid, but as a point against and a point for it, you only have to look at what's kicking off in Syria to see that a civilian "rebellion" doesn't have much effect when the Government are bombing you with shells from tanks or aircraft, so unless you have a hoard of LAW or "S to A" missiles at your disposal any attempts by the American public to defend itself against an attack by Government lead troops will be short lived.

The only Point for weapons in every home is the point in case with Switzerland and Germany, the Nazi's never invaded the Swiss, cos they knew there was a weapon in every home and probably a serving soldier with it, so losses would be too great, Might also have been that all that hidden nazi gold stolen off of the Jews was located in a bank in Zurich.

[StitlyDute]

Might also have been that all that hidden nazi gold stolen off of the Jews was located in a bank in Zurich.

Just that.

[gorbasevhuynani]

I think Hitler also wanted to disarm German civilians in case of any unrest umongst his own people.

And the Jewish gold things, yes.

[Blahhhshsh]

I think Hitler also wanted to disarm German civilians in case of any unrest umongst his own people.

Not remotely true. Germany's strictest gun control laws were enacted after the Treaty of Versailles and during the Weimar Republic. Hitler actually loosened restrictions on gun ownership. The only exception was for the Jews, but most hadn't owned firearms prior to the Third Reich or Weimar, and by that time, the Nuremberg laws had already stripped them of their most essential rights.

[cbUDaNFRu]

Not remotely true. Germany's strictest gun control laws were enacted after the Treaty of Versailles and during the Weimar Republic. Hitler actually loosened restrictions on gun ownership. The only exception was for the Jews, but most hadn't owned firearms prior to the Third Reich or Weimar, and by that time, the Nuremberg laws had already stripped them of their most essential rights.

I know, they were clever enough to be voted into power without a struggle. I just thought it was one of those common arguements a misinformed American always seems to use on why they should keep guns.