I don't know what you would do if you were me :dunno:
-
Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
-
FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!
To Every American Citizen.
- Thread starter Galactic
- Start date
I don't know what you would do if you were me :dunno:
Mr. Daystar
In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
People jump to the 2nd Amendment so quickly, because that's usually the first one on the chopping block, and the first one, that everyone criticizes. Lets not forget, when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, they wrote the Amendments in order of importance. The First Amendment was first, because the king never let them speak their mind, or complain, and most importantly, have a voice, and input, into the way things were being run over here. They made the right to bear arms second, because they knew people become corrupt with power, and they need to be kept in check, by force if necessary. They gave that job to us...the little guy. The fact is, believe it or not...I don't care...if the Second Amendment falls, they all fall. If we have no way to protect our selves, from ourselves, we are done. I also believe, as a matter of opinion, if the founding fathers would have know that people like "Dubbya", and Cheney, and Pelosi, and Biden, and a whole long list of others, would be involved in politics, they would have made the Second Amendment, the first, and the First Amendment, the second. I truly believe if they saw the crap that takes place on a daily basis, they would be screaming..."To arms" once again.
Yeah, we "gun nuts" go running right to the Constitution to defend ourselves, when someone try's to shove their anti-gun, socialist agenda down our throats. But at least it's a solid, and valid argument for our RIGHTS, and at least it's a right based on truth, and a proven system.
Yeah, we "gun nuts" go running right to the Constitution to defend ourselves, when someone try's to shove their anti-gun, socialist agenda down our throats. But at least it's a solid, and valid argument for our RIGHTS, and at least it's a right based on truth, and a proven system.
jasonk282
Banned
it says search and seizure not wire tapping.
Somehow I knew that was what this was really going to be about.Just another non fact based attack on Obama ,dems ,liberals etc,
Like the health care proposals as an example in any way could be said to not be constitutuional,guess medicare ,social security etc etc etc must also be unconstitutional.Don't remember the supreme court rulings saying that.
About the only things that might clearly violate the constitution that the current administration is doing IMO are the continuation of some of the things started under the Bush administration.Like the wiretaps (if they are still doing them) and the holding of people without trial for sure violates the constitution.
That among all the other non constitutional actions he took based on this war against no specific country but a group of criminals which is problematic in the extreme to begin with.
You have to remember that things like phones and the rest of modern technology did not even exist at the time these rights were created.Thats why you can't, and any constitutional scholar would tell you this, just look for specific statements in the constitution about such things.It is and has to be adapatable to modern situations even though it never imagined what those might be.The courts have always found this.Police wiretaps without warrants has been found many times to be a violation.If this was not the case then as an example the govt wanting to put a camera in your home and watch you 24/7 would be legal which clearly it would not be.
jasonk282
Banned
Gun control was not around then either, but the left wants to impose gun control, which using your phone and modern technology argument, makes gun control UNconsitiutional.
The 2nd amendment doesn't strictly say that people can have guns. This has been said many times before, but to bare arms just means to have a weapon of some description. If they meant guns, specifically, they should have said the people have the right to bare "Fire Arms"
So, essentially the 2nd amendment just means that people have the right to keep a weapon to defend themselves.
Like somebody posted earlier, these days the USA have a very advanced military and police force who can defend the people and have specialised training in using fire arms. In my opinion, the average US citizen does not need a gun in their home.
People always say "Yeah, but what if somebody breaks in to your house? Then what?"
Just fucking hit them with your fists or a blunt object. After you've kicked their ass, the cops will come along with THEIR guns and takes his ass off to prison. If he gets out of line, real bad, then they'll shoot him for you.
I'm ready for the backlash now.
So, essentially the 2nd amendment just means that people have the right to keep a weapon to defend themselves.
Like somebody posted earlier, these days the USA have a very advanced military and police force who can defend the people and have specialised training in using fire arms. In my opinion, the average US citizen does not need a gun in their home.
People always say "Yeah, but what if somebody breaks in to your house? Then what?"
Just fucking hit them with your fists or a blunt object. After you've kicked their ass, the cops will come along with THEIR guns and takes his ass off to prison. If he gets out of line, real bad, then they'll shoot him for you.
I'm ready for the backlash now.
jasonk282
Banned
Good point expect the people breaking into your house have guns:helpme: and illegal ones in fact. Don"t bring a knife to a gun fight
Like everything else it is and always has been determined by the supreme court.they are the ones given the reponsibility to determine constitutionality.Some gun control laws have been determined to be constitutional,some have not.That may not be what the founders intended but we have given the power to the supreme court from the beginning to decide such.
Even as a supporter of the 2nd amendment( I do think guns in the hands of the population could be usefull against tyranny) it is also true that all the studies and statistics show having a gun in your home makes you less safe not more.Guns are much more likely to used in heat of the moment arguements like domestic disputes or suicide than any defense against an intruder.It's a price we pay to defend against tyranny.Whether its worth it is a reasonable debate.There only is a large amount of illegal guns because we have a large amount of legal ones.Almost all of them were legal once.
Conservatives love to ignore 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9.
Supafly
Retired Mod
That is the older-days equivalent, mate.
Or do you think they had mobile phones and computers way back when :rofl:
When you come for my rights, I will mow you down with my 2nd Amendment rights as quick as they would have.
Anyone who chalks up the Bill of Rights as written by a bunch of slave owners doesn't deserve them.
And Democrats love to ignore 1-10. "Freedom of Assembly, Speech and Press" doesn't apply to only those institutions you agree with, much less all the others, especially the 10th Amendment which the President will be smacked with at some point.
Just because some people abuse their rights doesn't mean all of us should be deprived of them. That's the problem. I honestly wish people would read how the Bill of Rights came about, and how the US Constitution was still only narrowly ratified in many states they were drafted.
That's a circular reference.
Mexico switches away from the M-16 and guess what? We now see them in the hands of non-US, organized crime. Even the Brady Foundation's own statistics on assault weapons works very much against their own arguments, with non-US ownership (often illegal) the cause for over 90% of discharges in the US.
Irresponsibility of some is still not a reason to ban a right. Especially since the sheer number of "accidents" are tiny compared to the total of responsible gun owners. But people like to justify otherwise, ignoring those totals.
The problem is that people think there is a difference. There's not.
I would try to know who is really the person before calling her/him narrowminded.
busenbust
^^^^
The problem is that people think there is a difference. There's not.
1) Depends who you ask
2) When you ask
3) Dare you ask
4) Ask the Constitution
5) Ask 'the people'
Q.E.D .
You a supporter ofthe 2nd amendment, you gotta be kidding
You are against the sales of the barrett in 50 bmg or the chey tac in 408 chey tac to civilians, same comment for the sales of semi autos. When you are for the second amendment, you support the sale of every type of gun even machine guns or class III and class II rifles. The large amount of illegal guns is imputable because of illegal aliens who buy smuggled or stolen weapons. These illegal aliens are either in gangs or are or drug dealers. Get rid of gangs and drug dealers and your country will be much safer. Let the gangs rise and you will have a lot of shit in the years to come. Off them as well as build solid frontiers that prevent illegal aliens to come in the USA and you will be in peace.You a supporter ofthe 2nd amendment, you gotta be kidding
Show me any post where I said I was against any gun?????
But you have the illegal gun thing totally backwards.Guns are not smuggled into the US,it's the other way round and that is undeniable.Unscrupulous gun dealers in the US are heavily involved in it for the money.
And again this nonsense that guns make you safe though does not stand up to any type of scrutiny.Overwhelmingly most shootings are by so-called law abiding up to then citizens who got there guns legally and get into a domestic dispute/arguement and use a gun in the heat of the moment.All those rampages like Virginia Tech ,Columbine fit that description as well.Legal owners of guns or have access to legal guns and flip out.
jasonk282
Banned
My wife and I argue intensly me being Italian and her being German, and we have 4 guns in the house and we have NEVER though well I could just shot him/her and get it over with. Use you damn brain man. Would a kid or college student that has access to legal gus still be in poession of an ILLEGAL gun, sice the gun in question is not in their name. Like I have access to the BMW across the street, but if I drive it it's a stolen car.
Similar threads
