Results 11 to 20 of 54
-
06-13-2013, 08:46 AM #11
wickabee, notice out left out Piers Morgan's name. I said it was a good point because some people try to manipulate our constitutional rights by claiming some only relate to the "old days", but, use others to defend their modern practices.
such as the right to bear arms is only for muskets, but the freedom of press relates to the internet and television.
-
-
06-13-2013, 09:53 AM #12
Wow. You guys will buy anything for that amendment.
But those mass flat screen killings are a REAL concern...
-
06-13-2013, 10:35 AM #13
no, my concern would be bad spending by the government of our money. we need more police with better training, get the prisons off of being privatized, harsher gun crime laws, getting rid of fraud and the "bad people" in law enforcement (with harsher penalties).
considering more people kill themselves with guns because of mental health issues, we need to overhaul our laws and aide for those in need.
if it is not a gun a "crazy" person will use something else to kill, such as a homemade bomb.
-
-
06-13-2013, 12:08 PM #14
-
06-13-2013, 12:48 PM #15
...and how high is "television set" on that list?
You won't allow the comparison of guns and cars, but you're fine with guns and TVs? Give me a break, seriously.
-
-
06-13-2013, 01:22 PM #16
television was mentioned for the programming, not the TV itself. Meaning it is ok to have freedom of press and speech for television programs, (which did not exists when the constitution was written) but the right to bear arms is only about "arms" that existed in the time the Constitution was written.
-
06-13-2013, 01:32 PM #17
Why can, and have so many parts of the US Constitution been amended, or re-directed to reflect newer times, yet the 2nd Amendment cannot be touched?
I would hazard a guess that if the Bill Of Rights that was passed in 1966 would be changed back to accept slavery before anything sensible be done regarding the 2nd Amendment. Whites in America would vote for slavery instead of any reasonable control of a firearm. I'm convinced.
That document is the single most pathetic, obscure document in any constitution of any country on Earth. There is nothing of value in this thing the way it is written. It's bad enough that this is the only country in the World that has firearms built-in to it's founding documents, but it must also be said that this was written for the absolute day that it was to be presented and not even 100 years later.
It's a document written with what if's, not with certainties. It's dinosauric in it's principle as it pertains to today.
If you disagree, then lets see photos of your neighborhood Militia, armed and ready to march on Washington. Your elections are fraudulent. Might as well use the 2nd Amendment and kill and throw the bastrads out of office.
-
-
06-13-2013, 01:53 PM #18
So you guys would be okay with using only muskets and cannons if we banned television and the internet.
Man I'm glad I'm Canadian. Very little of that here...
-
06-13-2013, 02:02 PM #19
wickabee, really?
we are saying (or at least I am saying) that if you are going to apply the constitution to modern times (which should be) all if it is, not just the areas you are ok with.
-
06-13-2013, 02:13 PM #20
And I stated the flip side of the coin. Go back to musekts and cannons on one side and go back to newspapers and town criers on the other.
I mean, you're using "Well, you have the internet!" as your argument, so if they were to ban the internet and television, would you be willing to go back to muskets and cannons?
No?
Then the argument holds no weight, doesn't it? You're comparing an actual problem that everyone shares, gun violence, to an imagined problem only gun nuts have, access to information. They aren't even close. Pro gunners love to say you can't compare a car to a gun, but they want to compare a TV to a gun?
Do you have to vomit the cake before you have it again or does it magically reappear?
-
Originally Posted by shrewsbury 
