Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
ukcanuck wrote:people seem to forget that when the framers of the US constitution enshrined the right to bear arms it was in conjunction with the right of the people to overthrow an unjust government...
The US Constitution was also written in the 18th century, when a gun was a single shot, loose powder, muzzle loaded long gun with a bayonet on the end. The bayonet was probably the most dangerous part.
Guns today barely resemble guns from the 18th century.
This notion that the population needs guns to overthrow a tyranical regime is a bit off base too. Didn't Egypt just overthrow their dictator with protests and rocks?
I would say that rights are eternal and inalienable... so do you want a free democracy or not?
I'm sure that if they had guns they would have used them anywhere good people rise up.
And for the US its not so much about removing a tyrannical government. It's about my home is my castle and I will not surrender the right to defend it.
Enough of the BS just concentrate your minds the murdered kids, any one that doesn't want to make sure the next 20 kids are not murdered do us all a favour
ukcanuck wrote:And for the US its not so much about removing a tyrannical government. It's about my home is my castle and I will not surrender the right to defend it.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Fred wrote:Enough of the BS just concentrate your minds the murdered kids, any one that doesn't want to make sure the next 20 kids are not murdered do us all a favour
Well looky here Fred, you arguing for more social control and me the socialist arguing for free rights... Go figure lol
The thing is "going postal" is recent phenomenon and guns are as old as the republic....something else is the root problem here...
Not sure exactly but I'm betting its something to do with the state of mental health care and the definitions of what mental health is...
ukcanuck wrote:And for the US its not so much about removing a tyrannical government. It's about my home is my castle and I will not surrender the right to defend it.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Well when you put it like that, gun control is an infringement isn't it?
Edit: Yes I know that's verbatim
The concept of a militia comes from the tradion of free men organizing themselves to respond to a threat,
The very definition of protecting ones castle wouldn't you say?
ukcanuck wrote:And for the US its not so much about removing a tyrannical government. It's about my home is my castle and I will not surrender the right to defend it.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Connecticut State Constitution
“Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.
I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
Fifty Fifty wrote:
Well, he IS dead now - perhaps it's time.
okcanuck wrote:
4 million members in the NRA represents 1.2 % of the population
RoyalDude wrote:
If it came down to a choice of you saving a child or protecting the act of the right to bear arms, we all know what you'd protect.
Fred wrote:
Enough of the BS just concentrate your minds the murdered kids, any one that doesn't want to make sure the next 20 kids are not murdered do us all a favour
Saaaay, wasn't this thread supposed to be about Booth and that bear... ?
okcanuck wrote:The debate here isn't about the right to own a firearm, the debate is should there be stricter gun laws. I say yes because these automatic weapons are not needed to protect yourself.
Automatic weapons were not used at Sandy Hook.
Semantics, semi-automatic, automatic, either way its too much.
okcanuck wrote:The debate here isn't about the right to own a firearm, the debate is should there be stricter gun laws. I say yes because these automatic weapons are not needed to protect yourself.
Automatic weapons were not used at Sandy Hook.
Semantics, semi-automatic, automatic, either way its too much.
Either way... you're an anti-semiautomatic Racist Bus-Tard!