you're the biggest fucking queer of allpussy
Adonis is the kind of guy that beats his wife if the labels on the herbs and spices are not alphabetized and facing outward.
you wouldnt need guns if guns were illegal (and there were no guns but of course a seldom few illegal guns would be circulating )
Please tell me this is a put on. Do you live in the USA? If so you must live in some large liberal city like San Fran or New York. You think people would give up there guns and ammo to the govt? lololol If this topic even got talked about seriously in Congress, would be a revolution. 310 million privately owned guns in USA according to Huffington Post, news outlet I'm sure you frequent.Another thought, City with toughest gun laws in USA?? (answer Chicago) city with most murders so far in 2012?? (answer Chicago 284 as of sept 1st)
you rank a close second
Please tell me this is a put on. Do you live in the USA? If so you must live in some large liberal city like San Fran or New York. You think people would give up there guns and ammo to the govt? lololol If this topic even got talked about seriously in Congress, would be a revolution. 310 million privately owned guns in USA according to Huffington Post, news outlet I'm sure you frequent.
Bullshit. A tiny minority MAY become violent. The vast, vast majority would say "yes massa!" and give up their guns. There would be massive amounts of outraged bloggers, but people willing to take on armed forces just to stand up for what is [edit: in their eyes] right? Maybe 10,000. The rest will grumble, bitch, and then slink back to the TV with a bag of fast food under their flabby arms.
you don't even live in murica, gtfo.
2nd Amendment my friend. It would be Unconstitutional.
constitution can always be amended.. democracy.. its a great thing
Getting rid of the 2nd will never happen and its important that it never is ended.
its entirely possible. taking a hardline position in favor of it doesnt seem very wise to me. what defines "arms"? why even assume it means firearms? of course i think the authors did intend for it to protect the right to own a gun, but to what extent does that apply ? does it refer only to the kinds of firearms that were available when the constitution was authored ? or does it allow for advances in firearm technologu to also be under protection ? since the authors intended the 2nd amendment to protect the ability of the citizenry to revolt against the government in case it became tyrannical, shouldnt it cover the right to own any kind of weaponry that the government possesses? Fully automatic M-16's ? hand held rocket launchers? jets equipped with heat seeking missiles ? Nuclear and biological weapons ?? If the 2nd amendment protects ones right to bear arms , doesnt it also protect the right to own those types of weaponry as well? how could one possibly hope to rebel against a tyrannical government without them?
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
It is the Supreme Court that interprets the Constitution. Read some case law to cure your curiosity.
but as an individual making up their mind about policy issues we all have an obligation to think through these issues on our own. and of course, and supreme court decision can always be overturned via vote of the people to secure a constitutional amendment. i wasnt asking those questions because im curious about them personally. i was asking them to display the complicated issue that stands behind such a "right to bear arms".
LOLdid you not read my point about the supreme court making legal decisions but every individual having an obligation to think it through on their own ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??
ah, so we best just shut our mouths and let the supreme court make up our minds for us. and what they decide, well thats infallible ! the point is that if someone is going to say "I believe in the 2nd amendment!!!" then they should be able to talk about the issue in a manner that addresses all of the possible interpretations and implications of that amendment and make a logical argument as to why they believe the amendment protects ownership of one kind of weapon and not another (assuming they do believe that certain kind sof weapons ought to be illegal to possess
Again, refer to the Supreme Court. YOU... nor anybody else... can come up with credible "possible interpretations" of the 2nd Amendment without reading Supreme Court decisions/Federalist Papers/any documents written by our Founding Fathers that discussed the 2nd Amendment.
2nd amendment has been already butchered as it is. As a private citizen you should be legally able to own figher jets and tanks assuming that you can afford it. Everyone but weapons of mass destruction, whether they are chemical, nuclear or biological.
LOL .. are you fucking serious.. you seriously can NOT mean what you just said.. "nobody can come up with possible interpretations of the second amendment without reading supreme court decisions and other documents written by people of the goverment"... WTF??!!!??!!??!! DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT IS TRUE ?? do you think those possible interpretations that i cam up with in my previous comments were derived from readings of those nature, or (the only other option you have) do you not think they are possible interpretations?? i assure you, i didnt come up with those by reading any types of documents..