When Kerry Gets In...

Exactly.....they'll just protest other stuff.

yeah everyone knows you have to hate a sitting president, its your duty as an american.


bush just gets more hate from everyone for a few reasons.

1. its easier to hate republicans, they're "evil"
2. he's a moron who can't talk.
3. if you're left leaning at all he actually does seem evil.

Well scotty, quite simply, the "well regulated militia" phrase is a preamble. It does not place limitations on the stated right, it simply provides context.
Were it meant to be interpretted as was previously stated, it undoubtedly would have said "the right of the members of the militia to bear arms shall not be infringed" or something to that effect. As it is though, the portion of the amendment that actually defines the right makes no mention of militia or national security. The fact that the militia excluded many people, and the amendment specifically guaranteed this right for "the people" (that is, all the people, which means it could not only be applicable to the militia) is really all you should need to understand this.
but again, this is a thread about kerry. There have already been plenty of threads about guns and gun rights on the boards, we don't need to start changing other perfectly good topics into gun threads too.

[Edited on Jul 30, 2004 by Helter]

that's debatable, i'm not a constituional scholar, but it is part of the actual amendment, so assigning motives to it without mountains of research and at least seventeen historians backing it up without even a shadow of a doubt is a hard sell.

the amendment does also say "the right of the people to bear arms."

it never says they have to belong to the milita, it merely says that a milita is nessecary to the "security of the state"

i can see your point, but i just don't think its that clear cut, and there quite a few people with revisonist axes to grind that insist on quoting only one part of the amendment.

thank you and well put.

Are there no supermarkets where you live?

Cultures can change - it won't happen over night, but there was a time when we Brits carried guns. Just make them illegal, stop the sale of them in shops, stop the sale of bullets in shops, make the sale of them very illegal, make the possession of guns and even bullets very, very illegal.

If criminals know that their victims don't have guns, they won't risk carrying a gun.

A few inner city yardie gangs do, but it's FRONT PAGE NEWS if anyone ever gets shot here. A few special ops units in the police can be deployed with guns, but most police don't have anything more than a night stick (and don't WANT anything more than a night stick)

golden rule in devising fair, rational, productive laws: don't ask the victims

well you have to live with it - not me









[Edited on Jul 30, 2004 by UpTight]

If the right to bear arms is irremovable, just ban the sale of bullets


......or change the wording to "the right to bare arms"

you're assuming i want the right to bear arms removed which i stated earlier i don't and its not irremovable.

i don't. i just think we need gun laws that make some sense. yeah, we've got hunters, they also don't need to be able to buy semi-auto ak-47s and legal conversion kits to make it a fully auto assault rifle. we don't need assault rifles, we don't need sub guns, we don't need full auto shotguns or high powerd marine corps sniper rifles. we don't need any of that shit. anyone hunting should be strongly encouraged(and some do) to use a bow and arrow first and work their way up to a .223 hunting rifle without a scope. if its a sport lets put a bit of the sport back into it. we also don't need .50 cal handguns or even .357 or .44 mags.

guns don't protect to the home, i can't belive anyone still believes this. the stats are not readily at hand but the last quote i heard was guns bought to protect the home are three times as likely to kill a family member. this isn't just if you're stupid and shooting at every random shadow, even a hollowpoint can overpenetrate.

you want home protection buy a high voltage air taser.

owning guns is a right that should be protected, but people also have a right to live, so the right to own a gun has to take a backseat to that. anyone who owns a gun should be forced to take and pass safety classes, buy a safe or gun cabinet and should well understand that if anyone is so much as wounded accidentally with their gun they'll face manslaughter charges.

but its easier to say "from my cold dead hands..." or "we don't have guns and look how great we are." instead of debating options and rational solutions that please at least some poeple on both sides of the issue.

and how the hell did i wind up arguing against gun control with a guy who supports the W?

welcome to the world of creative paradoxes

all I'm saying is that most civilised western countries do fine without guns or the death penalty

well, I am not sure about the Kerry comments... I have been admittedly lax in watching the speeches and reading his website. I will agree with you about the last part though. If we had not attacked Iraq we would have been able to stay the course with Afghanistan and with Al-Queda ... It is amazing that Afghanistan was considered a success UNTIL we started going after Iraq. It's a shame... things could have gone so much better!




[Edited on Jul 30, 2004 by Hyperboy]

true true. but i doubt i will loose any sleep over it.
and lets not forget about our glitch in human rights that was slavery



[Edited on Jul 30, 2004 by scotty_bane]

i'm a hundred percent behind you on the death penalty, and i'm much rather argue what tends to be a conservative idea against someone else who seems more conservative than me than just fall in line with bullshit party idealogy and become a fucking parrot.

guns are ingrained in American culture and while i don't think that makes a good excuse for not getting rid of them, it makes the battle that much harder. i don't think we should get rid of them, i think we should get rid of crime, poverty and idiots who leave their gun out for the five and six year old kids to play with and blow their own fucking faces off.

in the end, as much as i hate them, on this i side with NRA, guns don't kill people stupid(sic) people kill people.

yeah quick note on capital punishment, at least we made sure that Iraq didn't get off that list before we did, cause it looked damn iffy for a while.

hehehe...this gun debate reminds me of chris rock's rant on em. let guns be available for cheap ass prices. but make the cost of bullets...say...50 000 bucks a pop to the public. NO ONE would be worth the price of shooting at that point

If guns are a vital part of American culture, surely hormone stuffed meat is too!!!

whooo killed bambiiiiiiiii?

I take the view that justice should be fair, constructive and should serve as an example. Victims just aren't in the right frame of mind to decide such things. You have to take a step back and decide these laws carefully.

The death penalty is no deterent - if it were, the US wouldn't have so many murders and countries that don't have the death penalty would be swamped in murders.

The death penalty leaves room for wrongfully convicted people to be killed, but moreover it portrays the state up as a beligerent, bloodthirsty, ignorant redneck - rather than an example of moderate behaviour & moral values.

Slavery was a global trade - I think America blames itself too much - others were involved. The important thing is, it was stopped.

Either way, I was talking about human rights today