Tyranny in America? Somewhat funny vid

[DJM]

Chris Rock's solution is better than all of yours.

ahahh iv seen that long time ago, hes right lol.......if you want to defend your home, you only need a bullet

- - - Updated - - -

"No more innocent bystanders. Anyone that kills someone will stay behind to get their bullet back"

i believe thats my PROPERTEEEEEE

[DJM]

hulk hogan 'REAL AMERICAN'
he made wrestling, but...........
stepped on everyone, ego maniac, steroid user, had a reality tv show, cheated on wife with daughter's friend, was videotaped banging his best friend's wife, sued when it was leaked, cocaine and pot addict, attention whore, and so on........'REAL AMERICAN'?

[longBallLima]

Just heard the latest report on Sandy Hook shooting. Medical examiner has confirmed there was not an AR-15 used in the shooting. Only handguns. Apparently the AR-15 was still in the vehicle with him, and unused. Not sure how this affects the push toward banning weapons defined as assault rifles/weapons or if the new information would change anyone's opinion on matters.

doesn't really change my opinion that neither are necessary for whatever purpose the NRA and its fans claim they need guns

[longBallLima]

interesting factoid from this morning. my wife needs a handicap plaque and we need to apply and bring a form to the doctor so he can fully explain health facts to a govt agency. one could say that a handicap plaque is more regulated than a gun. nice huh

[burlyman30]

doesn't really change my opinion that neither are necessary for whatever purpose the NRA and its fans claim they need guns

The right to bear arms was given as much to defend oneself against their own government as it was to defend their life or property.

I'm not what you would call a gun enthusiast... I'm just a constitutionalist. For the argument of the Constitution being old and outdated... that's why amendments are allowed, and there have been many made over the years. It's not perfect and neither is anything man-made, but it's held up well for over 200 years.

[longBallLima]

The right to bear arms was given as much to defend oneself against their own government as it was to defend their life or property.

I'm not what you would call a gun enthusiast... I'm just a constitutionalist. For the argument of the Constitution being old and outdated... that's why amendments are allowed, and there have been many made over the years. It's not perfect and neither is anything man-made, but it's held up well for over 200 years.

Well, I think one can defend his property with a gun that is not compact or automatic just fine. If one needs heavy or concealed armament to defend their life or property, not moving is just plain irresponsible.
As far as the constitution goes, if it can be easily amended, the gun debate is not about constitutional rights, because, well... fix the constitution then. Which leaves the debate solely on gun owners wanting their way, rather than trying to defend the spirit of the nation or some demagogue rhetoric of the kind.

I disagree with you that the constitution held up well. I would argue that american society KIND OF held up ok with what I see as a flawed constitution (and I do mean flawed for modern times). The frequency of these violent episodes that require constitutional protection for the preparation are, to me, evidence that that is no longer the case.

Again, many cultures work fine, and in some aspects, better than the US with different constitutional values and they are a lot less resistant to change than here.
The american model of access to guns, freedom of speech and government restriction is not incredibly common in other places, I believe.

[h2s]

The right to bear arms was given as much to defend oneself against their own government as it was to defend their life or property.

I'm not what you would call a gun enthusiast... I'm just a constitutionalist. For the argument of the Constitution being old and outdated... that's why amendments are allowed, and there have been many made over the years. It's not perfect and neither is anything man-made, but it's held up well for over 200 years.

See...but that is exactly what is being argued here. You are stating that the constitution is still relevant because it was designed with the ability to receive modification (amendments). Those advocating regulation here are calling for modification. Yet those against it claim "it is in the constitution, it can not be changed." It is that argument set that makes the constitution a dated document.


The reasoning behind the need for weaponry in a developing nation and the reasoning for it in a current age developed first world country are very different.

[bikeswimlive]

The right to bear arms was given as much to defend oneself against their own government as it was to defend their life or property.

I'm not what you would call a gun enthusiast... I'm just a constitutionalist. For the argument of the Constitution being old and outdated... that's why amendments are allowed, and there have been many made over the years. It's not perfect and neither is anything man-made, but it's held up well for over 200 years.

Slavery? Denial of votes to women and non-whites? Constitutionalist are you?

[longBallLima]

Slavery? Denial of votes to women and non-whites? Constitutionalist are you?

can you even vote from the kitchen?!?!

[burlyman30]

Slavery? Denial of votes to women and non-whites? Constitutionalist are you?

You've just proven my point. It's imperfect, but has been amended when necessary. Thanks for playing.