Please help deathrow dog Lennox.

[The Josh]

Or maybe, just maybe the courts finally decided to rule in the way the ammendment was clearly meant to be. Funny how all the other ammendments when they talk about "The People" it's about every citizen but somehow the 2nd, wasn't supposed to be?

Nope conservative court who I'm sure is in love with the gun lobby. Funny thing is I'm not even anti gun. I just don't support people owning assault weapons not caring weapons in public. Neither one is safe for anyone out there

Just your ideas that women have no chance to defend themselves with a firearm and worse yet that they will be overpowered and the gun used against them. I'm done here as this is way off track of the threads intent.

It won't happen every time but safer option is actually mace.

 

[Cloud]

Cue the Make-out music.. or in other words:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/znEePD1nJxo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I can't help it. I'm a Libertarian.

 

[The Josh]

Right. Because OBVIOUSLY the comma is there to catch your breath. Those ____ing hacks who wrote the Constitution don't know how to use English!

Its there to show that people can own guns to form militias.

I'd like to see a big, strong guy take me out if I had a pistol.

Sorry for the bullet in your ass, big, strong guy.

How are you gonna know if you don't see it coming?

 

[Cloud]

Its there to show that people can own guns to form militias.

"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."

*for the strict use of being in the militia*

Quite a few words those hack-framers left out, huh? Funny that they only ____ed up the wording in that ONE instance.

 

[The Josh]

"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."

*for the strict use of being in the militia*

Quite a few words those hack-framers left out, huh? Funny that they only ____ed up the wording in that ONE instance.

They worded all kinds of things differently back then. Have you ever read anything from back in that time period. Documents of all kinds had wording that wasn't clear and precise like what you're trying to point out. Also it really wasn't a bunch of hack farmer putting this together. It was some of this countries brightest minds then and still now. Are we really gonna play this game? I mean because when these guys wrote stuff they said a black person wasn't even worthy of being a full person. Yet, I think we see that differently now.

Edit: Plus the version you used was what was ratified by the states. I used the one thats in the actual Bill of Rights.

 

[Cloud]

They worded all kinds of things differently back then. Have you ever read anything from back in that time period. Documents of all kinds had wording that wasn't clear and precise like what you're trying to point out. Also it really wasn't a bunch of hack farmer putting this together. It was some of this countries brightest minds then and still now. Are we really gonna play this game? I mean because when these guys wrote stuff they said a black person wasn't even worthy of being a full person. Yet, I think we see that differently now.

Honestly? After I just said I was a Libertarian you think I was serious when I called them hacks? I was being sarcastic. John Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson (<3!!) I adore these men. *swoon*

I meant on the Bill of Rights, where else can you find a spot that people today argue over the meaning of it?

EDIT: I just checked a cute little "Bill of Rights" magnet I had on my fridge that The History Channel sent me years ago. "II: Secures the right of citizens to bear arms." And this little thing is dumbed down for kids, but even they got it right.

 

[Devil_666]

So how did a thread about saving a doggy turn into a debate about guns!?

Someone needs to bring up God and start quoting bible passages.

 

[Cloud]

So how did a thread about saving a doggy turn into a debate about guns!?

Someone needs to bring up God and start quoting bible passages.

Ah, they turned it on me when I said I didn't like pitbulls because they can be scary. "Whut, guns aren't scary, Miss Gun Loving Nut??" Okay they didn't phrase it that way but that's how it came across.

And...

Jesus wept.

 

[The Josh]

Honestly? After I just said I was a Libertarian you think I was serious when I called them hacks? I was being sarcastic. John Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson (<3!!) I adore these men. *swoon*

I meant on the Bill of Rights, where else can you find a spot that people today argue over the meaning of it?

EDIT: I just checked a cute little "Bill of Rights" magnet I had on my fridge that The History Channel sent me years ago. "II: Secures the right of citizens to bear arms." And this little thing is dumbed down for kids, but even they got it right.

I missed the Libertarian part. We at least agree on the History part being cool.

They argue over the meaning all the time. Honestly, I've seen where many scholars say people take freedom of speech out of context. They dumbed it down to fit on a button. The law has everything to do with owning guns to form state militias if we ever would be attacked again.

As I've said I'm not anti-gun. I don't care if you own a pistol and or rifle for target shooting or hunting. However, owning assault rifle or others like that, extended mags (like the one used to shoot Congresswoman Giffords), hollow point bullets, etc are the things that NOBODY should own. There is no reason what so ever to own those. I'm also against the conceal weapons laws around the country because it puts my life at risk or others because someone will be dumb and pull the gun to shoot and miss killing someone innocent.

 

[Cloud]

I missed the Libertarian part. We at least agree on the History part being cool.

They argue over the meaning all the time. Honestly, I've seen where many scholars say people take freedom of speech out of context. They dumbed it down to fit on a button. The law has everything to do with owning guns to form state militias if we ever would be attacked again.

As I've said I'm not anti-gun. I don't care if you own a pistol and or rifle for target shooting or hunting. However, owning assault rifle or others like that, extended mags (like the one used to shoot Congresswoman Giffords), hollow point bullets, etc are the things that NOBODY should own. There is no reason what so ever to own those. I'm also against the conceal weapons laws around the country because it puts my life at risk or others because someone will be dumb and pull the gun to shoot and miss killing someone innocent.

History nuts FTW.

Hm, I guess I don't count the first amendment because I and everyone I know agree about it. They couldn't be any clearer when they wrote it. That's why I am so ____ing ******* anti censorship, ____ ____ing hell. Unfortunately online forums tend to be run more like dictatorships than democracies. But when mods delete my posts I get REALLY incensed. Oddly enough though when they PM me asking nicely to delete my posts out of respect (talkin' 'bout Jen) I always comply.

And yeah, maybe bringing up anti-gun control was bad timing with that tragedy so recent, but I bet he wouldn't have killed and hurt so many if someone near him (good, law-abiding citizen) pointed a gun back at him and fired before he could take any more shots.

 

[The Josh]

Indeed history ftw!

Again, I don't totally agree with you on the first one either but we could go on all night if we kept on.

See thats the thing that I hate. Well, if someone had a gun it might not have. There's no proof that it would have been better. More guns is not the answer in these situations. Better laws are.

 

[Cloud]

Indeed history ftw!

Again, I don't totally agree with you on the first one either but we could go on all night if we kept on.

See thats the thing that I hate. Well, if someone had a gun it might not have. There's no proof that it would have been better. More guns is not the answer in these situations. Better laws are.

Yeah I'm getting pretty tired, myself.

BUT.. There's no proof it would have turned out worse either. Just like I said before, would have evened the odds.

 

[The Josh]

Well, that was fun and it didn't come to insults.

 

[fosing]

one of my childhood pet was a pitbull/russell mix. i love that dog very much. i had been forewarned by my parents, if anything happens i will be prepared to put him down, and i never did. when i was 17, a drunk distant relative thought it would be fun to dryhump/wrestle my dog....i got the cold shoulder from his side of the family for breaking his nose after that incident.

responsible handling/ownership.

i hope this dog gets back to the family that loved him. :[

PS
IMO, chicks who want to defend themselves are better off learning the art of knife fighting. if ever an offender gets THAT close, she can bring the pain to him.

 

[DiFabio]

I know who we could get to adopt him...

GOOD FORM!

 

[devilof76]

Ownership of a potentially dangerous dog is no different from ownership of a potentialy dangerous object. If you shouldn't be able to own one, you shouldn't be able to own the other. There are good pitbulls because they are raised by good people. Same goes for guns, and the paranoia of people who fear being shot by accident if someone tries to shoot someone else are chicken littling, per their usual approach to issues of individual liberty.

And the Founders believed in the right of the people to overthrow tyrannical governments by force. It's in the Declaration of Independence, and they included the Second Amendment for exactly that reason. They knew that an unarmed populace would never be able to stage an effective revolution.

Well, that was fun and it didn't come to insults.

That's because you didn't insult anyone.

 

[pixletwin]

So how did a thread about saving a doggy turn into a debate about guns!?

Someone needs to bring up God and start quoting bible passages.

Ahem......

 

[devilof76]

Pfft. Jesus was a Communist.

 

[Cloud]

...the paranoia of people who fear being shot by accident if someone tries to shoot someone else are chicken littling, per their usual approach to issues of individual liberty.

And the Founders believed in the right of the people to overthrow tyrannical governments by force. It's in the Declaration of Independence, and they included the Second Amendment for exactly that reason. They knew that an unarmed populace would never be able to stage an effective revolution.

F'n A.

 

[Shatterer of Dreams]

Apparently the revolution is starting with the kids since it seems that all the high shoold kids are the ones with all the guns. Which is fine really, revolutions are for the young.