This shit is hilarious... :1orglaugh

it's no freedom when you have to live in fear that someone might take it away

Yeah and beyond retarded.
And they wonder why the rest of the world always makes fun of Americans.

I'm 41 this year, and my life of crime ended when I was 19. Like I said, I don't know how it works over there, but the last 3 times I've been stopped it's because the police 'thought I was going too fast'. I wasn't, any of the times - I accelerate fairly (but not overly) quick from a standing start to the speed limit, at that has been enough to get stopped each time. Even *if* I accelerated hard until I hit the limit, at no time am I ever going any faster than a person driving within the limit, who didn't hit a red light/etc. It's the reason it annoys me more than being stopped for breaking the law or even being a dick - I've always took my punishment on the chin, and never have made any excuses nor whined when getting caught for my various offences I've actually committed, even way back 20 years ago. To get stopped because some egotistic cunt in a uniform with a wonder woman belt on 'thinks' you 'may' be going too fast is BS no matter how you dress it up, and I'll act a fucking dick every time it happens, just to piss them off. Petty, yes, but meh, my own ego kicks in and that's how it is.

No idea what the story about someone else had to do with my quote, or why you're telling me, but I stand by it - all old bill are power tripping fucksticks. Yes, we need them, of course we do, because they are the ones with the tools to do the job of catching criminals, but don't tell me ANY copper is some kind of nice guy - they are all, without exception, the opposite once they put on that uniform, and that goes for my personal friends in the force too.

if you are going to bring the discussion to 2nd grade school level with name calling and insults, i have nothing more to say to you.
if you can talk like an adult we can have a conversation.

No. You are right. They aren't coming for us. We are armed. To the teeth! So it is a nice little insurance policy against any such shenanigans. I would be more concerned in countries that make sure their population are little defenseless sheep. :thumbsup

Um...because haters gonna hate maybe? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Sure, everybody is really just jealous :1orglaugh

There is nothing to discuss. You people live in a fucked up fantasy world of fear.

Yes, I'm afraid those people laughing are a little jealous. Losers hate winners. It's a natural law. Most of those laughing are on our payroll too so it is a little pathetic. We don't really care who laughs. Have you noticed? :)

But what you are missing is that you were most likely doing something wrong that you didn't even realize. You were right with the flow of traffic, but maybe you were tailgating a little bit too much or changing lanes too often or passing on the left. The police officer pulls you over and says "I pulled you over because you were speeding" because he doesn't want to get into a discussion about your poor driving habits.

My friend has been rear ended in his big truck four or five times in two years. He says "They rear ended me which means it's their fault". This was a while ago; He took me out for a drive. He's driving a big pick up truck, driving way too fast, tailgating, and then stopping short. He locked up his brakes twice in twenty minutes, which is more than I've locked my brakes in two years. The law says he's not at fault, but the truth is he's stopping short and when you do that people slam into you.

The best part... He doesn't think he's doing anything wrong.

I'm not saying I am a better driver than anyone here. I'm not. I am saying we all think we are better drivers than we are. And even when your driving is perfect, chances are you are still speeding. And sometimes it's just your unlucky day.

Please tell me, jealous of what exactly?

I think you should tell us what makes you so jealous that you feel the need to put America down? Nobody ever puts down things that are beneath them to feel better. Don't worry, we still love you. If anyone was to attack your country, guess who would come to the rescue? :winkwink:

What *you're* missing is that the guy is bored, needs some excitement, sees a flashy car, and thinks to himself 'flash cunt, I'll show him what's what'. No tailgating, no changing lanes, no nothing, other than having a nice car, and accelerating quickly to the speed limit. Copper doesn't understand I'm at no point breaking the limit, and thinks, because he is thrilled with spotting a potential nick, wahey - action! Then proceeds to give it bertie big bollocks, and takes umbrage when I give attitude back.

Again, boring irrelevant story for your 2nd paragraph. I'll admit I have an intense dislike of the old bill, and I'll also admit we need them, for obvious reasons. I'll also admit that I *know* I'm going to get stopped each time I accelerate up to the speed limit quicker than someone in a 1 litre car, and relish the confrontation just as much as the fuckstick pulling me over does. Probably makes me a bit of a dick, but it doesn't lessen them being dicks each and every time either. To use your own example, if I'm (or whoever) is a dick to them, they'll also be one. That goes both ways, and them being in uniform doesn't change the fact they are totally arrogant egotistical dicks to start with, nor does it mean they don't bring attitude and aren't looking for the confrontation more than the person they are stopping (in instances as I've described - sure, break the law and you deserve to get stopped, but even then they UPHOLD the law, they aren't 'the law' and don't need to be holier-than-thou 99% of the time).

Bottom line I guess is that you think they're superheros, I think they're a bunch of cunts who for the most part are glorified revenue collectors, so we'll (I'll) leave it at that, just felt like dipping into the thread in between tasks.

Just to add Rochard, and I don't mean this in a derogatory way at all, iirc you were in the military, and are used to taking orders/subservience. Again, not being derogatory (as I actually think you're a top guy, and enjoy almost all your posts, and agree with many of your viewpoints), but being spoken down to, barked at, or having anyone treat me as an inferior is something I handle very badly, which I'm aware is why my dislike of authority figures is probably deeper than most people's. I just can't stand someone thinking they are 'above' me or anyone else because they are bigger/older/richer/in a uniform/etc :thumbsup

It's the question itself that's flawed.

It asks why we "need" to posses these guns.

That's just like asking us to prove that we have a "need" to vote, to speak freely, to have the privacy in our homes respected, to practice our own religion.

It's not a "Bill of Needs". It's a Bill of Rights.

If you don't think much of our right to have firearms, take it up with the Founding Fathers. The American Revolution began on the day when the British Army attempted a gun-grab at Lexington-Concord. That was enough of a threat to their freedom to mean war. And the weapons in question were not just sporting arms, but the military style assault rifles of the age. The concept behind the Second Amendment is broad enough to include self-defense, but it's really grounded on the idea that one of the best ways to keep government tyranny at bay is a well-armed citizenry, capable of revolt, that will keep the lawgivers on their toes.

If you don't like that, those Founding Fathers had enough foresight to imagine that changing conditions might require adjustments from time to time and they accommodated that, too. If you can convince 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states, you can change the Bill of Rights and repeal the Second Amendment. Don't count on that happening any time soon. But hey, go knock yourself out trying. Don't be surprised if others grab your coat tails and try to repeal the First Amendment and the Fifth, Sixth and the Fourtheenth, claiming that all of them only protect criminals. (In fact they protect citizens, every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and when the rights of criminal suspects are taken away, the rights of every citizen go with them.)

Until you manage to amend the Constitution, we don't have to prove any need to vote, to speak freely, to worship God, to buy and sell porn - or to own, carry, and use an AR-15.

PS - Anyone looking to sell one in nice condition?

The right to own one. Blaaaaaah blaaah blaah. Another retarded argument from a nutter. You have the right to own a million things. Yet i don't see you buying them and going nuts over it. You have the right to buy a golden bowling ball. It's your right man! Your freedoms! Why don't you own one??

because it doesnt shoot bullets out of it. a bowling ball rolls on the ground. It doesnt put pressure on our government, and it doesnt protect us against true nutters. You ask idiotic questions. first you need to understand why people own, need, or simply enjoy them before you spout stupid shit. clearly many americans, id say most actually, trust their fellow people with weapons. besides the mentally ill (you), and people with a criminal background (possibly you)

Pressure on the government.
My god, you people are fucked up.
Goddamn American imbeciles. Unbelievable.

You dont know better, north koreans call us inbeciles for our ways. meanwhile you have access to only golden bowling balls

What a shitty life you nutters must have living in such fear.

its like a retarded kid calling you stupid for knowing more. its like a homeless person mocking you for having more. this Dirty_F guy lol

Not sure where you are but it is way different in the states. They will size you up of course and if you are young ethnic or dress like a hood, it will go bad. But a normal person who just says hey whats up is pretty likely to just a ticket or a warning. Most cops don't want to do paperwork or get worked up over the small stuff.
You are playing into their trip as now they need to fuck with you like you are with them. IF they win most of the time that is pretty much how the deck is stacked so maybe you want to think about your long term goals or just keep paying tickets etc.

I don't get tickets because I don't do anything to get one. They can't give you a ticket here because they 'think' you are speeding. I'm not a complete fool lol, if I've done something, and been caught, I stfu and take whatever the punishment is. Fucked if I'm cowing down when I've done nothing wrong just because some prick has a policeman's uniform on though, nor will I be spoken to like I'm less than them, or feel the need to lick their arse :2 cents:

How many gun owners belong to the "well regulated militia" that the constitution requires? None.

On the other hand, the 2nd amendment's writers probably wouldn't like it that the government has banned private ownership of military grade weapons. They didn't tell people of the period that they could have a pocket sized handgun but not a high power rifle. The founding fathers would want machine guns to be available to non government militia members.

welcome back sleazydream

that's not what the supreme court decided the founding fathers meant by the 2nd amendment, which simply codifies the existing right. that code is a right as well as a regulation, the regulation being that *arms* are determined to be the most common weapons used by the public at that particular time.

The problem is how you define the 2nd amendment.

I believe the 2nd amendment isn't about the right to bear arms, but instead is about the government having a military. The 2nd amendment says militia but because we define the 2nd amendment using modern English standards, it's being ignored. It does not say "any civilian has the right to bear arms", but it does say the "militia has the right to bear arms".

But the courts have decided otherwise, and now any eighteen year old can have an assault rifle.

I'm really surprised the government hasn't said that when the 2nd amendment was written, the only "arms" they had in mind was a one shot musket... And from here on out, that's all you are allowed to have. (Yes, I know cities / states have tried to limit which firearms we can have and have lost.)

just read the first post no more,

but its simple, man without his sword, has no freedom.

define sword however you want... point really is without something to protect yourself against an oppressive state or violent people you are not free.

You just don't get it. No reason is required. It's not up for discussion.

i agree despite being in a country where i cant own a gun but i agree fully

Actually, it says the people have the right to bear arms:

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It does not say "states", it does not say "citizens", it does not say "military" or "militia members". It says "the people", as in "We, the people", which is all of us.

And, the Supreme Court has ruled that it means that too.


http://www.policymic.com/articles/24...cond-amendment

In there they are talking about DC v Heller http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

.

That is NOT what is says.

You wrong; It says militia. It's the fourth word of the Second Amendment. You completely cut this part out.

I understand that the word militia is in there. However it in no way says that the militia has the right to keep and bear arms. The actual ratified version has one comma and it clearly states that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. As I said, the Supreme Court said that it was clearly a right of the people, not of the milita. They addressed that very issue in the decision I linked to.

Your argument ignores the fact that there is no amendment needed to give the militia the right to arms. In the constitution proper it states that the congress can arm the militia.

From Article 1, section 8:

.

So why would they say "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"? Because they were bored? Because it looked better? Or because they were talking about arming the militia, which was made up of... the citizens....

You can argue this with me until you are blue in the face. But no matter what you say the first four words of the Second Amendment say "a well regulated militia" and you ignore this. You completely left it out when you first posted the Second Amendment because you consider it not important.

semi auto handguns came about in the 1800s.. the constitution was a wee bit earlier than that

typical lawyer, you missed my ENTIRE point and changed the topic.

how on earth do you survive not being able to READ?

I never said people don't need guns, I am talking about semi auto guns and handguns. The government already restricts some firearms, ie full auto, so your whole argument is bullshit.


answer the question on topic and prove you actually have a clue what you're talking about or let everyone know you like talking and billing people but really don't have a clue.

I did not post the second amendment. I posted the statement from the second amendment that states that the people have the right, etc. I never said it was the entire amendment. So, quit trying to twist it up.

.