they answer to the law because we permit them to do so.

as I said, if there had been 5 traitors rather than 4, certain actions would likely have been taken by the public to hold them accountable. but fortunately that did not need to happen :2 cents:

guns dont kill people. people kill people.

By your thinking, those Supreme Court justices who found slavery unconstitutional, segregation unconstitutional, as well as sedition laws that didn't allow you to speak ill of the government or politicians unconstitutional, would be deemed traitors by you and your ilk.

The courts answer to no one but the Constitution. They should never be swayed by public opinion. It's the checks and balance of our government. If we didn't have it, blacks would still be picking cotton and women unable to vote or own property.

now you're coming around to the reasoning of the framers of our constitution.

"checks and balances" - they are important.

while every other topic you mentioned may be successfully litigated and debated within our system, banned and overturned, the second amendment is the keystone to our entire system of government. it is the last balance of power between the public and government, and this is not my mere conjecture or a theory by some militia group, it is the opinion of the founding fathers of this country.

By referencing their writings, there can be absolutely no doubt as to the intention of the second amendment. It is intended as a protection from a tyrannical government. So long as we preserve that right, we have little need to fear a tyrannical government from ever coming to be. If we are asked to give up that right, we are being asked to fundamentally alter the system of checks and balances this government is intended to function under.

Those dissenting justices are well aware of this. Whether they personally support or oppose gun control is of no matter. The law clearly states what the majority affirmed, and just a little bit of research reveals the opinion of those who wrote & signed that law in the first place. So yes, I do question the integrity - and loyalty - of any justice who so flagrantly disregards our laws, as should you, regardless of what your opinion is on gun control.

What laws will those dissenting justices ignore next? Something more dear to you? They cannot be trusted. :2 cents:

In the 18th Century, you theoretically could put together a militia and take over the government. The Federal government didn't have a lot of power, nor the reach. Today, that is impossible.

There is no way that a group of armed citizens will ever be able to overthrow the government. Our government has too much sophisticated weaponry and powerful allies to allow it to happen. If you truly believe that it is possible, I don't know what else I can say to you. We are a long ways from that time, the world and technology has changed. Governments have grown up. We can't just walk up to the capital with some muskets and demand a new government.

The funniest part about the ruling is that those who you agree with, are the ones who have routinely ruled against the First Amendment. They are the ones that believe porn is not protected under the 1st Amendment. They are the ones that believe that Habeas Corpus is not a right. That the 4th Amendment isn't really all that big of a deal.

I'm not against the ruling the other day. I just think it's insane to call justices who have a different interpretation of the law traitors. It's a retarded analogy thrown out by conservative blogs to rile up the uneducated. None of the justices there are traitors, they just have different viewpoints.

Just remember that the justices you agreed with the other day are the same ones that believe you have no right to work in this industry.

Well consider for a moment what would happen if the country was so splintered in some way as to actually incite the masses to that level. 300 million civilians vs how many in the standing army? Now do you believe that in such a situation all members of the military would cooperate and follow orders, or would some refuse to serve, some go awol, and other units take the side of the people, bringing with them their equipment? It's not so pointless as it might first seem. (I hope I'm not coming off as some kind of a kook here, that's not the type of event I would ever want to see need to come to pass)

If on the other hand you're talking about some lone backwoods militia group "getting fighting mad", no of course they're not going to achieve anything. There would be little chance of success unless the number of civilians fighting significantly outnumbered the military, and/or some groups within the military would lend support to the people.

well I haven't read any 'conservative blogs' on the matter and I'm not trying to rile up 'the uneducated', it's merely my own opinion.

which has absolutely nothing to do with this matter at all. and though I might find the opinion of the other 4 more personally advantageous in other matters, they still cannot be trusted :2 cents:

It is pointless. They have bombs. They have nukes. They win. It can't and will never happen.

The only way it is even is if we as citizens are allowed to have the same weapons they are. Do you believe we should be allowed to purchase nuclear weapons to use on our government if we don't like it anymore?

It truly is amazing that for a country that is a world leader in so many respects, that is so admired, so innovative and forward-thinking that the U.S.A. is so far out-of-touch with reality because of a clearly outdated Constitutional Amendment.

And gun lovers and gun companies will fight endlessly to protect it and they will keep winning because clearly the judges will forever be afraid to challenge it, and the politicians even more afraid to amend it.

So as always, the answer to America's gun problem?
More guns

Safer place? Nicer neighborhood? That comes with a pretty hefty price tag that not everyone can afford, unfortunately.

I come from Iceland, a country where most men over say 25 own guns and I'm pretty sure Iceland is safer than Holland, with less gun crimes per capita :upsidedow

Think that is exactly what the forefathers had in mind. :winkwink:

Tell that to the Viet Cong or the Sunni insurgents in Iraq. It is extremely difficult to defeat a well armed guerrilla insurgency on their own territory. Additionally in an all out civil war it is usually very difficult to keep all of the armed forces loyalty to central authority. If you study your history you will find that in civil wars the armed forces typically split into various factions loyal to their commanders rather than any central authority. See Yugoslavia in the 1990s or Russia in the 1920s.

:thumbsup

The most common reason you see time and time again about americans having guns is that if they were banned, then the criminals would only have them. Theoritcally its true and makes sense.

But practically its the most retarded reasoning you can have. In all my time in the UK, I have not once seen a gun and no gun related incedent has happend to anyone I know, can you say the same?, I have only seen the police and army have guns. This is because only the most serious criminals, no, not those who rob your house at night, im talking organised criminal sydicates.

now people associate guns with murder in england and thus only the top criminals will use them (top criminals who you will never meet in your life). And top criminals it is well known, will rarley target members of the public, they go after the serious money. And I tell you now, if a report comes through of someone having a gun, the police will go mental and send all they have after them.

Thus an explanation why it is safer without guns than with. Results prove it, doesnt matter how you spin it, the results are places without guns, have less deaths per 100,000 FACT.

no guns = safer community, now whats wrong with that?

because in the USA we have a right to them, and other arguments for or against them are irrelevant, something which annoys the hell out of the anti-gun crowd here :)

personally I'd rather live someplace like Switzerland where everyone has a gun, than in a place where they are banned. I have no idea what the crime rate is in Switzerland, but it seems like a nice place.

I agree, I was never a witness of shooting myself, not that the guns would be banned to posses, they are banned to carry and mainly people don't feel any need whatsoever to get one.

In fact you are MORE likely to get shot if you POSSES a gun:

1) you're much more likely to get involved in a conflict - psychologically, because you have "the gun"

2) how many of the gun owners ever pulled the trigger targeting someone, how many of them ever shot at someone?

90pct. of those that are not trained will never pull the trigger while facing a direct confrontation

Not to mention that the guns became a part of the status for many, it's a great business therefore anyone have to believe "it's their right to have a gun".

At least you are citing and article posted in 2002 on a medical website. An article that uses collected data from 1994. Is that the best you can do? Medicinenet.com ? :uhoh

Have any studies on the correlation between Gun bans and the increase of knife deaths?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080605...s_080605053516

Interesting.

I seem to recall you being pretty scared last year or so when a helicopter was over your neighborhood in search of a knife wielding hooker killer. Safer community? :winkwink:

Surely the gun ban must be working right? I mean it worked so well they are on their way to banning pointy kitchen knives....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

SURELY the next ban will be baseball bats and large pieces of lumber.

Check out the top countries in the 21st century:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

Are we really comparing the military of the United States to some insurgents in Iraq and some guys living in a jungle?

The difference is weaponry. The U.S. has nukes. They have other big ass bombs. You can't beat them if they use them. I just don't see how you could possibly find a way for some guys armed with shotguns to defeat a government that can kill everyone in the country in a matter of minutes.

Uhm, yes, our military is fighting in Iraq right now, so that does seem a worthy comparison :thumbsup

Now under some circumstances in which the gov't was willing to render our entire countryside uninhabitable for the next several millennia or more with nukes, then yes in that case they would undoubtedly "win", if you want to call it that.

However that set of circumstances seems extremely unlikely. People who want to gain an undue amount of power, probably would want to have power over something other than a nuclear wasteland. Which leaves them to conventional warfare such as is taking place right now in Iraq, with the exception that we have a much larger population that would be better armed than the Iraqis :2 cents:

Do you believe our citizens should be allowed to have bombs and nuclear missiles? Serious question. It would make the fight more fair, right?

If someone wouldn't already know how to make bombs from readily available materials, then they definitely shouldn't have one made by a weapons manufacturer. You do understand what the term 'improvised explosive device' means, don't you? You know, those IED's that have been killing our servicemen overseas for the past several years? What do you think they're made of? That said, if there ever was a need for such an item, they could be manufactured quickly & easily, so there is no legitimate need for anyone to stockpile the damn things or even possess one of them.

As to the question about the nukes, no of course not.

Why not though? Constitution says "right to bear arms". A nuclear weapon is considered arms.

How about you post an article by professionals that says that guns are great ....

The more guns, the more deaths.... A bit like the more traffic, the more sales...

Thread is about guns ..... you post a link to statistics about deaths by homicide .....
Do you want me to post one about deaths by aids ....

Amazing how to spin you can take any off topic article ... plain amazing.

for the same reason that the general public - and the world's militaries - should not be permitted to possess germ warfare capabilities.

those type of weapons kill indiscriminately.

when our nation was founded weapons technology was limited mainly to projectile weapons (yes, armor piercing ones in some cases, if the gun was big enough) and cutting instruments, so we can assume those are the type of arms they were referring to, weapons that a person is able to control and direct towards a particular target. modern firearms may look a bit different, however they function based on essentially the same principles as used back then.

the nightmare that is germ warfare and nuclear annihilation was inconceivable at that time, and is of little practical use in a battle of any nature on land that one intends to occupy after using it. it serves no purpose in the interest of preserving the republic against a rebel government and would provide no benefit in peacetime.

now please quit trying to be a smart ass :winkwink:

Its that simple! Even a child can think that up. But American gun owners wont read this and if they read it they will reject it. They dont want to know about it or will simply call it bs. Its crazy.

Are you intentionally trying to misinterpret what I wrote? Obviously my point was that the United States military has had trouble defeating well armed insurgencies who are fighting on their own territory such as the Viet Cong and the Sunni militias in Iraq.

Furthermore the idea that the military would follow orders to drop nuclear weapons on US cities or carpet bomb US civilians without a major split in the military command structure is ridiculous. As I stated before, in the case of a major civil war the military would split among similar partisan lines as the population. Study your history.

How fucking hard is it to understand that if there are more guns in houses and on the streets they are more likely to be used and its more dangerous then when there are no guns around.
Look at the damn police in the US. They pull people over while holding their hand on their gun or even already pulled the gun in certain areas. Why? Because theres a big chance the dude has a gun on him. Here in Holland in a whole year there are less police deaths than in certain areas in America in 1 week. Geesh, why would that be? Because the police gets fucking shot after pulling over a car maybe? Oh wait, guns dont kill, people do. It has nothing to do with the gun :1orglaugh
People who use that sentence are thruly the most retarded dumb brainless fuckfaces i can think off. Guns were made for killing and nothing else.

Right. And just as in the 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, the 2nd wouldn't reasonably allow you to own a nuclear weapon.

Interesting statistic there, considering that Canada has more guns per capita than the USA.

gotta love the continuous display of ignorance on this forum by people educated beyond their intelligence

http://www.issf-shooting.org/

Can i just plead the 5th on this seeing as the 2nd is complicated

How fucking hard is it to understand that the majority of Americans don't give a fuck about the danger of having guns around or the accidental deaths caused by guns or the intentional deaths caused by guns. America was forged by the gun and Americans love the right to own a gun and will not give up that right...and do not care what some foreign twink has to say about it. :321GFY

Another Urban legend .....

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm

Now, americans can buy a car and get a free handgun as premium .... :1orglaugh

Its because you are a retard living in a retard country. And theres nothing you can do about it :1orglaugh

http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/rt_re...070709_ssh.jpg

Do you realize that the way you think is simply because you are white trash. Youre a result of constant inbreeding. Generation after generation of sisters fucking brothers and you are the result. A retard who loves gun :1orglaugh If i had a gun in your case i would use it to shoot myself.

Or could that have to do with a small sea being in the way :1orglaugh

http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/rt_re...070709_ssh.jpg

Theking, seriously, do you realize why you are thinking the way you are? Do you realize you are 100% pure white trash with a low IQ and thats why you love guns and think you live in the land of the free and the home of the brave? Do you realize you are a very, very simple person with very small brain. That everything you do and all the bullshit you post on gfy is simply because of that?

Look at the guy in the pic below. I dont know him but i can guarantee you hes on your level and talks and thinks exactly the same.
Doesnt that scare you?

http://southchild.com/images/redneck_horseshoes.jpg

This is your family Theking. This is your people. 2 braincells away from hanging in trees like apes.

http://www.redneck-world.com/wp-cont...edneck-004.jpg

You are trolling twink...that is your claim to fame...and thats all folks. Back to work for me.

Have fun redneck.

http://www.redneck-world.com/wp-cont...edneck-003.jpg

Dirty F, why no pictures of Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc. etc. etc.? Not to mention quite a lot of brilliant minds on the adult side: Steve Lightspeed, Tony Morgan, Ron Cadwell, Rick Latona, etc. etc. etc.
All Americans, AFAIK. Or are they all low IQ retards too? I bet most of the money you make is a direct result of smart Americans.

Please post some more random stats trying to defend guns :1orglaugh

Statistics don't matter to anti-gun zealots. Your post will be ignored.

Your post will be ignored by anti-gun folks. Iceland must be brimming with religious low IQ Americans since so many guns exist there.

Correct. Applying the Constitution requires discretion.

Guns are not "the answer" to any particular problem. Owning a gun does not gaurantee safety against criminals, it can - but doesn't have to - increase homicide rates (many American communities and countries with large quantities of legal guns like Iceland are more safe than those without), owning guns does not gaurantee that a government cannot tyrannize its citizens. Owning guns is simply a right. In America you have the right to do anything (within reason) so long as it's lawful and you do not infringe on the freedoms of others. If somebody wants to own a gun to go to the shooting range for fun, to hunt, because he/she believes (wrongly or rightly) that they're more safe with one and they practise proper safety procedures, what's the problem?

because it conflicts with the notions instilled in being raised under a socialist regime :2 cents:

Some posts just need to be pulled onto the next page, for maximum effect.