We'll permit the bare arms and put up with the shitty tailoring on the vest, but the podunk hair has to go! Absolutely verboten.
If you cover up the hair, he looks like George W. Bush.
We'll permit the bare arms and put up with the shitty tailoring on the vest, but the podunk hair has to go! Absolutely verboten.
God, wake the F up man. Congress can pass any law they want. If they want to ban guns they will. There is nothing you can do about it!
Ahhh yes. I long for the glory days of of free America when we used to string citizens up in trees because of the color of their skin; when our FBI maintained an enemies list chock full of good americans who were poised to do us wrong; when one lone Senator was able to bring the nation to a vitual stand still while he rid us of the scourge of the red menace and ensured that some named would never know the liberty of work again; when we sent our poor boys to war while protecting the important few with choice National Guard assignments Stateside; when some American men were prosecuted and persecuted for where they wanted to put their penises; And through it all we had our guns. Good old days. Damn those liberals, taking away our liberties.
Others commented, but I too support the right to bare arms. bare legs too. And lets get some of those tight jeans back.? I hardly think that 5-4 SCOTUS decisions made in the last five years create the sort of legal precedence that is needed to truly secure federal recognition of the right to keep and bare arms.
As to bearing arms, it happens I have fired handguns and rifles. I'm not bothered enough to have licensed any now though I dare say I could have even here in the UK. As I understand it the evidence on guns is rather mixed. Where people do have the right to own guns and use them in self defence, such as in robbery or assault situations, then the risks tend to even out (both sides armed!). In the UK people have been quite obsessive over restricting gun ownership with little evidence it has done any good. Granted, when I was a lad I thought it a little lax to find my grandfathers guns propped up in the corner of the loo handy by the back door, but we have moved from sensible precautions to obsessive ones. I was startled recently when the government said it was relaxing rules so that british registered ships could carry guns when travelling in areas where pirates are operating.Not quite sure what the problem is here. I imagine I'll go to my grave (in 50 years or so) never having been within a meter of a handgun. And you know what? I feel quite safe in this country and in fact I'm probably just as safe as you. Guns represent no measure of safety to me, none
Irony eh? I do get the impression from chatting here the US is ever so slightly a rabid right wind dictatorship where people really have to fight if they want to make use of rights they have in theory.Marry me!
. . . . Granted, when I was a lad I thought it a little lax to find my grandfathers guns propped up in the corner of the loo handy by the back door, but we have moved from sensible precautions to obsessive ones.
I was startled recently when the government said it was relaxing rules so that british registered ships could carry guns when travelling in areas where pirates are operating.
Irony eh? I do get the impression from chatting here the US is ever so slightly a rabid right wind dictatorship where people really have to fight if they want to make use of rights they have in theory.
As to bearing arms, it happens I have fired handguns and rifles. I'm not bothered enough to have licensed any now though I dare say I could have even here in the UK. As I understand it the evidence on guns is rather mixed. Where people do have the right to own guns and use them in self defence, such as in robbery or assault situations, then the risks tend to even out (both sides armed!). In the UK people have been quite obsessive over restricting gun ownership with little evidence it has done any good. Granted, when I was a lad I thought it a little lax to find my grandfathers guns propped up in the corner of the loo handy by the back door, but we have moved from sensible precautions to obsessive ones.
Well, you're doing *something* right . . . cuz you folks don't kill each other at nearly the rate we here in the States do.
Then again, a lot of countries can't match us in that regard. :frown1:
God, wake the F up man. Congress can pass any law they want. If they want to ban guns they will. There is nothing you can do about it! ...
Firstly, I would like to apologize for using the wrong homonym earlier in this thread. I am a Pakistani and only moved to the US some years ago, so yes, my English is probably not perfect... though I dare say that it's good enough that I am able to make myself understood, and I doubt any of the more liberal-minded people around here would get as much flak for similar mistakes.
In response to the post immediately above: although you say this, the Constitution doesn't allow for the assassination of US (or any other nation's) citizens, yet look at what happened to Anwar al Awlaki. I'd say that it's never advisable that trends towards greater freedom will continue or that the state will respect freedoms that are supposedly guaranteed. By all means, join the NRA and the ACLU and only support politicians who oppose widening state power over individual life.
In case any of the "tongue in cheek" comments made earlier in this thread apply to me, I would like to state that I am an atheist and that I have no problem with homosexuals. I also have no problem with people who want to own guns, although I personally do not.
In case these comments were not directed at me... isn't it sort of cowardly to bash right wingers from such a decidedly left wing site? If you want to change the opinions of right wingers, shouldn't you confront them about their views?
Glad you have stayed, kept your posts civil and not run off like so many conservatives have previously on this site.We, the members of the "right wing," are not particularly well represented on this site. And, those of us who dare to speak up are quickly corrected, often with a few hostile words. The first time I identified myself as a conservative, I was accused of being another user, and threatened with banning.
I'm still here.
Don't let it bother you. Such reactions are the reactions of insecure children who do not want to see the presence of a dissenting opinion. Hello, fellow dissenter. I'm glad to make your acquaintance.
As for the original topic of this thread, it is highly improbable that any American politician could possess the level of self delusion necessary to think they could even *propose* changes of this sort, without serious consequences. And passage of such measures is almost unthinkable. Even those so far apart as the left and right of this country agree on the basics of freedom, and any attempt to curtail that freedom is universally met with resistance.
Having said that, though, the President is the chief law-enforcement officer in this country, and directly commands the nation's military. By instituting martial law, or signing an executive order, he does have the ability to suspend any number of our freedoms, temporarily...and those on the conservative side see the current President as a dangerously unstable individual, a petulant child who *does* have a sufficiently delusional world view, that he might actually consider doing something of this sort. It's basically a paranoid fantasy...but, legally speaking, with a sufficiently aggressive push, it is not outside the realm of possibility.
And, that's where we come to the topic of guns...the 2nd Amendment affirms the right of the US citizen to keep and bear arms *legally.* (Those who get them illegally don't care how many laws are on the books.)
If you read the Federalist Papers (the commentary to the Constitution), you'll find that the goal of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the citizens can always rise up against a tyrannical state. Yeah. Armed resistance. That's the reason given by the guys who actually *wrote* the Constitution!
Could you explain what the current President has done to make you think he is a "dangerously unstable individual, a petulant child who *does* have a sufficiently delusional world view".? From where I sit, he man is exactly the opposite of that. He seems very pragmatic, cool and calculating. He has taken enormous politic risks such as the GM bailout, which could have gone south if the feds had just given them the money instead of closely monitoring the company. The bin Laden assassination is another example of a huge risk, which would have absolutely sunk his Presidency. Again that is an example of a person who is anything but "dangerously unstable individual". That kind of statement needs to be explained.
I loved tbat skit. I miss Phil Hartman.... that hilarious old SNL sketch which presented Reagan as a secret mastermind behind his dithering public facade.
Nobody is allowed to post here until they have read and understand the first ten amendments to the constitution.