Mass Shooting at Colo. Movie Theater, 14 People Dead

  • Thread starter Thread starter MugenOne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gift_from_God said:
Your Second Amendment also mentions a well-regulated militia, meaning gun control
Click to expand...
Of course. BUT it seems that the USA Supreme Court does not understand that way. BUT The Supreme Court is appointed by the Presidents according to their whims and party, so it is not neutral.
 
Gift_from_God said:
Your Second Amendment also mentions a well-regulated militia, meaning gun control
Click to expand...
In its entirety, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says “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.” Emphasis mine.

The anti-gun crowd is quick to point out the “well-regulated militia” part while conveniently ignoring the “necessary to the security” part. This ALLOWS people to be armed.

And BTW, nowhere does it mention the word “gun”; its says “arms” which could be any type of weapon.
 
pete_29 said:
My there sure are a lot of Canadians trying to get our guns on this thread. I SMELL AN INVASION!!! 😛
Click to expand...
Gee. An invasion by a country that does not believe in guns. This should be a very short war.
 
Lost_Sheep said:
Gee. An invasion by a country that does not believe in guns. This should be a very short war.
Click to expand...
They are going to invade with plugged shotguns. Three rounds max, no polymer stocks, no pistol grips, no barrel lights, waterfowl barrels only.
 
curlycool89 said:
It’s why you utterly insist on keeping the guns. Taking a gun away from a man is seen as emasculating him, Scott even said it takes away his freedom. Obviously that can’t be true because freedom is a state not dependent on material goods, so you must be thinking of guns as giving you something you didn’t have without it; a psychological condition since it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever philosophically.
Click to expand...
So my masculinity is why I insist on keeping guns? That seems like a pretty broad leap, considering you’ve never met me, and less than charitable.
 
pete_29 said:
Actually, Great Britain forcing US citizens to serve in their navy is what started the war. Also, if you’re going to quote United States history ( you notice I didn’t say American history because I know that upsets some Canadians) you should try to get it right. Our national anthem is based on the battle of Fort Mc Henry that occurred during the Chesapeake invasion which is when Washington D.C. was burned. You are confusing it with the battle of New Orleans which was indeed after the treaty was signed.
Click to expand...
Spot on. There was also the Chesapeake affair, and the British Orders in Council limiting US trade with France, but we did have some expanionist ideas.

I would imagine China siezing US shipping vessels and forcing US seamen into service with the PLAN wouldn’t go over well today.
 
Lost_Sheep said:
In its entirety, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says “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.” Emphasis mine.

The anti-gun crowd is quick to point out the “well-regulated militia” part while conveniently ignoring the “necessary to the security” part. This ALLOWS people to be armed.

And BTW, nowhere does it mention the word “gun”; its says “arms” which could be any type of weapon.
Click to expand...
In the parlance of the time, “regulated” meant “trained”. We can begin to deduce what “well-regulated” meant from Alexander Hamilton’s words in Federalist Paper No. 29:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
— The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
Click to expand...
foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm
 
pete_29 said:
Our national anthem is based on the battle of Fort Mc Henry that occurred during the Chesapeake invasion which is when Washington D.C. was burned.
Click to expand...
The " battle of Fort McHenry" was, in fact, no battle at all. British guns had range on American cannon, and stood off out of U.S. range, bombarding the fort, which returned no fire.

Interestingly, when the British reached Washington, their generals sat down to the meal which Madison had just abandoned in his haste to run from the capital.

Many Americans are unaware that Vietnam was the second, not the first war America lost.
 
Well, the Treaty of Ghent was certainly a “push”. The US did repel invasions of New York and Baltimore, and effectively ended impressment (which could also have been due to the end of the Napoleonic wars).

I’d say the real losers were the American Indians.

ETA:

It appears to be a hot topic this year due to its bicenntennial

articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/26/nation/la-na-war-of-1812-20120226

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303410404577468423362089922.html

After further reflection, I’ve deduced that the US lost, because we ended up keeping Detroit. 😃
 
Considering that the United States, Canada, nor Britain neither lost nor gained anything, other than that ridiculous song we have as a national anthem, a stalemate is appropriate. Well, considering we got that song as our anthem, maybe we did loose. 😦

To be forthright, I am one of those “Our national anthem should be changed to** America the Beautiful**” kind of guys.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Considering that the United States, Canada, nor Britain neither lost nor gained anything, other than that ridiculous song we have as a national anthem, a stalemate is appropriate. Well, considering we got that song as our anthem, maybe we did loose. 😦

To be forthright, I am one of those “Our national anthem should be changed to** America the Beautiful**” kind of guys.
Click to expand...
After further reflection, I’ve deduced that the US lost, because we ended up keeping Detroit. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top