Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/21/05 11:28 AM, madzakk wrote:

At 9/21/05 11:20 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: But criminals arent the government. Well they are but we call them politicians, not criminals.

Tyrannical governments or criminals; dead ones don't bother anyone anymore.

But its nto a citizens job, or right to police the criminals, that job belongs to, well the POLICE. It is your job to police the government, although that is mainly at the election booth.

At 9/21/05 01:28 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: although that is mainly at the election booth.

And if your election booth is taken away?

At 9/21/05 01:28 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote:

But its nto a citizens job, or right to police the criminals, that job belongs to, well the POLICE.

If some psycho breaks through my door, I can call 911 and wait up to 30 minutes for the police (Way too late!), or I can dial .357 and stop the whole thing on the spot!

It is your job to police the government, although that is mainly at the election booth.

Violence is the last resort. It's the potential for violence that keeps these politicians in line.

At 9/20/05 11:39 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

yes ok i dont type very well amazing can we get on with our lives? the fact still remains that the first ammendment is untouchable while the 2nd is tottally ignored

"Excuse me ir, I believe your trespassing on my property - that disagrees with the First Amendment"

"But, I'm administring the right to bear arms! I'm a hunter!"

"But this is Private Property! My kids are here!"

"Screw your kids!" *fires shotgun into the man's chest, which caves in, and then fires shotgun in the direction of a squirrel*

Do you see why? They are completly unrelated, in my humble opinion, except in the smallest degree.

At 9/21/05 01:35 AM, jmaster306 wrote:

At 9/20/05 11:39 PM, therealsylvos wrote: the fact still remains that the first ammendment is untouchable while the 2nd is tottally ignored

Examples please? I mean, we have no idea what the fuck it is you are talking about. You could be bitching about a variety fo restrictions or just have a select one or two in mind. Is it so much to ask that when a person creates a topic that they actually form a coherent argument?

ok the shall not be infringed part means that laws against : carrying in the post office, carrying on a plane, carrying in dc, or anywhere on public property for that matter are wholly unconstituional

At 9/21/05 03:54 PM, Nomader wrote:

At 9/20/05 11:39 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

yes ok i dont type very well amazing can we get on with our lives? the fact still remains that the first ammendment is untouchable while the 2nd is tottally ignored

"Excuse me ir, I believe your trespassing on my property - that disagrees with the First Amendment"

"But, I'm administring the right to bear arms! I'm a hunter!"

"But this is Private Property! My kids are here!"

"Screw your kids!" *fires shotgun into the man's chest, which caves in, and then fires shotgun in the direction of a squirrel*

Do you see why? They are completly unrelated, in my humble opinion, except in the smallest degree.

wrong the right to bear arms does not give u the right to bear arms on private property or to kill ne one but it does give u the right that if ur on a plane and 4 islamic terrorists grab a bunch of passengers and say"fly to kabul or we slit their throats" u at least have an option to shoot them in their temples

At 9/21/05 01:42 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Maybe the 1st amendment holds more water because the 1st amendment isn't one idiot's finger away from murder...

on the contrary even if you were an idiot would dare pull out a gun in a shooting range and start firing? of course not cuz u know u would be killed the second ammendment always has that lurking in your mind that if u pull out a gun u good get 3 holes in your chest

At 9/21/05 03:03 AM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 9/21/05 12:43 AM, madzakk wrote: "The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" Thomas Jefferson

Lol, you try overthrowing the goverment with rifles and shotguns when the military has tanks and copters and planes and M16's.

Lol, the thought tickles me.

hmm 200 million versus (forgive i know its completly inacurate but i think im being genoruous) 1 million? who do u think would win?

At 9/21/05 08:17 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

hmm 200 million versus (forgive i know its completly inacurate but i think im being genoruous) 1 million? who do u think would win?

Add to that the fact that they would have to find out who the freedom fighters are but we would know who they are. On top of that, how many military personel would either desert or defect.

quite a few id wager

Even thought the resaon the second admendent was put into effect (to allow the people to stop a tyrranical goverment) has become more or less null, a new resaon for this admenment has taken hold. To allow citizens to defened themselves from criminals. There is much more crime then there was when the 2nd admendment was written; in today's world there is a lot more crime, and while our police officiers are doing a great job, guns are probably the most effective way to defened ourselves.

Even if you do ban guns, it won't stop criminals from getting their hands on them, 97.9% of police officiers feel that criminals can obtain any type of firearm at any time, through illegal means. The only thing banning firearms would do is take weapons out of the hands of innoccent people.

As for people who say "it would keep people from killing other, in a fit of rage" or some crap like that. I can just as easily kill somebody with a kitchen knife as I can with a gun. Are we going to ban those to?

At 9/21/05 09:59 PM, Blackhawkdown wrote: Even thought the resaon the second admendent was put into effect (to allow the people to stop a tyrranical goverment) has become more or less null, a new resaon for this admenment has taken hold. To allow citizens to defened themselves from criminals.

Guns work on both. Shoot a tyrant or shoot a criminal. They both die and good riddance.

At 9/21/05 08:13 PM, therealsylvos wrote: on the contrary even if you were an idiot would dare pull out a gun in a shooting range and start firing? of course not cuz u know u would be killed the second ammendment always has that lurking in your mind that if u pull out a gun u good get 3 holes in your chest

I couldn't understand a thing you said, but I'm pretty damn sure my comment went way over your head. The 1st Amendment is more protected because it doesn't deal with something physically dangerous. A gun is just a slight slip of the finger away from being deadly, whereas words, speech and peaceful assembly are far from being dangerous.

Just to let you know, there is restriction on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

At 9/22/05 11:36 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 9/21/05 08:13 PM, therealsylvos wrote: on the contrary even if you were an idiot would dare pull out a gun in a shooting range and start firing? of course not cuz u know u would be killed the second ammendment always has that lurking in your mind that if u pull out a gun u good get 3 holes in your chest

I couldn't understand a thing you said, but I'm pretty damn sure my comment went way over your head. The 1st Amendment is more protected because it doesn't deal with something physically dangerous. A gun is just a slight slip of the finger away from being deadly, whereas words, speech and peaceful assembly are far from being dangerous.

Actually words are just as, if not more dangerous then guns. Look at history Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, and many others have incited far more violence and death then guns ever had. But we still allow freedom of speech because it has a good side as well. Just as the right to bear arms has a bad side, it has a good side as well. Guns in the hand of privated citizens are used 65 times more often to stop a crime then to commit a crime, in the US.

Just to let you know, there is restriction on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

Yes but it still dosen't mean violence can't be insighted. Just take a look at neo-nazis or the KKK.

At 9/20/05 11:21 PM, Nomader wrote: Seriously, isn't there some amendment which allows people the right to privacy and such - it states "All rights not specifically stated in this Constitution are granted to the Citizens" or something like that?

I believe you are talking about the 10th Amendment, except the 10th amendment states that all of the rights not specifically stated in the Constitution is granted to the citizens. This was added into the Bill of Rights in order to have large states, like New York , sign the Constitution. You have to remember the turmoil that the nation was in at the time. A large portion of the colonists highly distrusted a strong central government, but yet it was easily apparent that a stronger national government was needed. Commerce between states was cumbersome due to the states coining their own money rather then having a national standard, the northern colonies like Massachusets(Maine didn't exist at this time, which it was created in the 1820's with the Missouri Compromise) were under constant bickering from the British in Canada, and Shay's Rebellion showed the true weakness in the Articles of Confederation; the lack of a strong national government. So there was a conflicting thought going through America, one that was for a stronger national government and one that didn't want a national government because the previous very powerful central government fucked them over with taxes and the Americans lacked true representation.

The decision was made amongsts all of the states to convene in Philadelphia to try and amend the Articles of Confederation to try and alleviate the problems associated with it, Albeit would be to amend the Articles of Confederation due to the fact that all 13 States would have to agree with the new amendment, and many people in the crowd, like James Madison, felt that they should just draft a new Constitution. Which they did, and if you'd like more details, just search "Philadelphia Convention" or "Constitutional Convention" into Google or Wikipedia.