Americans should not be allowed to own guns.

[lovejoy]

Yes, because we haven't had the civil rights movement in the UK as it is in US, because the experience of black & ethnic minorities is a different one over here, it will take longer for it to happen I think. But Women's Rights has nothing to do with it. But a Black London Mayor is a very real, & welcome possibility.

Oh & incidentally, I do not foresee US will ever elect a Native American President ...ever!!

But we have had a female Prime Minister, which I think makes it a draw with your Black President!

The 2008 US Presidency was Hillary Clinton, it was "her" to lose.

Either way, American would either get a woman President or a Black President.

Hillary Clinton is positioned herself well to become the next President of United States.

So there you are ! :nanner: :lovecoupl

 

[mrtrebus]

The 2008 US Presidency was Hillary Clinton, it was "her" to lose.

Either way, American would either get a woman President or a Black President.

Hillary Clinton is positioned herself well to become the next President of United States.

So there you are ! :nanner: :lovecoupl

Damn, you may beat us. I'm going to pray that are next Prime Minister in waiting is a black disabled woman! Triple points!!

 

[mrtrebus]

If you can find any!
If they did I bet he/she would own a gun

No they'd use a bow & arrow surely?!?

 

[The Paulinator]

Not at all.The Second Amemndment is clearly there to establish a militia.A well regulated one at that.The follow up to the Amendment was the Militia Act which clearly places the militia under the president's control.
In other words the Second Amendment was framed to prevent threat to the nation or its government.Not to protect citizens from one of these mythical "tyrannical" governments.That's the job of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

These are your thoughts. The reality is that guns are legal for private ownership. Your interpretation means nothing especially when the NRA has at least twice as much money and influence as do you.

 

[The Paulinator]

Damn, you may beat us. I'm going to pray that are next Prime Minister in waiting is a black disabled woman! Triple points!!

Why in the world does it matter what someone looks like?


I mean, come on, as long as they are adequately armed?

 

[marquis2]

Let me say this, the Founding Fathers gave this rights through GOD.

Did you watch the www.youtube.com, Nada, a 26 years old beautiful woman gunned down by the rogue government agent in Iran, thousands and thousands students got killed in 1998 in Beijing?

I have lived in Washington, D.C. in the 70's when half a million women demonstrated, native American demontrated for their rights and blacks demonstrated for their rights.

If the Founding Fathers did not give this rights through GOD, hundreds of people would have been killed by the rogue white police here in Washington, D.C..

It is the rogue agents that took the law in their hands and killed, and killed, and killed the innocent woman just like beautiful Nada in Iran.


It is the Founding Fathers of a young nation back in 1770's that foresee freedom can only be achieved through a balance of power, through the legislative branch, through the judicial branch and through the executive branch but the most important thing is the "people" branch.


.

I didn't know God was an active member of the Founding Fathers.Where did He sit? Where is His signature or evidence that He was involved?
The world is full of people who think they are directed by God-or Allah and they can't all be right unless God is playing games with us.
You still don't understand rights.They are simply what society allows you and attempts to guarantee.And they are all conditional.

 

[lovejoy]

These are your thoughts. The reality is that guns are legal for private ownership. Your interpretation means nothing especially when the NRA has at least twice as much money and influence as do you.

The reality in 2009 is gun is the biggest business in the world and America is cashing in billions dollars selling guns to its citizen.

You can not even buy ammunitions in many cities because Americans are stocked up trillions of bullets of all size !

 

[sproing99]

Damn, you may beat us. I'm going to pray that are next Prime Minister in waiting is a black disabled woman! Triple points!!

Add lesbian and you've got a winner

 

[The Paulinator]

The reality in 2009 is gun is the biggest business in the world and America is cashing in billions dollars selling guns to its citizen.

Yeah, that's one part of the economy that has flourished lately (McDonald's stock isn't doing too bad either)

You can not even buy ammunitions in many cities because Americans are stocked up trillions of bullets of all size !

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning for discount ammunition

 

[Hot Mega]

Not at all.The Second Amemndment is clearly there to establish a militia.A well regulated one at that.The follow up to the Amendment was the Militia Act which clearly places the militia under the president's control.
In other words the Second Amendment was framed to prevent threat to the nation or its government.Not to protect citizens from one of these mythical "tyrannical" governments.That's the job of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

This is the text;

"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."

So the simple question to bed the debate on private ownership is, if the intent was to not include private ownership, why weren't the existing firearms in the hands of private owners not confiscated under this new constitutional amendment??

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

America has more guns in circulation amongst it's citizens than any other country on earth and it also has the highest murder rate on earth, if you don't see any connection between the two you're blind.

Unfortunately, it's too late to ban guns in the US. American society has and always will be based on fear. Guns are not only a way for people to feel safe but also a way to keep the fear alive.

You honestly think the Murder rate in America is higher than a lot of wartorn countries? Or is it the fact that we have one of the most thorough Law Enforcement systems on the planet (and don't compare the UK and Ireland to the U.S. because you'd be shocked at the shit they let fall through the cracks in comparison to the U.S.) and so crimes get documented.


The fact that you can't stop and consider whether that little meme would stand up makes me question your motives. Are you just an American with a masochistic fetish? It seems like that's popular nowadays.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Not at all.The Second Amemndment is clearly there to establish a militia.A well regulated one at that.The follow up to the Amendment was the Militia Act which clearly places the militia under the president's control.
In other words the Second Amendment was framed to prevent threat to the nation or its government.Not to protect citizens from one of these mythical "tyrannical" governments.That's the job of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Haven't you studied history? You don't think a tyrannical government could happen here? And why would you put it in quotes anyway?

 

[marquis2]

This is the text;

"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."

So the simple question to bed the debate on private ownership is, if the intent was to not include private ownership, why weren't the existing firearms in the hands of private owners not confiscated under this new constitutional amendment??

So the government could rely on finding a body of armed men (the militia) when it needed them.The Militia Act clarified all this in 1792.There was no standing army so a "pro tem" force was required.

 

[Hot Mega]

So the government could rely on finding a body of armed men (the militia) when it needed them.The Militia Act clarified all this in 1792.There was no standing army so a "pro tem" force was required.

There were 2 Militia Acts of 1792. You reference one..the second was to conscript every able bodied man between the ages 18 and 45 and that they obtain arms at their own expense (among other things).

There was also an update to the Militia Act in 1903 which created the National Guard effectively eliminating the requirements of two previous acts...So even then, why weren't privately owned firearms confiscated in 1903 if your interpretation is the correct one?

 

[HeartBroker]

No they'd use a bow & arrow surely?!?

Probably would.
But they were big into the repeating rifles, which played a big role at Little Bighorn so...

 

[Mr. Daystar]

So the government could rely on finding a body of armed men (the militia) when it needed them.The Militia Act clarified all this in 1792.There was no standing army so a "pro tem" force was required.

You seem to keep ignoring, or glancing over the part of the Amendment that states, "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS". I have read "The Militia Act of 1792"LINK, and I personally can't find any statement that says, we have groups of people to call on, so no one else can have guns. Please direct me to this portion of the text, that you so fervently claim is undisputed proof, that I am not allowed to own guns.

 

[marquis2]

Look at the wording. If the intention had been simply to grant the right for all to bear arms there would have been no need to mention the militia AT ALL, But the Amendment BEGINS with the need for a militia , it defines the conditions ;in other words that is the basis of the whole thing.
"The People" is not the same as "each person" of course.

 

[Hot Mega]

Look at the wording. If the intention had been simply to grant the right for all to bear arms there would have been no need to mention the militia AT ALL, But the Amendment BEGINS with the need for a militia , it defines the conditions ;in other words that is the basis of the whole thing.
"The People" is not the same as "each person" of course.

NO DISAGREEMENT THERE.

As the context for it was as you state, the newly formed country had no standing defense apparatus.

Now the question becomes if the intent was to separate the militia from the people why weren't the firearms separated from the people when the act creating a standing militia separate from the "people" was passed??

The "people" can't very well be under the command of the government for this purpose IMO...otherwise they are the government

 

[Kingfisher]

Because it's a choice. Just like Taco Bell or Burger King. We have a choice to own one or not.

 

[Bus10aNut]

Lots of reasons I own/ carry guns...

-Because a cop is too heavy.

-Because if you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.

-Because when seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.

-Because I refuse to be a victim!

I was once asked by a lady visiting if I had a gun in the house. I said I did. She said 'Well I certainly hope it isn't loaded!' To which I said, of course it is loaded, can't work without bullets!' She then asked, 'Are you that afraid of some one evil coming into your house?' My reply was, 'No not at all. I am not afraid of the house catching fire either, but I have fire extinguishers around, and they are all loaded too.'

To which I'll add, having a gun in the house that isn't loaded is like having a car in the garage without gas in the tank.