I'll drop you off in Watts or South Central Los Angeles. It's not guns but "Gun Free Zones" & the new wonder drugs for the nut bags with the realy bitchin side effects ,Not the "drowziness or the don't opperate heavy machinery" stuff either. The real poison is the Liberal free for all no morals agenda that kills. Political Correctness on steroids, Social engineering to produce a bigger Government. You look back in history & It's not the guns that have changed. I got to go ,Santa has to deliver the lumps of coal tonight.
So in some way the second amendment has some sort of more importance than the first? Piers should be deported for daring to support gun control, so whats to happen to the 50,000 people who've signed the petition arguing against the provisions of the first amendment, that of free speech?
I've never liked Mr.Morgan's reporting or his all too obvious political slant. But we have laws here in the US and his right to free speech is protected. He cannot be deported or otherwise acted against by the government for his views or expression thereof.
Neither is there any law preventing those who might disagree with Mr. Morgan's views from expressing their opinion to his employers or to those business entities paying money to sponsor his shows. Such is life in the news/entertainment business.
As for myself, I couldn't be bothered to expend any effort at all either on behalf of or in opposition to Piers Morgan or any other TV personality. Like many other folks, my opinions regarding gun control or indeed most other issues in dispute are well formed and won't be affected in any meaningful way him or any other TV personality. It may even be that the most useful service provided by Morgan or others of his ilk is that of providing viewers with more persuasive arguments to support what they already believe anyway. I'd be satisfied if they just delivered the news without comment.
The real problem we have here with Piers, of course, is that, having disgraced himself in UK, he comes over here, scores himself a prime time on CNN replacing the prior blowhard Larry King, gains a chunk of airtime and a pile of US dollars, then spouts his generally anti-American crap back.
The Second amendment states that the government has no authority to prohibit the people from bearing arms. The have an inalienable right to bear arms and government is limited in its ability to interfere. The entire Constitution spells out what the government must do and what the government is prohibited from doing. It does not grant any rights to anyone. It ensures that the inalienable rights are preserved.
Isn't also something from the old time !? With the idea of keeping any kind of government at bay, knowing that their population is armed and could overthrow them at anytime ? Not sure if I'm making this up or not but it sounded nice
On another subject, gun registry did not work in Canada. Took us almost 20 years and a lot of $$$ to figure this one out. This was something "created" following the Montréal École Polytechnique massacre in 89.
Last edited by ehwatezedoing; 25th Dec 2012 at 08:15.
Location: Dublin, Ireland. (No, I just live here.)
Flap5 - that's how I would interpret it too i.e. the right depends on whether there is a need for a militia, and these days there isn't. The other primary interpretation is that a militia is always necessary, and so the right always exists. Even then, though, the militia is to be well-regulated. It's still not a legal justification for an anything-goes gun policy.
The exact wording and punctuation of the Second Amendment is the subject of quite a bit of debate, down to the placement of a comma. What else do you expect from a country ruled by lawyers? Even so, if you have the right to bear arms, it's not an obligation to bear arms. Just because you can, it don't mean you should ...
And that is YOUR choice, YOUR opinion. Nothing more.
Nobody says you can't have that opinion, but, like others, continually foisting said opinion on everyone as if it is somehow "right" does not mean it is right but it does mean you are trying to deny others the same choice based solely on your own opinion. And please start on some of the studies, as there is one out there that has been used to claim that 6% of suicides using a firearm would have happened if there was no gun present. How do you shoot yourself with a gun if there is no gun present?
And when your own reasoning falls flat on it's face as it means that you, yourself, now believe your own safety is compromised as you will keep knives in your own kitchen, possibly have others you use as "tools", and are therefore more at risk of dying from these knives, I suggest you get rid of anything and everything that could be used as a weapon and leave society whilst the rest of us decide what we think is best for ourselves without interference.
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that if you banned ALL gun sales to private individuals in the US, it wouldn't make any difference because of all the guns that are out there at the moment that it would be impossible to take out of circulation.
Look at the ban here on gun ownership - since they've come in, we would appear to have had more gun crime than before. Liverpool, Manchester, London especially - it seems that there's at least one shooting a week reported.
There's a lot of truth in the saying that "people kill people - guns are just a tool." There's no bans on crossbows or longbows, though.....a mediaeval longbow archer could have four arrows in the air at any one time, too.
Although we know in Lancashire that a blind man with a white walking stick is such a menace that he has to be tasered!
It should be a fairly easy choice for people with more than one brain cell.
Keeping and/or carrying weapons, whether guns in the USA or knives in the UK, greatly increases your chances of dying from those weapons.
So any sane person concerned for their own safety does not keep or carry such weapons, this being what I believe our American cousins call a "no brainer".
Therefore those who do are either insane or not concerned for their own safety.
Telling someone they're stupid or insane because they don't agree with your thinking doesn't make your point valid. It actually diminishes your point, which in this case is utterly pointless and without merit. You obviously have more than one brain cell, though.
Insanity is depending on others for timely protection, while living in a rural area where there is a 20-30 minute response time. BTW, the UN, with their anti-gun attempts can kiss my lower aft body (727 term). They aren't going to be here for me and my family when the day comes that we might actually need their assistance...thanks to their "progressive", inept, peace keeping philosophy.