msnbc.msn.com— Reports claim the Iranian government charged the family of a dead Iranian man $3,000 as a 'bullet fee' before the family could take the body back.
Jun 23, 2009View in Crawl 4
@sblakesley:I hear what you're saying, but play devil's advocate for a moment: If the government determines who can and can't own a gun, doesn't that defeat the entire point of the Second Amendment? People who obey all of the government's laws in the first place don't have anything to protect themselves against. So if that were the interpretation by those who ratified it (the people), the amendment might as well not exist at all.It's _precisely_ those whose way of life the government has infringed upon (by making some aspect(s) illegal) that are protected in a specific way by the Second Amendment.If you, e.g. disallow convicted felons from owning guns, then protection from tyrannical government rests on the majority's judgment of what should be considered a felony in the first place. That wasn't good enough for the people who ratified the Bill of Rights (the people). Protection from a law-passing majority is its purpose.Presumably you think all existing felonies should be felonies. (If not, you've got a contradiction hidden in those two beliefs.) You have to tolerate the protection the Constitution provides to those who disagree with you if you want that protection yourself should you be in a minority on something.It's one thing to support the repeal or modification of the Second Amendment. But please recognize that to interpret it in a way that allows it to be qualified in any way renders it meaningless to begin with, and thus can't be what its ratifiers (the people) intended. Respecting the interpretation of those who passed a law or amendment is an inherent part of democracy.
It actually mentions the three thousand dollar "bullet fee" on page 3 of the article.Isn't "murder for hire" a violation of International Law?Thank goodness in America when politicians and political pundits snipe at each other and their ideological opponents they are using worlds and not live rounds. The only people who pay a user fee are the ones who find the discussion entertaining. And nobody dies.
jimmiesJun 24, 2009
Damn, thanks for improving my vocabulary. I had to look that one up.
tao52nycJun 24, 2009
"When bullets are overpriced, only outlaws will have bullets"...or something like that...
benitojuarezJun 24, 2009
im not saying its ok to be profiteering off anyone like that, but with all thats going on false propaganda isnt a good thing.
Closed AccountJun 25, 2009
what?
aeronJun 25, 2009
what the f**k!?
milflyboyJun 25, 2009
and all our nuke while we're at it
milflyboyJun 25, 2009
@sblakesley:I hear what you're saying, but play devil's advocate for a moment: If the government determines who can and can't own a gun, doesn't that defeat the entire point of the Second Amendment? People who obey all of the government's laws in the first place don't have anything to protect themselves against. So if that were the interpretation by those who ratified it (the people), the amendment might as well not exist at all.It's _precisely_ those whose way of life the government has infringed upon (by making some aspect(s) illegal) that are protected in a specific way by the Second Amendment.If you, e.g. disallow convicted felons from owning guns, then protection from tyrannical government rests on the majority's judgment of what should be considered a felony in the first place. That wasn't good enough for the people who ratified the Bill of Rights (the people). Protection from a law-passing majority is its purpose.Presumably you think all existing felonies should be felonies. (If not, you've got a contradiction hidden in those two beliefs.) You have to tolerate the protection the Constitution provides to those who disagree with you if you want that protection yourself should you be in a minority on something.It's one thing to support the repeal or modification of the Second Amendment. But please recognize that to interpret it in a way that allows it to be qualified in any way renders it meaningless to begin with, and thus can't be what its ratifiers (the people) intended. Respecting the interpretation of those who passed a law or amendment is an inherent part of democracy.
johnnysoftwareJul 1, 2009
It actually mentions the three thousand dollar "bullet fee" on page 3 of the article.Isn't "murder for hire" a violation of International Law?Thank goodness in America when politicians and political pundits snipe at each other and their ideological opponents they are using worlds and not live rounds. The only people who pay a user fee are the ones who find the discussion entertaining. And nobody dies.
webmakeJul 24, 2009
the best decision of buying at auction <a class="user" href="http://www.winbuy.ru/">http://www.winbuy.ru/</a>