channelnewsasia.com— For the first time in 70 years, the US Supreme Court may decide next week whether to examine the question of the right to bear arms, something which is fiercely upheld by millions of Americans.
Nov 11, 2007View in Crawl 4
Actually, one question the U.S. Marine Corp asks its applicants is whether they would be willing to fire on another American citizen. Those that answer "No" are deployed as usual, those that answer "Yes"--though thankfully in the minority--are said to be deployed domestically. It would be wrong to assume that the military would immediately be on the side of the people were a revolution to come.
Those townspeople are ROACHES?! Is that what we'll be called after a foreign government attacks us for no reason!!!! And this is the mindset or OUR military, shame on you!!!!!!!
reg·u·late (rgy-lt)tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.Okay not number 1 if you want, not really a specification so 2 is out right, and 3 basically mean that have to maintain a proper functions, well the government does this through regulations; this is true with 4 as well. Explain to me how you are going to have a government, or a militia, without some sort of regulation? I mean seriously if you don't write down the regulation, or code of conduct if you will, you just going to have anyone, with no consistency, say it's running properly or maintaining order. Militia units have to have structure to operate effectively, this means that they have to be regulated (maintained in order, or operating properly) by someone or some body (two words) giving a basis, loosely, for some kind control. Another thing is that was one of the last things I edited in this and was just there to say that there may be some merit to gun control not that I agree it should be done that way. Okay, maybe I shouldn't have capitalized the word but if your going to make a comment like READ UP try putting up some material to "read up" with, and not just trust you that you actually did. If you read the rest of my post, my point was that it's the interpretation America has NOW that matters. Finally try looking on both sides of the issue as I was, I was voicing my opinion. You know at least I tried to explain my position in some way and not sound like a smart ass like you.
The district court of appeals overturned the DC gun ban, making them legal in DC. The city of DC appealed it to the Supreme Court, so if the Supreme Court upholds the ruling it would invalidate pretty much all State/city gun bans.
The 2nd amendment may haved to be changed because of the times as stipulated by the man who was mainly responsible for it's enactment. Simply banning guns is not an option but regulating it is necessary as time and situations change thus improving the amendment will improve the society. An interesting quote made to Samuel Kercheval say's...."I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Thomas Jefferson, July 12, 1810
duniyadndNov 12, 2007
And bullets pull triggers.
grym11Nov 23, 2007
Actually, one question the U.S. Marine Corp asks its applicants is whether they would be willing to fire on another American citizen. Those that answer "No" are deployed as usual, those that answer "Yes"--though thankfully in the minority--are said to be deployed domestically. It would be wrong to assume that the military would immediately be on the side of the people were a revolution to come.
unitdwerfalingNov 26, 2007
Those townspeople are ROACHES?! Is that what we'll be called after a foreign government attacks us for no reason!!!! And this is the mindset or OUR military, shame on you!!!!!!!
adrewmc3Nov 28, 2007
reg·u·late (rgy-lt)tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.Okay not number 1 if you want, not really a specification so 2 is out right, and 3 basically mean that have to maintain a proper functions, well the government does this through regulations; this is true with 4 as well. Explain to me how you are going to have a government, or a militia, without some sort of regulation? I mean seriously if you don't write down the regulation, or code of conduct if you will, you just going to have anyone, with no consistency, say it's running properly or maintaining order. Militia units have to have structure to operate effectively, this means that they have to be regulated (maintained in order, or operating properly) by someone or some body (two words) giving a basis, loosely, for some kind control. Another thing is that was one of the last things I edited in this and was just there to say that there may be some merit to gun control not that I agree it should be done that way. Okay, maybe I shouldn't have capitalized the word but if your going to make a comment like READ UP try putting up some material to "read up" with, and not just trust you that you actually did. If you read the rest of my post, my point was that it's the interpretation America has NOW that matters. Finally try looking on both sides of the issue as I was, I was voicing my opinion. You know at least I tried to explain my position in some way and not sound like a smart ass like you.
Closed AccountDec 3, 2007
The district court of appeals overturned the DC gun ban, making them legal in DC. The city of DC appealed it to the Supreme Court, so if the Supreme Court upholds the ruling it would invalidate pretty much all State/city gun bans.
opiniastrousJan 17, 2008
A: Never.
opiniastrousFeb 15, 2008
True enough. I guess I accidentally thought of Vietnam.
militaryvetFeb 16, 2008
The 2nd amendment may haved to be changed because of the times as stipulated by the man who was mainly responsible for it's enactment. Simply banning guns is not an option but regulating it is necessary as time and situations change thus improving the amendment will improve the society. An interesting quote made to Samuel Kercheval say's...."I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Thomas Jefferson, July 12, 1810