I am never wrong Elubas. Cheddar is by far the best cheese.
I don't like getting death threats
Sort:
Well, you are right about that. The sharper the better.
Elubas wrote:
AlCzervik wrote:
JamieDelarosa wrote:
Babytigrrr wrote:
Elubis, I think the gun debate will rage forever and I'm not in a position to judge it; having never lived in a country such as yours where to own a gun is the 'norm'. I personally am happy living in a country with strict gun control. I do believe your constitution is misinterpreted with regard to 'right to bear arms' and this needs to be brought up to date and written in such a way that misinterpretation and misunderstanding of it cannot be used as a defence to kill/own a gun.
Those this is running far afield of the original intention of the topic, the contemporary statement of the Founding Generation in the USA are quite clear that ownership of adequate arms was an individual right, not to be infringed by government.
Quoting this, but, also referring to your last post.
You can remind everyone of what our founders wrote.
Fine, except, we live in a different world than 1780.
It is interesting though how the US works. The Supreme Court supposedly interprets things as "constitutional" or "unconstitutional," yet how do we know anything that's constitutional is actually desirable? Still, if one is to take that line of reasoning far, one would have to be against the whole concept of the Supreme Court, a pretty decent chunk of our government.
What the heck does 1780 have to do with anything you illiterate, uneducated idiot?
Your general point is sound, however ineptly stated.
How is anyone supposed to "get out" if they can't afford to move?
You seem like quite an elitist for such an incompetent, poorly educated lout. Quite ironic. Then again irony is the new hipster thing.
AlCzervik wrote:
johnmusacha wrote:
In many ways I feel more at home in Europe than the USA, but their paranoia about firearms is something I cannot relate to. Sure more people get blown away for no reason in the USA but who really cares? It's just the way it is round these parts, brah.
Written as the tool you are.
Hey man, as you put it earlier, if you are concerned about violence, get out. Move, right?
Sure thing, boss.
Ah, the other thing I don't like in the US firearm debate: "Second amendment says so". Well, possibly, so what - the way it is now might not be the way it ought to be.
Unless you have mystical faith into slave owners from over two centuries ago to write universal rules for your country, you might dismiss tradition as a valid argument about what should be done now. The thieves and the British are less likely to invade your homes today, so the situation has changed.
"It might" not but this is not a perfect world. I, as well as many humans, would not want to live anywhere near a world where pretentitious homosexuals such as yourself call the shots.
If people did, you yourself would be in a position of power and responsibility in the real world instead of posting on Chess.com for eight to eighteen hours a day, every day.
JamieDelarosa wrote:
I was taught on the ranch at an early age to use and respect firearms, just like my brother. I was brought up in a culture of guns for hunting, guns for killing varmints, and guns for protection.
What ranch did you grow up on?! The O.K.? I've long wondered what the difference is between a farm and a ranch. Must be the lack of shootouts on the farm.
I think a farm primarily grows crops while a ranch is more for animals.
Elubas wrote:
Post 427: Babytiger, face it, on this point, you were simply wrong. The founding fathers couldn't have put it more literally that it is a right to have a gun for the purpose of defense. They definitely said and meant that.
Now, they may have not had good reason to think so, but that changes the subject. If you want to argue that go ahead, but then concede the previous point.
Although, reading those wise sounding quotes does remind me of the coolness of liberty. As irontiger said, one part of the debate is safeness, the other is how much is it worth to take away someone's freedom. We generally try to strike a balance between those two things.
What are you talking about? It doesn't say anything about defense. I think they had offense in mind.
Course, none of them would probably shoot some shmuck armed with a knife.
Literally.
Indiana Johnson didit to that sword guy. That was quite dishonourable.
Hell, that sword guy wasn't even American.
Jul 21, 2014
0
#435
Mr john's right. A ranch bears flora. A farm bears fauna. I've watched enuf Andrew Zimmern to know.
You're saying the exact opposite of what John stated.
Zimmern down nah!
Jul 21, 2014
0
#438
That's what I said ! A farm bears flora and a ranch bears....Oh, I see....
....
The Ponderosa was a ranch. dun dada dun data dun data dun data dah... dah.....
Elubis, I think the gun debate will rage forever and I'm not in a position to judge it; having never lived in a country such as yours where to own a gun is the 'norm'. I personally am happy living in a country with strict gun control. I do believe your constitution is misinterpreted with regard to 'right to bear arms' and this needs to be brought up to date and written in such a way that misinterpretation and misunderstanding of it cannot be used as a defence to kill/own a gun.
Those this is running far afield of the original intention of the topic, the contemporary statement of the Founding Generation in the USA are quite clear that ownership of adequate arms was an individual right, not to be infringed by government.
Quoting this, but, also referring to your last post.
You can remind everyone of what our founders wrote.
Fine, except, we live in a different world than 1780.
It is interesting though how the US works. The Supreme Court supposedly interprets things as "constitutional" or "unconstitutional," yet how do we know anything that's constitutional is actually desirable? Still, if one is to take that line of reasoning far, one would have to be against the whole concept of the Supreme Court, a pretty decent chunk of our government.