If that's the case, then fine- update it. There are clear mechanisms for amending the Constitution. But you can't just say "oh that's outdated, we don't need to follow it anymore".Originally Posted by ghost908
If that's the case, then fine- update it. There are clear mechanisms for amending the Constitution. But you can't just say "oh that's outdated, we don't need to follow it anymore".Originally Posted by ghost908
"Don't believe everything you read online."
-Abraham Lincoln
We arent talking here about accuracy. We are talking more about rate of fire. The automatic weapon has COMPLETELY changed the face of warfare. Instead of getting one or two rounds off a minute, modern automatic weapons can unload thousands. Should every Tom, Dick and Harry be allowed to own a fully automatic machine gun? How about hand grenades? Would you be happy knowning your neighbour had a mortar? What about a rocket launcher? Flak canon? Tank? A tank is just an armmament, right? Not allowing Tanks is unconstitutional then... Why stop there... Should a private citizen (if they can afford it) be allowed to own a strategic bomber? How about nuclear arms? Just keeping the government in check. Where do you draw the line? Because Im pretty damn sure you draw a line somewhere and all it says is "arms".So? A rifled musket was high tech shizzle in the late 1700s, but they were not restricted. Never mind that they had unprecedented accuracy. Neither were Breach Loaders restricted (a small quantity existed, and were evben used by the brits in the war), despite being leaps and bounds ahead of anything else.
The technology argument is crap. Guns do the same thing now they did then. The document is quite specific that the right to bear arms will not be infringed.
Eppur si muove
Funny you should mention the GC. How many times has America redefined (thats putting is very nicely... some would say its outright in breach of it) the GC in the last few years? Its pretty obvious your leaders are paying little to no attention to it in relation to the so called War on Terror. Moving the goalposts?The Geneva convention was written before the time of Mass Terrorist Assaults, brutal Urban Combat, Viet Cong style cactics, nuclear weaponry, etc. yet it still holds true to Modern Warfare. Why? It still serves some purpose.
Thats absolutely ridiculous! First off, America has never had a proper "Welfare State". Secondly, if you look at any proper "Welfare States", you will NOT find the problems America has. Look at Scandinavia, its rather eutopian...Just because somthing may or may not be outdated does not mean it is obsolete. America's social and cultural problems are not on the account of guns, they are directly related to the Welfare State and the Guilt Culture that have been imposed on us for years.
Slow down folks... I can only type so fast, its nearly 3 AM here.
Eppur si muove
Good jokes, you make me laugh.Originally Posted by _Martyr_
Why do you hate Freedom?
The US is marching backward to the values of Michael Stivic.
Explain...
Eppur si muove
Your statements on the welfare state were humorous, to say the least. Incorrect, but humorous nontheless. Twas a form of sarcasm.Originally Posted by _Martyr_
Why do you hate Freedom?
The US is marching backward to the values of Michael Stivic.
Thanks...
Believe it or not, your sarcasm was actually well understood. Explain how I am wrong about the US not having a proper welfare state and proper welfare states not having the same problems the US does.
Eppur si muove
Bookmarks