Yeah... I don't think so...tigeress66October 24 2002, 13:47:13 UTC
I think there needs to be some alteration to the bill of rights........ I mean, consider when it was written and what was going on in those days... And then there's the whole thing "I have the RIGHT to bear arms".... it seems like a lot of people look at it as having the right, so they'll take advantage of it. Its like when people turn 18 and all of a sudden they can buy porn and cigarettes... a lot of them do it just because they can, you know? And as far as these things go, you don't NEED to own a gun, to smoke, to be perverted, etc... People don't NEED to own guns these days, they really don't make a difference in your safety in the every day life.
Re: Yeah... I don't think so...bowiedylanOctober 24 2002, 18:29:20 UTC
people think they need things, when what we literally need is small in quantity. though cigarettes and pornography are a bit different than firearms, since thrusting a porno mag in your direction it's deadly, whereas bullets are.
as for the bill of rights, the 2nd amendment says..."A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." that's a bit different than people walking down the street, packing heat, just because they can.
Re: Yeah... I don't think so...tigeress66October 24 2002, 18:46:24 UTC
That was my point... people don't need guns... that's why I said consider the time period that the ammendments were written in....... Cause back THEN there was actually REASON to have one....... I dunno...... Its all dumb....... And I just wanted to talk about porn..... HAHAHAH! Just joshin'!
Re: Hmm... Good questionbowiedylanOctober 24 2002, 18:48:26 UTC
if guns were outlawed, you'd still be able to get them. easily. like pot, or other illegal drugs. you can get narcotics quickly, within an hour or two. same with guns. unless there was automatic execution for anyone found with a gun, other than law enforcement. then some people would turn in there guns. my teacher brought up that point, and some people still said they wouldn't turn them in, because they have the right to have them...the idea that their right would be taken away is unconcievable to them, which shows how much people take for granted. they are wacked out
( ... )
Re: EXACTLY!bowiedylanOctober 26 2002, 03:32:11 UTC
military history could be kept out of news reports, but the gender of the criminal couldn't really. and i bet any penis amputation would be all of the news, no matter who did the wacking.
people want to give reason to insanity, or whatever drives killers to kill. anything they can grab on to for motivations of "signals" appeases them momentarily. they aren't satisfied with "he's fucked-up-in-the-head insane!" they want to give reason to unrational things, unreasonable things. killers don't think in that way, which is why they study serial killers and such and it's all very interesting, but i'm digressing and going to sleep.
i should post about "controversial" topics more, because people actually say things worth reading! yay.
as for the sniper and all that bullshit, i don't have much of an opinion, other than what's already been stated. the idea of tighter gun control is novel, but as has already been said, it could never happen. not with the entire country being run by republicans (well, come the next inaugurations it will be, anyway). i just thought i'd comment and say that i like how there were two original responses that had original ideas, and then those were responded to with a little bit of rebuttal, and the next responses were to the effect of "yeah, that's what i was saying" even though it wasn't. i just thought it was cute. anyway, bring that equation up in your next class. dispute it, if you want. sounds like you've got a real bunch of winners in there
"i like how there were two original responses that had original ideas, and then those were responded to with a little bit of rebuttal, and the next responses were to the effect of "yeah, that's what i was saying" even though it wasn't. i just thought it was cute."
me too...i found that interesting. because that really wasn't what was said. i thought about addressing that in a response, but got tired, and thought "why bother? why get into a huff about it?"
man, i'm surrounded by winners. my teacher has mentioned that equation, but i'm not sure who else heard him say it besides me.
Go back to my first response...tigeress66October 26 2002, 08:05:33 UTC
I said that people don't need guns these days because they don't serve the same purpose that they did in the ammendment days... that exactly what I reiterated in the 2nd comment... And it is what you were saying... I don't understand how I "wasn't" saying the same thing....
And Lawranne pointed out that outlawing guns is too far fetched and wouldn't happen... which is what you said afterward... which is what she said "exactly" to...
We both stuck with our arguments if you read it again
Comments 9
Reply
as for the bill of rights, the 2nd amendment says..."A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." that's a bit different than people walking down the street, packing heat, just because they can.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
people want to give reason to insanity, or whatever drives killers to kill. anything they can grab on to for motivations of "signals" appeases them momentarily. they aren't satisfied with "he's fucked-up-in-the-head insane!" they want to give reason to unrational things, unreasonable things. killers don't think in that way, which is why they study serial killers and such and it's all very interesting, but i'm digressing and going to sleep.
i should post about "controversial" topics more, because people actually say things worth reading! yay.
Reply
that equation guides all concepts of government.
as for the sniper and all that bullshit, i don't have much of an opinion, other than what's already been stated. the idea of tighter gun control is novel, but as has already been said, it could never happen. not with the entire country being run by republicans (well, come the next inaugurations it will be, anyway). i just thought i'd comment and say that i like how there were two original responses that had original ideas, and then those were responded to with a little bit of rebuttal, and the next responses were to the effect of "yeah, that's what i was saying" even though it wasn't. i just thought it was cute. anyway, bring that equation up in your next class. dispute it, if you want. sounds like you've got a real bunch of winners in there
RIP Paul Wellstone
Reply
me too...i found that interesting. because that really wasn't what was said. i thought about addressing that in a response, but got tired, and thought "why bother? why get into a huff about it?"
man, i'm surrounded by winners. my teacher has mentioned that equation, but i'm not sure who else heard him say it besides me.
RIP Wellstone and family
Reply
And Lawranne pointed out that outlawing guns is too far fetched and wouldn't happen... which is what you said afterward... which is what she said "exactly" to...
We both stuck with our arguments if you read it again
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment