This Article Is 'So Gay!'

Off Topic
41

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
Fonebone wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
TrainerinDC wrote:
Misterhamper wrote:
Just like their weapon law etc.

What, may I ask, is wrong with our weapon law?

Dont you guys have loads of deaths from fire arms each year?

Yes. Why, just last week my AR-15 locked and loaded itself with a 30 round magazine and went out and razed an entire playground full of children. It was last seen fleeing the scene in an SUV and publicly smoking a cigarette.

What do you need an AR-15 for? [/quote]

Considering that once they outlawed guns in the land down under gun violence went way up, I’d say perhaps a gun wouldn’t be a bad thing for a lawful citizen to have. HOWEVER, this is why he needs an AR-15 (same reason I own an Ak-47 in .308):

We have the bill of rights. Among these is the 2nd Amendment, known as the right to keep and bear arms. We do this, not to hunt, or in defense of criminals. No, we do this so that if our government becomes a tyranny we can violently overthrow it. Here are two parts of the New Hampshire State Constitution–

[Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

and…

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

June 2, 1784

THAT is why he needs an AR-15 (though I think a 7.26 x 51 may be in order)

mike

42

[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
… I am losing all faith …

Faith is not allowed in society.

Neither is rational thinking. I’m looking at you Zap.
[/quote]

I’m looking at your avatar.

43

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Considering that once they outlawed guns in the land down under gun violence went way up, I’d say perhaps a gun wouldn’t be a bad thing for a lawful citizen to have. HOWEVER, this is why he needs an AR-15 (same reason I own an Ak-47 in .308):

We have the bill of rights. Among these is the 2nd Amendment, known as the right to keep and bear arms. We do this, not to hunt, or in defense of criminals. No, we do this so that if our government becomes a tyranny we can violently overthrow it. Here are two parts of the New Hampshire State Constitution–

[Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

and…

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

June 2, 1784

THAT is why he needs an AR-15 (though I think a 7.26 x 51 may be in order)

mike[/quote]

You are a very intelligent man. Should we ever have the opportunity to meet I would like to buy you a beer.

I should never have to use my weapons, but it is my birth right to own my weapons. I shall never lay them down while I still have strength to defend my right to have them.

Many men, my family included, died for my right to own these weapons, and my other rights. I will not disgrace their sacrifice by abandoning my rights.

44

You guys can really talk some shit. Its my birth right to bear arms…ARMS not automatic weapons.

I have no problems with guns, but I don’t think we should have them in communities where some people may feel a little nervous knowing neighbors have AK 47s.

There is absolutely no need for automatic weapons in suburbia.

Can you own missile launchers. I think I need a SAM in my back year just incase.

Where do you draw the line?

I did enjoy having a go of the M60 in Vietnam, but I don’t think everyone should own one.

45

[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
You guys can really talk some shit. Its my birth right to bear arms…ARMS not automatic weapons. [/quote]

I don’t think yourself, or any man, has the right to make that distinction. The constitution says arms, those are all types of arms, and that is just that. [quote]

I have no problems with guns, but I don’t think we should have them in communities where some people may feel a little nervous knowing neighbors have AK 47s. [/quote]

Why ever would you need to feel nervous? You should feel nervous about people wit knives, and sticks, and the ability to make pipe bombs and chemical weapons out of household chemicals next door.

Again another distinction that you do not have the right to make. It doesn’t matter that there is no need for automatics in suburbia, what matters is the suburbans have the right to own the automatics.

[quote]Can you own missile launchers. I think I need a SAM in my back year just incase.

Where do you draw the line?

I did enjoy having a go of the M60 in Vietnam, but I don’t think everyone should own one. [/quote]

My case in point. No man should have the authority to draw the line. Our founding fathers gave all of us the right to bear arms, without restriction. The citizens have slowly given away those rights and allowed restrictions.

Our founding fathers wanted us to have the means to fight yet another revolution if our current government strayed down the wrong path. The power was always supposed to be in the hands of the citizen and not the institution. In the modern world, automatic weapons and missles are the weapons, the citizens are supposed to have access to them to fight should the situation warrant it. This is the America the founding fathers dreaming of.

46

I think too many people think that “freedom of speech” is some kind of absolute right that can infringe on all other rights without any limitations.

There are no such rights in international law (I study law in Norway, so I won’t go into how the supreme court in US interprets things, but as far as international law/human rights go: freedom of speech only go as far as NOT interfering with other rights).

47

[quote]Professor X wrote:
BrwnbellyYankee wrote:
so wait,

group of students: do you have 10 moms?

girl: thats so gay

if she did have 10 moms WOULDNT that be gay?

and what time of lame ass teenagers are these to get her in trouble for that lame phrase.

Apparently, you can make fun of someone’s religion all day long, but if you say the word “gay” in relation to something funny, lame or negative, all hell breaks loose and it goes on your permanent record. I am losing all faith in society as a whole or in the average intelligence of the people actually teaching the children today. Even if the kids plotted to get this girl in trouble, how retarded was the counselor, vice-principal or whoever to actually make this a larger issue?

That’s like pushing someone until they hit back and then getting them in trouble for hitting. What about all of the pushing?[/quote]

I always got framed in elementary school for that. The person provokes me. I mash them up. They start crying. (Sucking Teeth). I get in trouble. I spent more days in the office than actually in class.

Because I stood up for myself I’m the bad guy. Geeezz.

I don’t care. I still got my High School diploma. Take that! Now on to college…

-Kev

48

[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
You guys can really talk some shit. Its my birth right to bear arms…ARMS not automatic weapons.

I don’t think yourself, or any man, has the right to make that distinction. The constitution says arms, those are all types of arms, and that is just that.

I have no problems with guns, but I don’t think we should have them in communities where some people may feel a little nervous knowing neighbors have AK 47s.

Why ever would you need to feel nervous? You should feel nervous about people wit knives, and sticks, and the ability to make pipe bombs and chemical weapons out of household chemicals next door.

There is absolutely no need for automatic weapons in suburbia.

Again another distinction that you do not have the right to make. It doesn’t matter that there is no need for automatics in suburbia, what matters is the suburbans have the right to own the automatics.

Can you own missile launchers. I think I need a SAM in my back year just incase.

Where do you draw the line?

I did enjoy having a go of the M60 in Vietnam, but I don’t think everyone should own one.

My case in point. No man should have the authority to draw the line. Our founding fathers gave all of us the right to bear arms, without restriction. The citizens have slowly given away those rights and allowed restrictions.

Our founding fathers wanted us to have the means to fight yet another revolution if our current government strayed down the wrong path. The power was always supposed to be in the hands of the citizen and not the institution. In the modern world, automatic weapons and missles are the weapons, the citizens are supposed to have access to them to fight should the situation warrant it. This is the America the founding fathers dreaming of. [/quote]

I think it is a bit… questionable that some people think that the “founding fathers” have some god given right to give rules that one can’t, with democratic means, change today…

49

That article reaaaaallly pissed me off. I knew that was going to happen before I read it, but I read it anyways. Just to say… I read it.

-Kev

50

[quote]DanErickson wrote:
Professor X wrote:
BrwnbellyYankee wrote:
so wait,

group of students: do you have 10 moms?

girl: thats so gay

if she did have 10 moms WOULDNT that be gay?

and what time of lame ass teenagers are these to get her in trouble for that lame phrase.

Apparently, you can make fun of someone’s religion all day long, but if you say the word “gay” in relation to something funny, lame or negative, all hell breaks loose and it goes on your permanent record. I am losing all faith in society as a whole or in the average intelligence of the people actually teaching the children today. Even if the kids plotted to get this girl in trouble, how retarded was the counselor, vice-principal or whoever to actually make this a larger issue?

That’s like pushing someone until they hit back and then getting them in trouble for hitting. What about all of the pushing?

Prof, I live in Ontario Canada. Here the schools have a zero tolerence policy on violence.

If somebody is trying to hurt you, and you defend yourself, you get suspended for just as long of a duration as the attacker.
There logic is that if you are being attacked, you are supposed to “run for help”, for “yell for help”.

P.S
Dont think about this to much, it will just make you an angry person (I should know).[/quote]

Everything Dan Erickson said about Ontario schools is correct. And it disgusts me.

Now, let’s say the victim doesn’t defend him/herself and “runs for help” a few things can happen after.

When that person “runs for help” their peers will call them a “bitch” or something along those lines. Then, they’ll be emotionally scarred from all the name-calling. Then the kid pulls off a wanna-be school shooting. Then bad things will happen I don’t want to mention. Then, you get your Big Head Dr. Phils coming on saying this kid needs love/discipline blah, blah. Because he’s the “expert”. Finally, we should all grab some tissues and sob together.

The cycle continues…

I don’t know who to blame society/government whatever but whoever it is they’re really showing their true colors… and it stinks!

-Kev

51

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
I think it is a bit… questionable that some people think that the “founding fathers” have some god given right to give rules that one can’t, with democratic means, change today… [/quote]

We have the right to speak free and bear arms. Rights can NOT be changed, by any means.

You can use a gun, knife, democracy or a smokin hot woman, you will NOT take or change my rights.

52

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
There are no such rights in international law (I study law in Norway, so I won’t go into how the supreme court in US interprets things, but as far as international law/human rights go: freedom of speech only go as far as NOT interfering with other rights).[/quote]

Where does my free speech interfere with your rights? It doesn’t. I may say whatever I wish, whenever I wish and if you don’t like it, you have the right to not listen.

I fail to see one way that my free speech will ever be superceded by one of your rights.

53

[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
There are no such rights in international law (I study law in Norway, so I won’t go into how the supreme court in US interprets things, but as far as international law/human rights go: freedom of speech only go as far as NOT interfering with other rights).

Where does my free speech interfere with your rights? It doesn’t. I may say whatever I wish, whenever I wish and if you don’t like it, you have the right to not listen.

I fail to see one way that my free speech will ever be superceded by one of your rights.
[/quote]

You fail to show HOW these “rights” are in any way natural… or why they should not be changed by demoratic means. If 70% of the US voters say “well, we want stricter gun laws”… the US SHOULD get stricter gun laws… that is the basic principle of democracy. Basing your entire line of logic on “well, a few blokes several hundred years ago said that it was a right” isn’t very valid.

And well, if I say: “I’m going to kill you tomorrow, Im going to tie you up, rape you with a blow torch and kill you, after killing your wife and kids”… that is a threat. That is the most basic example of how speech can become a verbal action… which infringes on your rights. This IS pretty basic.

54

Why do you guys need assualt rifles, full auto’s, high calibre rifles(50 cal and the like)? Are the red coats attacking again or what? Do you want to turn a deer into hamburger while hunting?

55

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
TrainerinDC wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
You guys can really talk some shit. Its my birth right to bear arms…ARMS not automatic weapons.

I don’t think yourself, or any man, has the right to make that distinction. The constitution says arms, those are all types of arms, and that is just that.

I have no problems with guns, but I don’t think we should have them in communities where some people may feel a little nervous knowing neighbors have AK 47s.

Why ever would you need to feel nervous? You should feel nervous about people wit knives, and sticks, and the ability to make pipe bombs and chemical weapons out of household chemicals next door.

There is absolutely no need for automatic weapons in suburbia.

Again another distinction that you do not have the right to make. It doesn’t matter that there is no need for automatics in suburbia, what matters is the suburbans have the right to own the automatics.

Can you own missile launchers. I think I need a SAM in my back year just incase.

Where do you draw the line?

I did enjoy having a go of the M60 in Vietnam, but I don’t think everyone should own one.

My case in point. No man should have the authority to draw the line. Our founding fathers gave all of us the right to bear arms, without restriction. The citizens have slowly given away those rights and allowed restrictions.

Our founding fathers wanted us to have the means to fight yet another revolution if our current government strayed down the wrong path. The power was always supposed to be in the hands of the citizen and not the institution. In the modern world, automatic weapons and missles are the weapons, the citizens are supposed to have access to them to fight should the situation warrant it. This is the America the founding fathers dreaming of.

I think it is a bit… questionable that some people think that the “founding fathers” have some god given right to give rules that one can’t, with democratic means, change today… [/quote]

Well, I think it is a bit questionable that you think a 50% plus 1 majority thinks it can dictate what is right and what is wrong. That is called the tyranny of the majority. I don’t remember which one of our founders said it buuuut, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty, is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.”

mike

56

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
TrainerinDC wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
There are no such rights in international law (I study law in Norway, so I won’t go into how the supreme court in US interprets things, but as far as international law/human rights go: freedom of speech only go as far as NOT interfering with other rights).

Where does my free speech interfere with your rights? It doesn’t. I may say whatever I wish, whenever I wish and if you don’t like it, you have the right to not listen.

I fail to see one way that my free speech will ever be superceded by one of your rights.

You fail to show HOW these “rights” are in any way natural… or why they should not be changed by demoratic means. If 70% of the US voters say “well, we want stricter gun laws”… the US SHOULD get stricter gun laws… that is the basic principle of democracy. Basing your entire line of logic on “well, a few blokes several hundred years ago said that it was a right” isn’t very valid.

And well, if I say: “I’m going to kill you tomorrow, Im going to tie you up, rape you with a blow torch and kill you, after killing your wife and kids”… that is a threat. That is the most basic example of how speech can become a verbal action… which infringes on your rights. This IS pretty basic.

[/quote]

There was a time in which a hell of a lot of people thought it okay to own slaves. Did that make it okay? We own guns because law is by nature coercive. Even a democracy or a republic must use military and police to enforce it’s edicts. As such, every American is capable of carrying a military pattern firearm to protect himself, his family, and his state from those police or military in the event a law, (even a democratic one) decides to reduce a man to slavery.

mike

57

[quote]keaster wrote:
Why do you guys need assualt rifles, full auto’s, high calibre rifles(50 cal and the like)? Are the red coats attacking again or what? Do you want to turn a deer into hamburger while hunting? [/quote]

We need these things for the same reason our military and police need them. Remember, these weapons are there to defend against people that have those things.

mike

58

[quote]Adamsson wrote:

There are no such rights in international law
[/quote]

Then I guess I’m lucky I live in the U.S. aren’t I? I cannot prove or disprove “natural” rights, but I really do not care to. I will fight for them all the same. With no rights, you are left a subject operating on the whims of whomever is currently in power. [quote]

(I study law in Norway, so I won’t go into how the supreme court in US interprets things, but as far as international law/human rights go: freedom of speech only go as far as NOT interfering with other rights).[/quote]

I thought you just said that there are no rights where you come from. No matter, just do me a favor. When international law snicker dictates that it is time for us Americans to give up our guns like everyone else, don’t send someone else to do it. Put on one of those shiny blue helmets and come get them yourself. I might even give you mine…after I unload it.

Now if you’ll forgive me, I’m a might touchy on the issue considering that once I’m done with breakfast I’m off to the range.

mike

59

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Adamsson wrote:

There are no such rights in international law

Then I guess I’m lucky I live in the U.S. aren’t I? I cannot prove or disprove “natural” rights, but I really do not care to. I will fight for them all the same. With no rights, you are left a subject operating on the whims of whomever is currently in power.

(I study law in Norway, so I won’t go into how the supreme court in US interprets things, but as far as international law/human rights go: freedom of speech only go as far as NOT interfering with other rights).

I thought you just said that there are no rights where you come from. No matter, just do me a favor. When international law snicker dictates that it is time for us Americans to give up our guns like everyone else, don’t send someone else to do it. Put on one of those shiny blue helmets and come get them yourself. I might even give you mine…after I unload it.

Now if you’ll forgive me, I’m a might touchy on the issue considering that once I’m done with breakfast I’m off to the range.

mike[/quote]

I did not say that there are no such things as rights. I just said that constitutional rights are just that, parts of the constitution. A constitution that can be changed… if the correct amount of people WANT it to be change. That is the dynamic of a democracy combined with the stability of the power-latter of laws → constitution. Changing the constitution is hard and SHOULD be hard, but it should not be impossible, that would be the tyranny of old, long gone dead men… I prefer the tyranny of the majority over that… :wink:

When it comes to the part of weapons… well, I live in the country in the world with the second highest amount of weapon per capita, I own several weapons myself, but I don’t think that owning them is a human right… :slight_smile: The right to water, religious freedom… THOSE are human rights. Me having a gun is a privilige.

60

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

Well, I think it is a bit questionable that you think a 50% plus 1 majority thinks it can dictate what is right and what is wrong. That is called the tyranny of the majority. I don’t remember which one of our founders said it buuuut, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty, is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.”

mike[/quote]

Well… You prefer the tyranny of old, long gone dead men, I prefer the tyranny of the majority… :wink: