Hey, JR, go fuck yourself, asshole.

Loser.

G'bye.

Alex

Hey you fuckers...we got off topic again...would somebody please indulge me and answer the question Colin asked at the begining of the thread? I answered, MikeAI answered, and that is it...Colin, as usual you didn't even answer your own question. So, everyone else needs to pony up.

On the other topic that has evolved, I am forced (against my better judgement) to agree with RawAlex. I think it is very possible, and I doubt it is a coincidence that 9-11 happened because George Jr. was in office. There is a very real possibility that it would not have happened had someone else been in office. PD, why do you feel sorry for me for thinking this is a possibility? It is possible and even plausible in my opinion.

As Alex stated, we simply don't know. So, I am entitled to my opinion and you, yours. Let's try and keep conjecture out of it. We will all be better served.

Guilt is the bastard child of the past. Anxiety is the bastard child of the future. I learned that from my counselor, he keeps my shit straight :P

That is all.

Hmmm giving it some thought

It could be said that all Presidents have signed away some of our rights and a few have returned some of our rights (repeal of Prohibition for example)

Never gave much thought to if the tragedy of 9/11 would have still happened if Bush was not President but gave it a bit of thought today and ...

My feeling is 9/11 would have happened regardless of who was President due to the time and planning that went into the attacks

The people I feel sorry for are the ones who think that a Democratic President would have responded less appropriately than GW did.

I suppose it's possible that the attack occurred because GW was President, but like Vick said, the evidence doesn't support it. The planning and logistics involved in the attack began long before before he was elected. The attack on the USS Cole took place during a completely different Administration.

As far as the original question posed by the thread - considering that Bush hasn't signed ANYTHING, it's a non-discussion.

What Bush has said is that he will sign a bill IF Congress passes one, and IF it doesn't strengthen existing restrictions. Considering that the likelyhood of a bill passing isn't terribly great, and that the bill proposed by three Democrats and a Republican in the Senate already increases the existing restrictions by adding certain types of clips (thus threatening the constitutional right of sportmen to fire 90 rounds at a time), he's already got an out.

PD, point taken...and I agree.

Vick, I am not certain whether 9-11 would have happened with a different administration in place, but I do think that it is; if nothing else, a possibility.

That is all for now :ph34r:

You're on to me.

I'm sure we have some gun fiends here. What exactly defines a weapons as SEMI-automatic?
I really don't think anyone needs an automatic weapon for self-defense. The concerns of the American founding fathers - that of turning to a tyranny - are indefensible now. I don't think the Band of Southern Brothers militia would do much better than the Iraqi army did against the US army. Where to draw the line? I dunno. Courts decide. I'm cool with it.

To me, the second amendment is symbolic of the importance of liberty. It means that even if it causes harm, that we will hold this concept of liberty with the highest regard. I think this symbolism still moves people. Now I know that is not true for everyone but it is for me. I also believe I have an inalienable right to defend myself. I think we should change the constitution as little as possible and only when it makes the world a better place.

The constitution must reflect the times. The constitution itself provides the methods whereby it may be amended. It was never intended to be an unchangeable document but instead provides a method which makes it difficult but possible to amend. The importance of the supreme court and common law in interpreting the constitution has been key since the early 1800s. So in a sense, if the supreme court deems a law constitutional it is. If a law exists that hasn't reached the supreme court it means there has not been an inconsistency in interpretations in the lower court yet.

My quick summary: The judicial system itself as defined in the constitution and in the famous John Marshall case defines constitutional and unconstitutional and it is subject to amendment. I don't know the particulars but I assume that since the semi-automatic weapons ban has been on the books for ten years, it's passed the tests of the court.



Last edited by Colin at May 9 2003, 04:13 PM

I guess that leaves me out of your Pity Party :P

My issue is being more comfortable with Bush handling the crisis than Gore, not Dem vs. Rep

(I know, we don't know how Gore would have responded supposition ad nausem yadda yadda ya)

You're on to me.[/b][/quote]
I know...it takes one to know one...

And yet you still did not answer. You came back with a bunch of if the courts say its cool, I'm cool with it, rhetoric.

You don't get off that easily. That is the kind of shit I pull and I can see it coming from a mile away.

Do you agree or disagree with the idea, regardless of what the Highest Court in the Land has to say about it?

T-Rav,

I don't think my next door neighbor should be permitted to have a machine gun.
I'm not sure on "semi-automatic" because I don't know what defines "semi-automatic".

Of course the cut-off point is arbitrary. I'm pretty sure thought that the world would be better off if Bob, my neighbor, isn't permitted to have hand-grenades, machine guns, or an M1-A1 and i'm not just saying that because he's a Ravens fan [no offense, Vick].

Semi automatic means that it is effectively an automatic weapon, except that you have to pull the trigger for each shot. However, the expelling of the previous shell, the loading of the next shell, and the "cocking" of the hammer, as it were, occur automatically.

I have fired a 9mm pistol that is a semi auto. Depending on the loader, you get 10-14 rounds, and you can pull them as fast as you can hit the spacebar on your keyboard repeatedly - basically, 2 per second, I suspect. You can put probably 3 shots into someone before they have really reacted to the first one.

Good for hunting, yessir.

Alex

I could go either way on the semi-automatic then. Don't really feel strongly one way or another about it.

Hey the Raven's won a Super Bowl with no offense :D


Or did that mean Micheal Vick could be the answer to the Raven's no offense challenges? :rolleyes: he he

We got off topic...I liked the question and find it interesting.

I do not like it when people take away any of my current rights. I like to hold on to them Filipino hookers, and I don't want to let go until I'm ready and its my choice. Of course, I don't own any semi-automatic weapons right now, and don't plan on it...but who knows what tomorrow will bring.

I have not been a big Bush fan, but I have to admit I like the fact that he's not towing the party line. Even if I don't agree with him or this policy, at least he is doing what he feels is right. I can't believe I just said that...

But fucking A, that Homeland Security Bullshit makes me so pissed I can't see straight. Yes, I know...this is when everyone comes out and says you're just being paranoid, blah, blah, blah...

Back to the semi-automatic weapons...Colin, you asked if we were way beyond wanting the ability to protect ourselves against our government. I say absolutely not. It is very important to be able to defend yourself against your own government, obviously. You are right...I doubt a semi-automatic weapons would help, but I could take a few of those fuckers out with me.

So, what do you hard core Republicans think? MikeAI filled us in, he doesn't like it either. I'm glad to hear that. I was afraid MikeAI might try to defend the president on this one, with some crazy justification :D .

Torone, where do you stand?[/b][/quote]
I seriously doubt he'll sign it.

Oh, God ... I'm scared.

I agree with Torone.

Just 'cause you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you...


:ph34r:

At the city gate and by your fireside I have seen you
prostrate yourself and worship your own freedom,
Even as slaves humble themselves before a tyrant and
praise him though he slays them.
Ay, in the grove of the temple and in the shadow of the
citadel I have seen the freest among you wear their freedom
as a yoke and a handcuff.
And my heart bled within me; for you can only be free when
even the desire of seeking freedom becomes a harness to you,
and when you cease to speak of freedom as a goal and a
fulfilment.


You shall be free indeed when your days are not without
a care nor your nights without a want and a grief,
But rather when these things girdle your life and yet you
rise above them naked and unbound.


And how shall you rise beyond your days and nights unless
you break the chains which you at the dawn of your understanding
have fastened around your noon hour?
In truth that which you call freedom is the strongest of these
chains, though its links glitter in the sun and dazzle your eyes.


And what is it but fragments of your own self you would
discard that you may become free?
If it is an unjust law you would abolish, that law was written
with your own hand upon your own forehead.
You cannot erase it by burning your law books nor by washing
the foreheads of your judges, though you pour the sea upon them.


And if it is a despot you would dethrone, see first that his
throne erected within you is destroyed. For how can a tyrant rule
the free and the proud, but for a tyranny in their own freedom
and a shame in their own pride?
And if it is a care you would cast off, that care has been
chosen by you rather than imposed upon you.
And if it is a fear you would dispel, the seat of that fear
is in your heart and not in the hand of the feared.


Verily all things move wrthin your being in constant half embrace,
the desired and the dreaded, the repugnant and the cherished,
the pursued and that which you would escape.
These things move within you as lights and shadows in pairs that
cling.
And when the shadow fades and is no more, the light that lingers
becomes a shadow to another light.
And thus your freedom when it loses its fetters becomes itself
the fetter of a greater freedom."

Kahlil Gibran
The Prophet.



Last edited by JR at May 9 2003, 10:45 PM