Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 There you go, you answered your own question. US as far as am concerned is a Christian country whether you like it or not. You pointed out that the majority of people are Christian and the government should value Christianity or risk being not elected. So what is there to argue really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Ask yourself this stawns....how many, when running for President, even if they WERE atheist...would come out and admit it? Atheists are, according to studies and polls the LEAST trusted group in this country. Come now...do you really think that anyone would want to commit political suicide by telling the voting public that they have no religious affiliation? Do you think this person would have a ghost of a chance to be elected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 exactly my point though. You don't get elected to any kind of office if you don't, at least, declare your devotion to god Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 And this NEEDS to be changed. It should not be a ****ing crime for a politician to reject belief in magic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 exactly my point though. You don't get elected to any kind of office if you don't, at least, declare your devotion to god Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Dude how the hell did this train get so far off of the tracks...this is no longer apparently a discussion about guns...and i feel the rhetoric being tossed around in here now is kind of pointless...once I have to start explaining my views on gay marriage and abortion in a thread about a horrible tragedy it's time to quit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 The U.S. civilian gun market is worth only a few billion annually, and manufacturers that make big money off of government orders only have a piece of that pie, so no its not really a matter of the MIC. As far as the U.S. crumbling, maybe, or maybe what we're seeing is an engineered crash to be followed by a reorganization that'll further benefit the Top Managers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Or maybe we are just getting to the root of the problem here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Freedom of Speech is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, which I would wager is what he was talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Better not "wager" the mortgage, because that's a bet you'd lose. I was questioning the relevance of the 2nd amendment, to which the other poster brought up "freedom of speech". There was no mention of the bill of rights as a whole. Many states have "taken away" your "right" to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, to smoke in public, to hold a baby in your arms while riding in a car and not wear a seatbelt.... Has the country disintegrated into anarchy because of the loss of any of these "rights"? You've never heard of Fort Hood? One would assume that there was going to be a gun or two there.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Man...first of all...those "rights" you mentioned are not "rights" in the first place. There was never anything in the Constitution giving the right to any of those things...there are however things mentioning "Freedom of Speech, "Freedom of Expression", "Freedom of Assembly", the right to a speedy trial, "Freedom of Religion", et cetera. These are the BIG ones. If the government ever tried to **** with either of THOSE rights, I wouldn't be surprised to see a violent backlash. And yes...states have taken those things away...but the FEDERAL government has not, so they are in essence irrelevant to a discussion on federal laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 The rights you speak of still have relevance in this day and age. The right to arm oneself to protect against the tyranny of the British government does not. It's ridiculous to assume that the loss of the right to carry assault weapons, or semi-automatic handguns will lead to the loss of freedom of speech, assembly or religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 I never assumed anything of the kind...if you read one of the posts I made earlier in this thread I do not support allowing people who are non-military to purchase, own or carry assault rifles or semi automatic weapons of any kind. Shotguns and single shot handguns yes, assault weapons no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starmie Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Lp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 This is what I have been saying all along. That's what happens when you come late to a thread and start arguing.... You miss my point. The Brits were the reason for the inclusion of the right to bear arms when the original document was created. Thinking that you need to arm yourself in case you need to "rise up" against your own government is exactly the kind of paranoia that has the rest of the first world shaking their collective heads at Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Oh don't lay this "that's what happens when you come into a thread late" BS on me, man. Like it would have taken you any amount of time to look at the rest of my posts before making an assumption that I assumed anything like you suggested in your last post. I don't own a weapon to start with so it doesn't affect me any but there ARE people down here, in my very state, that harbor the kind of paranoia you spoke about in this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electro Rock Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 You've never heard of Fort Hood? One would assume that there was going to be a gun or two there.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 It's not BS. Why should I look at your posts? You were the one who came into the thread and commented on one of my posts, without knowing the full story. You should have gone back and looked at my posts, before "making an assumption" about my position and starting a debate with me. Second: I don't doubt that there are people "down there" who are paranoid enough to carry out attacks against their own government. I have heard of Timothy McVeigh, after all. However, I don't see how this strengthens your position. You seem to think that you'd be better off allowing these people to arm themselves. It isn't the government you need to worry about. It's the Lanzas, McVeighs, Harris', etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Allowing them to arm themselves with a handgun or a shotgun to defend themselves yes. First, I wasn't attempting to "strengthen" anything...Second, I wasn't attempting to debate YOU in the first place. I was commenting that maybe the poster you were talking to MEANT the Bill of Rights when he was talking about the Freedom of Speech and not the Second Amendment as he originally stated. YOU were the one who had something snarky to say to me about that, sir. Then you make an unwarranted and out of left field assumption that I PERSONALLY assumed that the loss of assault weapons and the like would lead to the loss of the other freedoms, which is categorically absurd. Climb down off your cross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 You seem to be getting a bit worked up here mate. Perhaps you need another one of those tokes you were talking about earlier in the thread. (See? I Have been reading your posts) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.