Originally Posted by OrAclE

Stupid. That's not the reason for the Second Amendment. Read up on your history before you say something so uninformed.

In the previous gun control thread, which was deleted <.<, I stated that the Second Amendment originated so that the American government could create a militia out of the civilian population to defend it's borders because they had a small army in comparision to it's territory size.

They also pissed off England, who had a much larger and well trained army, along with better commanders, supplies, and in general huge advantage. They needed all the hands they could get. Now, you have a large standing army, with a large reserve force, with a stockpile of long-range missles and nuclear weapons. You don't need a militia to defend your borders anymore.

This amendment can be further traced back to England, where the right to bear arms was granted to the citizens to help maintain law and order in their country because they had a small law enforcement group that could only cover so much land. You now have a large law enforcement population in America, so this reason could not back up your need for weapons.

Plus, democracy means you vote in the people you believe would best represent you. Why on earth would you need to defend yourself from them unless your democracy is shitty? Are you implying that the supposedly greatest nation on the planet is a total lie? Or are you just one of the multiple republican fear-mongers who think the government is out to get you? Believe me, if the government WAS out to get you, we'd already be under their heel. So shut up about the "defend ourselves from the government" crap.

Which are payed by/loyal to.. wait for it... the government!

You're assuming the original states treated the rights as mandates, which I assure you they did not.

People will believe anything as long as the media repeats it enough. There's a whole movement against "global climate change" which was previously "global warming" and before that "global cooling." Really now? If CNN or MSNBC prances around telling the general public to vote for x next year, x is going to be elected.

2% Users Support Bill

204 in favor / 11179 opposed

Originally Posted by waphtuos

Then why are we also protected from being forced to let servicemen stay in our home? (in the same document, might i add)

Originally Posted by Ragdollmaster

That's what you're loyal to in a nation like this. Would you prefer Communism or a Monarchy instead?

The original states had a mutual interest in banding together to fight off England. That's a slightly irrelevant point considering that the original topic is about a brand new law.

Cry me a river. Spare us the conspiracy theories and declarations about how the media and in turn the residents of the US are all part of a hive mind. If people are easily influenced by the media to a major extent, it's their fault for being stupid. But guess what? They're still making their own choice, based on what they know, regardless if the information is biased or skewed. You might be able to bend the truth, but the media still has truth at the core.

Actually, to further that last thought, it's a little ironic how you're talking about this hivemind influence when you don't even see your own actions. Hint: It's ironic because you're parroting every single anti-gov. extremist who remains convinced that the government is trying to slowly eradicate us. I don't see why you're trying to discuss this when you're too dogmatic to accept anything the other side is saying.

Originally Posted by OrAclE

Since the other people already tackled the other statements, I'll just crush this on.

You demonstrate the same lack of researching history as you did before. England had previously used civilian homes for housing soldiers, using up all the resources the host had to offer. U.S. citizens didn't like this. Amendment proposed/passed. Nothing about protecting yourself from the government. This was about past indignities by the British. Plus, the government could just take your house if they really needed it to house soldiers. They'd just pay for the land. It's called eminent domain. Why aren't you complaining about that? Different means for the same end.

In eminent domain they pay you a fair price for it - way different from forcibly staying in your home.
You said so yourself.

Originally Posted by waphtuos

Then why are we also protected from being forced to let servicemen stay in our home? (in the same document, might i add)

Originally Posted by waphtuos

You're assuming the original states treated the rights as mandates, which I assure you they did not.

Originally Posted by waphtuos

@bolded: Which are payed by/loyal to.. wait for it... the government!

Originally Posted by waphtuos

People will believe anything as long as the media repeats it enough. There's a whole movement against "global climate change" which was previously "global warming" and before that "global cooling." Really now? If CNN or MSNBC prances around telling the general public to vote for x next year, x is going to be elected.

Originally Posted by Ragdollmaster

If by 'free thinker' you mean 'average dogmatic moron who will push his point and ignore others' (see; extremist republicans, democrats, evolutionists, and conspiracy theorists) then YOU ARE CORRECT SIR.

Originally Posted by Ragdollmaster

Sidenote: All the usual intense debate associated with, well, Debate is flooding into Discussion now. I say we take over Rapid Threads next.

Originally Posted by waphtuos

soldiers would never stay in your home because it's ([{against your constitutional rights] i included these brackets to mock you) in case you couldn't figure that out}

Originally Posted by waphtuos

and really, you're only describing yourself when you talk about "average dogmatic bullcrap" i'd prove it to you but i know it's hopeless.

Originally Posted by Thanatos12

Well I need somewhere to post now that debate is away.