US Supreme Court upholds individual right to gun ownership

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I was eight years old when he died.

So ?

Read any books by authors who died before you were born ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles


There's the **** we know and love. molly bloom, the most supreme arrogant cultural snob to rule them all.

You're confusing elitism with snobbery, but given the difficulties you routinely encounter using English that's hardly surprising.

I would call you a hipster but you don't even get that to be a hipster you need to pretend to be hip as well as "in the know"

Please rewrite using standard punctuation.

[Asher]

I will do no such thing.

You're a smart guy, figure it out. There's nothing wrong in that sentence from a punctuation perspective, either.

I will concede that it is a complex sentence, but I would've expected that the world's most-read and most-cultured citizen could parse it.

[Patroklos]

What's this about ninjas? You're so desperate you're fabricating arguments again?

You don't need guns for self-defence, you don't need guns to hunt. If you're paranoid about self-defence, how about you do something healthy and learn a martial art.

Feel free to substitute warrior monk or Texas ranger if that was what you were going for.

[Asher]

It's just one of many suggestions.

I'm happy to see that the suggestion scared you so much you felt free to misrepresent it.

[MrFun]

I'm not a staunch pro-gun advocate by any means, but I also know how unrealistic it would be to ban all forms of firearms and to repeal the second amendment. There is also some good points about firearms being used for hunting and self-defense. Although, I seriously cannot understand how the average Joe with a handgun or rifle will be able to defend himself against any evil government miilitary forces that have tanks and aircraft.

Hence, I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling - especially since the majority ruling has made it clear that many gun regulations can still be kept in place.

[Patroklos]

I'm happy to see that the suggestion scared you so much you felt free to misrepresent it.

You are the one haplessly defending a clumsy off the cuff comment that was addressed with a mere 80's movie reference, and you are calling others scared?

Although, I seriously cannot understand how the average Joe with a handgun or rifle will be able to defend himself against any evil government military forces that have tanks and aircraft.

A very good number of the people that have firearms to protect themselves from government tyranny are the same people whose day jobs consist of driving those tanks and aircraft.

That in and of itself is the best guarantee against the government we have.

[MrFun]

@ Pattycake's good point

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
You are the one haplessly defending a clumsy off the cuff comment that was addressed with a mere 80's movie reference, and you are calling others scared?

Given that you've no serious rebuttal, then yeah, I am.

And it isn't a clumsy comment. For someone apparently obsessed with and concerned with the notion of self-defence, I find it funny they don't consider martial arts training.

[MrFun]

Pattycakes generally does not give serious rebuttals to arguments that do not warrant serious rebuttals.

[Patroklos]

Given that you've no serious rebuttal, then yeah, I am.

You comment was addressed with the least effort required, which in this case was movie trivia. That doesn't say anything about me, but rather you.

And it isn't a clumsy comment. For someone apparently obsessed with and concerned with the notion of self-defence, I find it funny they don't consider martial arts training.

As an illustration of my above comment, I will again use the same tried and proven method.

There is a good scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark that illustrates why this position is retarded.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Pure insanity. The French have never won a war.

That's what your historians want you to think, given how embarrassing the reality is...

[Agathon]

I think it's risible that middle aged Americans believe they could overthrow their government using regular firearms. If the government can get the army on their side, your toast. If the government can't get the army on their side, no tyranny. Either way, there is no need for guns on the grounds that they can be used to resist tyranny.

Hell, the Confederacy had a large portion of the regular army and all of its best generals and they still got owned by the Federal government, and this was in the days when there weren't attack helicopters, UAVs or cluster bombs.

Seriously, the idea that ordinary Americans could resist an armed tyranny is risible. If you wanted to resist, a general strike would do more than trying to fight the army.

[Elok]

You don't need to know history to know that. Even if the enemy were defeated completely, the French would still have to live surrounded by a bunch of other Frenchmen--which is a far worse fate than any a conquering army might possibly inflict. So, by default, the French come off losers in any war that does not result in their population being wiped out completely. That's why they buckled so quick in WWII; they were each secretly hoping Hitler would send all their insufferable neighbors off to a horrible death in Birkenau so they could eat cheese and watch pretentious films in quiet solitude.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by molly bloom


So ?

Read any books by authors who died before you were born ?

Yes I did ... in school. These days I read things that are current. What about you?