They are a bit more then that. I would call them party propoganda.

No, I'm doing my darnedest to read exactly whats in it. Its hardly my fault they didn't write it out clearly. Also, please notice the smiley -- its there for a reason I accepted your counter point, however little I like it.



Just an FYI, but to quote a favorite book of mine: "There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people."

If I were to decide to take on someone with a gun (while unarmed), the first clue they'd have is my fist landing in their kidneys from behind.

no... they were mail spam, really really well written and awesome mail spam, but still mail spam.

why is the guy with the gun not facing you?

and why not use your kah-muke nuke?

Because I'm that good. Either I'd be sneaking up from behind (and likely to get shot...), or I'd have made darned sure his attention was "locked" elsewhere. While little old I present no threat whatsoever until the critical moment

Without examining precidence and the philosophy of the founders it's open to misinterpretation.


You KNOW that the document was not written in precise legal terms. That leaves it open for exploitation. Which is what you're doing.



That statement supports gun ownership.


meh... watch the trip wires and claymore mines.

you would be the first shot... I'm quite certain.

doesnt make it wrong


removing means will not remove the event.

Perhaps it does. But it overlooks something: guns make it easier for people to be dangerous without any time, effort, or training.



Your right, it wasn't written in precise legal terms. Doesn't change the fact that I've studied the constitution, and the federal papers barely made the grade as worth mentioning in any of my history classes.

Fact is, the founders screwed up big time when they didn't delineate exactly what they meant. They had to know the culture would change, and thus the meaning of the words would change unless they were (very) careful. And they didn't.

**Personal opinions only, not necessarily those of Stardock**

Hamilton opposed the Bill of Rights for the very reason that an enumerated list of rights would, to those wishing to take them away, imply that those were the only protected rights and that any others were fair game for government restriction or removal.

He was, sadly, all too right. His concerns were embodied in the ninth amendment, and subsequently completely ignored. The tenth amendment (any powers not explicitly granted to the government are reserved to the states and people) is likewise ignored.




Then frankly your classes were rather poor. The federalist papers (and the anti-federalist papers) are invaluable context for understanding the political climate of the time and the intentions of those involved.

You said it and it is 100% correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Public school system. In California.

Yeah, they probably were "rather poor"

I've heard of the federalist papers, and that they were a buncha letters written to support the constitution... but not the anti-federalist.



ROFLCOPTER!

WWW Link

here are the papers online! BTW the Federalist papers and the "anti-federalist papers" are the same document as the the combined essays of the pro and con positions regarding the radification of the constitution are the papers themselves.

Actualy our prime minister in denmark have just recalled our troops from iraq becouse "the job was done" as he put it.

Now i dont like bush and i like our prime minister even less. I feel sorry for the soldiers in iraq since the whole war is based on a lie and a mistake.
Im not sure if it was in the US interest to go inn back in 2003, but im pretty sure they regret it now. As for denmark, it was never in our interest and we have nothing to do down there except makeing our prime minister feel like a big shot when he makes visits to the white house.

WWW Link

I like this clip alot. I mean how can Mitt Romney actual say that on national television? The american people are aware that 9/11 was staged our of afganistan and that the excuse for iraq was WMD not 9/11???
LMAO "Did he forget about 9/11"

quite correct.

hah, finally nice to see a devs on one of these forums

Thanks for posting that video, there might be hope left for the Republicans and the party system.

That isn't overlooked. It's the point.

You're supposed to be dangerous.


Again... I am supposed to be powerful. Citizens are supposed to be powerful. Our voice controls the country and if anyone messes with us we can always use the final option of blowing their freakn' brains out.



Guns do more to make people equal anyway then just about anything. Without guns any group of 5 young strong men can do pretty much whatever they want unless you have another group with more young strong men.


Countries without guns STILL have gangs but the gangs behave differently. Instead of drive byes they kick in the front door with baseball bats WHILE you're at home and take over.


Do that in the US and there's a good chance at least one of their heads will get turned into a canoe.




Your history class was poor then. The federalist papers are required reading in any serious US history course that focuses on the constitution or the founding of the country.


that's just a fact.


Which is why only those that want to exploit the system would make use of those mistakes. If you respect the constitution, which you apparently don't, then you don't do that. Ergo it comes down to simple pressure politics followed by the final solution of violence.


This is not an issue you're going to win on unless you do change the constitution. I won't respect your will on this unless you respect the constitution. Try to cheat and I'll deal with you like a cheater.


Blood and bone.
==========================================================================

It's more complicated then that. It's about changing the middle east and ending terrorism at the source.


It's unfortunate that Bush is such a poor speaker and thus such a poor politican. That's really his biggest flaw... he's horrible at politics... it's kind of amazing that he became president but the alternative was Al Gore.... republicans and democrats suck... they've been contributing really bad politicians ever since 2000... every election since has been a joke.

thank god, someone who understands.

I completely agree, the only real reason people should be attacking the war on Iraq is because it was a shitty place to start, not because its the wrong reason.

you can still argue that its teh wrong reason, but its a much more uphill battle, because there are plenty of counterarguments in place.

actually Iraq was a pretty good place to start. The only thing I'd say about it was that maybe we should have finished in Afghanistan first.


But Saddam was perfect... his country was in violation of a million UN resolutions, no body liked him, his people hated him, and his country is right next to Iran and Saudi Arabia... the two countries most responsible for terrorism but which are too strong and too tied into US foreign policy to attack.

yeah, Saudi Arabia, about the only country which I wish we weren't as amorous with their government as we are.

No, I just assume they had half a brain and wrote down exactly what they meant, in language that recognizes the basic fact that cultures change.

BTW, you are aware of the fact that I yielded (most) of the point already? I'm simply holding out on the fact that the founding fathers screwed up the wording for their intent...

They didn't anticipate your level of distortion. They also assumed some level of respect for the constitution.


Furthermore, you're contradicting yourself now. You know they failed at putting things down in recursive legal terms, so you cannot in your argument assume that they did write "exactly what they meant".


You know better. So your whole argument falls apart.


You have two options.

1. Admit at least to yourself that you don't respect the constitution and you're going to exploit it's weaknesses to undermine it's intent.

2. Admit at least to yourself that your origional thoughts about the constitution were wrong and that you'll have to accept what it says OR try to change it through the proper legal means.


Option three involves blood, knives, and explosions. I'm assuming you don't want to go there.


Screwed up is the wrong term. They made some mistakes obviously but most of them were on thinking more highly of their descendants. They didn't know they'd grow up to be such unredeemable scumbags.

In my opinion Saudia Arabia is what is keeping our gas prices from going into the double digets.



Vanishing as quickly as Apple Pie.

Someone call England...



Its intent was to make sure that power was not held in by one single man. And in that it has failed. I see no point in keeping it. Makes a nice conversation piece though.



Thomas Jefferson thought we would all be farmers and he got over that pretty quickly.

your predictability amazes me.

at least England succeeded!
all hail the queen!

Indubitably, good chap

I think you misunderstand me, and what I'm trying to say.

Yes, they didn't use legal terminology to define their exact terms. Which in some ways is good, other ways bad. What I'm saying is that they should have taken the time to find a clear way of phrasing it that didn't leave it open to confusion based on the cultural shift which they had to know was going to occur.

They did make things as clear as any committee work can be made, to the educated people of the time; faulting them for not anticipating the absolutely ridiculous degree of legalistic precision expected in modern law is neither justified nor productive.

The documents are what they are; there's no reason to not take them at face value, in their original context, unless one seeks a loophole through which to remove the rights they protect. And if you're already at that point, then you wouldn't likely have any more respect for them had they been written as they would today.