Scotus rules 2nd amendment is an individual right

the 5-4 vote show what truely scary times we live in though, should have been 9-0 it was so obvious.

word. correct he said CITIES not states. nice try on the strawman there, but im watching. that's because it is not about self defense or hunting. it about fighting the government. we'd probably be violent without the guns, though out of the 20 or so lawful gun owners i know, none of them have fired on another person, unless they were serving in the US military. guns dont make us violent.

honestly i thik is class battles and the simple divisions we place on ourselves depends on where you were. private property is up to the owner and i would stay off of it. as far as the wrong words or gestures, you would probably be ok, as we could tell by the funny way you talk that you are cluess as to what was going on. its all based on personal perspective though.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : wrong html

see you get pass for that. half the ppl you met probably didn't know what you meant by that. many of us like it away from civilization. If you speak english funny, we know you aint from around here, and will be more tolerant about social faux pas

yes, yes, and no.i would guess it would be more friendly, people are generally more friendly in rural america than in the city. when i asked your location you werent very specific outside of bars, gas stations, and diners so i cannot really know which region of the south you were in, though my knowledge of the deep south is not the good. because while you may call all of us "yanks" or "yankees", a special term is reserved for me in the south "Damn Yankee"."an armed society is a polite society"--Robert A. Heinlein (American Writer)good call on the not anti-gun. maybe its just an american thing. I used that quote because i believe it. and it relates to your question about peaceful.here is a similar quote from another american writer:
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing."--Robert E. Howard"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions"-- G.K. Chesterton (English Writer)i choose this quote because i didn't want you to think that all i had was american quotes in my arsenal, and since your are from London, i thought i could use one from a guy from London too.many people in the rural areas of the United States are not tolerant, though I'm not sure why that is bad or why they should be tolerant. I dont base a community's tolerance as a judgement for that community.I dont think Tolerance is the answer. I dont think people should be forced to tolerate things they dont like. you can be intolerant if you want to.

ha! you edited your post during my reply.of course its freedom. it was your choice not to say what you wanted to say. unless your opinions where so liberal that, like many on here, cannot be stated without personal attacks and name calling; then you are on your own. knuck if you buck! you dont have to agree. im catholic, i get into it with the bible belt protestants all the time, we call each other out, and then agree to disagree. that's pretty much it. dont be scurrd.i feel for you a bit though. you where in a foreign land filled with different people, whom you had some misconceptions about, and you didn't want to get into a negative situation. While i have never been to England (and therefore cannot totally empathize), i have been to the low countries (Benelux) where i caught a tremendous amount of heat for 1. being and american, and 2. being a republican. one time while I was in Germany i pretended i was Canadian to avoid some haters, who where growing violent, and where not peaceful, friendly, or tolerant, so i do understand a bit about being a foreigner in a strange land.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : forgot somthing

side question, is kentucky in the south or midwest (i say midwest). 1 billion of the people you speak of live in one of the most intolerant nations on earth. Im only defending 360 million. do you think if this 360 million here are tolerant somehow we can effect that nation of 1 billion? I dont think we can, nor do i think its any of our business.in fact the more i think of it the lesser amount of tolerant natiions i can think of. i guess we have to disagree on the importance of tolerance.

thanks for your input. IMHO if your state didn't leave the union, you aren't in the south.BTW Illinois was once "part of Virginia" Virginia extended all the way to the Mississippi River.confederate naval battle flags are in southern Illinois (the land of Lincoln) as well.

you mean the Ghandi method over the American, or South African (Umkhonto we Sizwe) method?Sorry but this country was founded on violence against "those with different views you oppose". Im not so sure any colonial empire from western europe wasn't created the same way.and so was south africa, i guess violence against aparthied was a total disaster. I guess the non-whites in south africa should have continued thier peaceful resistence in the face of beatings, rape, and murder. IMO, with that attitude, thier would stiil be aparthied in south africa today. general ignorace of the mass of population. liberal propaganda, maybe a combination of both. maybe its our desire to remain seperate from the socialist global government agenda. the way of thinking that facilitates a creation of an economic and governing body like the European Union, is something that we cannot allow. we are not that common, because we have a similar language, and may have evolved from the same base, does not make a common. one of us is a horse and the other is a donkey. maybe, its hard to tell, since stats are not all that reliable. for arguemnt say we are.i cannot answer that honestly without being called a racist. why dont you be a little more "specific". i am still taking about cities, and in that case you are still wrong. but i see that you are trying to be very vague and general in where you are talking, and as to what you call "liberal" and "conservative" (as im sure our defintions are not even close to each other). i would love to discuss this with you, but im not falling into that trap. I dont expect that. my only exception is that here in this medium i expect some common an rather undefined things. like trying to refrain from ad hominem, logical fallicies, and try to be civil. i like that everyone doesn't agree with me." never learned from a man who agreed with me. " Robert A. Heinlein i cannot answer that honestly without being called a racist. i think that was an example of use.
it sure wasn't mandating a militia or saying guns were only for the militia. I would think federalists (Washington, Adams, Hamilton) may see it that way, but there where strong anti-federalists (Jefferson, Burr, Mason, Henry) with republican virtues present. I see it as a compromise between the two ideologies. yes. definately more dangerous to thier own people. dangerous to others, possibly. to us its about the danger of the government, something we learn 1st hand from George III and his government. if that is how you wish to look at it. obviously we see things differently though. the majority of gun crimes exist because there are so many gun laws. less laws = less law breaking = less crime. high murder rate is an urban issue, we have already talked about urban america vs. rural america. of course you feel the rural is more dangerous even though there is less murder, even less murder by ratio of population. I dont know how to debate with you when you switch sides so often. you say the cities with the high murder are safer, then on the next page you use the "safer" murder capitals to argue for another point you are trying to make. Edited by Artemis Entreri, : errorsEdited by Artemis Entreri, : typos

yes im not from virginia. i have only lived here two months, but it is my location. loyalist (sarcasm)

hahaha, BUSTED! wow you have me agreeing with subbie on this one. I think all he does is make snarky comments. he takes me out of contet most of the time. I think i have a liberal troll to play with. though i will continue, this d00d is too much fun.

i think you are misquoting him.i did a simple google search of heinlein quotes, and i could not find those quotes. yet you speak of dishonesty.

here is DCs new gun regulation: http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=104&sid=1434809now they are trying to classify any firearm that can shoot more than 11 rounds as machine guns. so if i use a 10 round magazine in my glock its cool, but if i use a 17 round magazine its a "machine" gun. lol what a bunch of BS.

not sure we shouldn't be able to own what we want, though napalm bombs have to de delivered by air, so i would think one would have to be a pilot to own napalm bombs. we have the right to own weapons to fight the government.a tank: yeah, though i think tanks are ill suited for the task.a bazooka: especially if the opposition has tanks, though bazooka is WWII technoloy, a shoulder fired rocket is probably better.thermonuclear device: most likely not, but if they are going to use them on us, then they should be prepared to recieve one as well.napalm bomb: again probably not, though a napalm flame thrower is a different question.
this is an example of use by american civilians, in Kentuckya machine gun: definately, and not even close to the upper limit of acceptability.also from knob creekhere are some stills.
amerrrrriiiicaaa phuck yeah!

quote:

---

Does it even exist or is it (at least potentially) a case of anything goes?

---

maybe Vermont i think it is worth noting that
Vermont's violent crime is low (852 cases in 2006), though i could not find data on how many of those crimes involved firearms.