Lucky...

Would you like me to post the Second Ammendment or do you want to go to the library of congress on the web and read it for yourself? I have read it many times and it does state that the "People" means the same as it does in the rest of the US Constitution, unless you think the Authors used the term "People" differently in this case, unlike all the other times that phrase is used it that wonderful document. I will repost what I wrote above: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. That's really special how you embolden the part that makes you fell you're right. I can take any sentence and disregard the first 1/2 and change the meaning. Now, let's disect the statement. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. well regulated Well regulated....hmmm, I'm thinking not even having registration in some states goes against well regulation. So the states that don't have rigorous regulation are in conflict with the US Constitution. Give me your definition of, "well regulation." Militia Last I checked, private militias were essentially illegal. They tend to bust apart militias as I see it. The government hasn't utilized militias since when, the 1800's? Since there are no government sponsored militias and private militias are disbanded and often sent to prison, it seems that this is the deal breaker in that the very premise of the 2nd is to establish and govern militias. being necessary to the security of a free State So you having a gun inder your pillow or a hunting rifle gains the security of a free state how? Militias were used to defend against foreign invaders, as it was written in spirit and context, and there is nothing required to maintain a militia since the advent of a standing army. Now, I'm probably more pro-gun that you or most so-called ultra-conservatives on this board, but the reason we have 2nd rights is due to the fact that teh gov and US Sup Ct hasn't yet decided to take them. We have n0 inerent rights of private gun ownership, but I know it keeps you going to think that your gun rights are inherently protected, so keep the faith alive! The ironic thing here is that you took 1 word from the 2nd and made it definitive of the entire 2nd. At least the previous guy only ignored 1/2 of the 2nd. OK, so the people, meaning regular citizens, but that fails to even recognize militia requirement, well regulated, or being necessary to the security of a free State. People used to comprise government militias, but they don;t anymore, so unless we had some drastic war and the US military was in trouble, there will be no militias rendering the 2nd void. As for wonderful document, we had slavery then and it took nearly 100 years to amend in anti-slavery text. The word, "privacy" is no where to be seen in the US Const, so in the 60's we had to write that in (Katz v US 196x) in the horible 1960's. SInce then your boy has done what he can to remove that word from the US Constitution.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. That's really special how you embolden the part that makes you fell you're right. I can take any sentence and disregard the first 1/2 and change the meaning. Now, let's disect the statement. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. well regulated Well regulated....hmmm, I'm thinking not even having registration in some states goes against well regulation. So the states that don't have rigorous regulation are in conflict with the US Constitution. Give me your definition of, "well regulation." Militia Last I checked, private militias were essentially illegal. They tend to bust apart militias as I see it. The government hasn't utilized militias since when, the 1800's? Since there are no government sponsored militias and private militias are disbanded and often sent to prison, it seems that this is the deal breaker in that the very premise of the 2nd is to establish and govern militias. being necessary to the security of a free State So you having a gun inder your pillow or a hunting rifle gains the security of a free state how? Militias were used to defend against foreign invaders, as it was written in spirit and context, and there is nothing required to maintain a militia since the advent of a standing army. Now, I'm probably more pro-gun that you or most so-called ultra-conservatives on this board, but the reason we have 2nd rights is due to the fact that teh gov and US Sup Ct hasn't yet decided to take them. We have n0 inerent rights of private gun ownership, but I know it keeps you going to think that your gun rights are inherently protected, so keep the faith alive!

How do you rationalize those two positions? liquor? Are you asking how I can rationalize that these are beneficial positions? If so, we can draw it out on here all year long, but look at history. During the CLinton years, During the FDR and Truman years. The compare it to the Hoover, Reagan, Bush, Bush years.

Each year that passes without a successful attack on American soil is a day that makes you more wrong than you were the year before. As Kallend stated, the current Iraq war is containing AQ. So is it a victory to spend the kind of money we do to justify that small and temporary victory? Or would you have us spend that kind of money forever to keep them tied up? That would fiscally kill us, so that empty victory is fruitless.

These kind of people see an Asian and think: Chinaman. They see a turban and think: Arab Terrorist.

Nice try but false QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with 9/11? ANSWER: Nice try but false. Uh, did I miss something here? I realize the answer was rhetorical, but what is the assertion made with said rhetorical statement?

Uh, don't the polls, even the Fox polls garner your attention?

The fact that you choose to live here effects nothing as to the topic, but you'll learn the devotees from the right tend to turn the argument against a person rather than the issue.

You forgot greed.

Yes, let's worry about the spread rather than a cure. Prevention is great, but with the millions out there, it's cure time. So do you advocate a leper island?

This is my favorite book. Well done in every way. The atomic bomb was inevitable. It makes me angry to see how revisionist historians are trying to rewrite history and turn the US into really bad guys. The fathers of some of my childhood friends served in the Pacific campaign. They thought they were dead men because of the impending invasion of the Japanese home islands. They were very happy we ended the war with the least possible bloodshed, both American and Japanese. We dropped it to prevent the Russians from winning a ground assault on Japan first. We were in talks with Japan about a conditional release. Furthermore, per Discovery Channel we dropped the first on Hiroshima so we could see the damage done to an unmolested city, as Hir had never been conventionally bombed. 70k per bomb, plus 100'2 of 1000's later..... no blood shed.... please. Again, the Russians had expressed that they were going in as soon as they could regroup from the finality of Germany, a venue they largely won. We couldn;t have them loking good. Then, 24 years later, we did it again with the moon race....

Not defending the Phelps group, but it is distrubing the peace to take a protest to a neighborhood. I seriously doubt it would play out this way.

Please show me where in the text of the 2nd that it states you can own a gun. I'm a pro-gun guy, but the Constitution doesn't give you the right, they've just decided not to revoke our guns yet.

Hmm, and here I think the other side is trash. You know, the moralists like Falwell, the GOP fat-cats like Limbaugh..... must differ.

Oh, but according to the leftists on this board, the Phelps family has a "right" to routinely demolish the emotional lives of people in their most vulnerable hour. I'm SO glad people with more sense than those on the left are in power. The Phelps family needs to be forced into a less detructive way of expressing themselves. They do MUCH harm in the name of free speech, and to supprot them in that right is pure bullshit. Well, at least you have 26% of the people agreeing. Record debt World hate Lowered polution standards Diminished 4th protections Worker rights depravations and a myriad of other atrocities.... More sense???????? BRILLIANT

Debt, schmedt, let's talk about what matters...... gay marriage abolition.

Manure, diesel fuel....... tide detergent and bleach...... so many everyday items, I don't know the mixtures or the detination devices required - don't care to, but the fact is that the controlling govs around the world need to back off becuase they can't control them all. When you're a bully, they'll resort to using a 2x4 if they have to...... gonna outlaw wood larger than a 1x1? It's the attitudes, not the devices.

I try to think most Dem and Rep are deep down good people. But some of the shit We see them pull on a daily basis has me wondering how they have to nerve to show there face in public. As for good or bad, that is up to perspective. If you're a greedy, well-off businessman then you can espouse all the personal responsibility BS and call the Repubs grand. But if you're poor, then the Dems are for your welfare, at least moreso than the greedypublicans. The Repubs agenda is to shift the government's control from Congress to corps. The Dems agenda is to increase the size of government and empower people. I would love to read examples where the Repubs are compassionate to people other than the well-off.

Again, who made you the morals police. 1. I am not spreading HIV 2. I will only date HIVpoz women 3. I use condoms and advocate safe sex 4. I try my best to educate people Like I said, I am still alive and plan to be alive for years to come. You live your life locked in a box. I choose to live outside the box. You say you have not touched a women since 1990, just because you do not like women does not make everyone else immoral. If by chance I meet the right woman, I'll settle down. You're implying that I am immoral and engage in "bad behavior" because I like women? Appearantly you did not fully understand what I wrote and took what I wrote out of context to embellish your opinion. You should rethink this statement. I believe I read in another post that you were a christian. If so, I highly doubt it. For some reason I envision you in a room that has been turned into a shrine for Jerry Falwell. By chance, are you a member of the Moral Majority? Would you feel the same way if a family member contracted HIV from a one night stand? I have a feeling that you would. Most likely you did not follow my link to the CDC. It is your choice to know the facts. Do what you want. Stay in your box. I am done with you. And now for something really funny!!!!! Click the attachment Perhaps a flawed assumption.... could be the other way around.

Following the crowd and doing the same as everyone else is not what I would call living on the edge. A self sustaining lifestyle is not someplace most people care to go. Now, if I chose your lifestyle, and said consequences be damned, I'll take my licks without complaint, then I'd be living on the edge. Homosexuals tale far more chances than do any skydivers.

Just to be clear, I'm not including those who got drunk, got laid, and just can't imagine where they would've gotten it. Yea, just those God damned dirty faggots, right? Come on, you're thinking it - have the cookies to write it.

You have pretty much answered your own question. If a person does all of the right things and the contracts the disease through genetic predisposition, that person should be the first to receive treatment. How many people have you seen getting treated for lung cancer, and refuse to stop smoking in order to give treatment a decent chance? Do you remember Mickey Mantle, the baseball player. He turned out to be a drunk, but because of his celebrity status, he received a transplant liver and was dead within months. I personally consider that a waste. If you have a forty pound beer belly and complain about a bad back, you do not deserve my compassion. The pregnant woman, on the other hand does. Funny thing is, that's not my question.

As you would call them? When did he ever say anything of the such? You are just throwing bombs at everybody. Since you did such a piss poor job guessing who I was I'm gonna say your doing the same with this guy now. I want to cut the whole thing down He you go again labeling people. Why dont you speak with some facts instead of trying to rip the person apart. If you spent half the amount of time talking about the issue as you do saying how people you dont know are in life, we might be able to discuss somethings here. The whole post focuses on your occupation.... whatever. One has to guess why a person would be so incompassionate to social issues and it seems many cops are like that; you have "Rookie" as your usename - did the math. I'm not tearing anyone apart, just curious of the incompassion. Thrith is, ignorance generally fuels that kind of incompassion. As for, "how you are in life," I think you bring that home by yourself. HMMMmmmmmm, I wonder why the other side doesn't address the whole, "risky behavior" thing? Could it be that we are engaged in the riskiest behavior by many definitions and there is no real good rebuttal? So with your logic, the paramedics show up, turn and say, "Oh, he was skydiving, we don't have the budget to care for people who engage in risky, foolish behavior.

Never said it was. If you would have read my post you might have gotten that. After reading your post I dont think you would have been able to understand it anyway I'll make sure to make a note of that and place it in my file labeled "I dont give a damn" Not even close. Keep on guessing. You eventually might get it right. So you were considering levity... special. Often it's the people who advocate against public help for various social issues, but when they need help they vry the loudest and act the most surprised. So are you afraid that good money that could be turned into bombs would instead be directed into saving people's lives?

Great minds think alike....... I wrote many of the same things in a recent post.