The guy walked, what more is there to discuss. Killing someone isn't right, but as the law was concerned he was.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
Theres riots in LA going on right now as wellCC-Marley wrote:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bs-md-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-monday-20130715,0,5135359.story
Well regulated tends to imply well regulated. Why that means someone can buy a pistol for self defense is anyone's guess. What militia are they part of?Cybargs wrote:
That's the standing military.AussieReaper wrote:
Well regulated.
Guess you never heard of the unorganized militia right.
Let's have a look Switzerland again.Extra Medium wrote:
Sigh, welcome to next second amendment thread.
Once again, the second amendment protects them and that's enough for me. The real reason people fight to protect them is for the same reason the second amendment exists, militia purposes. The underlying purpose for the second amendment is to allow people to ability to rise up against a tyrannical government. May sound stupid but no one knows what kind of government we may have in 100 or 200 or 300 years from now. Just because it doesn't make sense now doesn't mean it won't make sense in the future. You have to understand that the birth of our nation came about from regular civilians taking up civilian arms against a government they thought didn't deserve to rule them. The founding fathers knew this and wanted to make sure future generations had this option IF they needed it. I don't expect you to understand this seeing as how you forefathers were usually the ones getting shot at for being dickheads.
Honestly, I don't understand what is so goddamn complicated about this that people feel the need to argue and debate it.
Don't let the paranoia of what might happen in 100 or 200 or 300 years from now make you sleep too easy at night, even if it's already been 700+ years with no need for militia.globefish23 wrote:
Let's have a look Switzerland again.Extra Medium wrote:
Sigh, welcome to next second amendment thread.
Once again, the second amendment protects them and that's enough for me. The real reason people fight to protect them is for the same reason the second amendment exists, militia purposes. The underlying purpose for the second amendment is to allow people to ability to rise up against a tyrannical government. May sound stupid but no one knows what kind of government we may have in 100 or 200 or 300 years from now. Just because it doesn't make sense now doesn't mean it won't make sense in the future. You have to understand that the birth of our nation came about from regular civilians taking up civilian arms against a government they thought didn't deserve to rule them. The founding fathers knew this and wanted to make sure future generations had this option IF they needed it. I don't expect you to understand this seeing as how you forefathers were usually the ones getting shot at for being dickheads.
Honestly, I don't understand what is so goddamn complicated about this that people feel the need to argue and debate it.
They been kicking the evil empire (my forefathers) with civilian weapons since 1291.
And here they are now in 2013, with every able-bodied man keeping his uniform and rifle at home.
Yet, they don't have such a crass problem with gun violence.
It's a US American thing. Plain and simple.
I'm sorry, what are we calling this again? Not big enough for you?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
wow your definition of 'riot', you are a real pussy. i'm seeing protests and isolated incidents of people being idiots. no riots.
Oh you mean like at Fort Hood and Virginia Tech? And that mall? ohh ohh and the Redlake massacre?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
No, affected whites would have internalized their rage until they exploded into a random mass shooting.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-16 05:53:48)
Um no, skill at arms has a long and proud tradition as part of the defence of the realm, in the US being at one with your democracy means being ready to defend it and gun ownership is part of that.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
i have never wanted to own a gun because i am happy with my penis size. the thought has never even occurred to my mind to go and buy such a phallic tool for spurting hot material. look at those two men above. look at that drum magazine. can that man surely possess anything other than two dried raisins for testicles? think about it. the freudian symbolism is apparent to even a pre-pubescent 8 year old.
same with dilbert and his fascination for target shooting. could it possibly be that he figuratively 'misses the mark' in other aspects of his life? i submit to you that guns, like cars, are libidinal extensions of a man's curved and disfigured penis.
Murdering white women is part of their culture, you have to respect that.Extra Medium wrote:
If the O.J. trial would have happened today I wonder how many white people would be making tweets of them holding AK-47's with the caption "OJ we comin fo you life neegrah"
I'm thinking none.