quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: adx
its scary how some are so willing to give away our rights.

An some give new meanings to the rights that were never originally intended. You and I, do not have a right to a firearm. I know that will be hard for you to understand or accept. The 2nd amendment never states the individual's right to a firearm for 'what ever purpose they feel like'. It was quite specific, as a condition to a 'A Well Regulated Militia...". Back when that document was created, the United States didnt have standing police stations in every village, town and city. Nor a professional, standing army with multiple nuclear powered carrier fleets. They had the militia. The militia was designed to act as both an emergency police force and an army as the commanding officers (and Governor of the state) decided.

"...the right to bear arms...." was meant to explain that the individual could have a firearm, but its purpose was strictly for the militia in question. Any arm beyond those used by the militia, would be, according to the founding fathers, handled by the individual states (as per the 10th Amendment). If an individual state decided to ban a firearm make or model, that was well within the people's wishs through voting. Either directly (i.e. ballot question) or indirectly (those voted to represent the people). It would not be a violation so long as the arms in question, were not currently being used by the militia.

"....shall not be infringed." This little gem is the OTHER part of the four that has equally been fouled up. This one does not state 'goverment can not make a law, outlawing an individual's 'right' to a firearm'. Actually, the belief back in the early state's days, was much different. If the Governor could call up a militia to handle a domestic or foreign problem, and that militia had to obey; could the Governor, trying to create a tyrannical goverment, order the militia to surrender thier arms? The answer was 'no'. It was created, so that a militia, would never find itself at odds with either the citizens they represented, or placing their village, town, or city in jeapordy of being called a traitor! It had nothing to do with some gun-nut holding an unlimited right to any sort of firearm they believed they should have (i.e. an M-249).

So who do you think, pushed the idea into American's minds that the 2nd Amendment means that you or I could have any sort of firearm we wanted, without being a member of a local militia in good standing (to the militia, the town, and state), nor needing some sort of 'checks and balances' to make sure things didnt get out of hand? I'm going to guess, "Someone that wanted to make a PILE OF MONEY!" But they wouldnt do it directly, or else people would simply make the connection. So they create an organization, to which they support financially, to change the view of the original concept into something else by which the newer members of society wouldn't realize was changed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

If you don't know the difference between psychology, and psychiatry, you can't really contribute much of value, can you?


Just because words start with the same few letters doesn't make them perfectly synonymous.

YAWN Every time you post a reply to someone, you show your childish desperation to score a point by not reading the reply or taking it out of context.

If your English comprehension was up to scratch you would be able to deconstruct Rule's post and see he does understand the difference between psychology and psychiatry.