Amazon.com Widgets
  • Absolutely it does

    In fact, just the other day as I was drinking gin with my friends, I was telling them that we really need to develop greater gin control in the United States. Gin has gotten out of control. Last week gin was seen twerking in New York City, Chicago, and Kookamunga. I heard a report of gin running amok in Moscow and creating traffic delays in Hong Kong. We don't need those kinds of issues in America. We need to control our gin and we need to do it now before it is too late!

    GIN CONTROL NOW!

  • No it doesn't

    Hahhahahahhahhhahahha ahhahah ahhaha ahaha haha ahhaha hahah hahah hahaha hahah ahhaha ahhahahha ahhaha ahhaha aa ha hah ahha hahhahah h a hah h aah hah aha ha ha hh h ahah h a hhah ahah ha ha hh ah ah a hah hahah h ahah h ah a hah ahh a hah hahah it really doesnt

  • Why do we need gun control we need to protect ourselfs

    Yj gjg ghf gfhj gjgyj tsdgf ghgfhj lllkkk jjhjk jhgjjv j jj jj jj j j jj j j j j j jj j k k k k kk kk k k k k k k k k k kkk k k k kk k k k k i sorry

  • The Right to Keep and Bear arms is an Inalienable Right which cannot be taken away.

    If the 2nd Amendment is repealed, the Right goes not away. Repealing the 1st does not abolish a free press.

    Natural Law, championed by such pre-revolutionary war thinkers as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes held that men are naturally free and equal as part of the justification for understanding legitimate political government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature conditionally transfer SOME of their rights to the government in order to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Since governments exist by the consent of the people in order to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments. Locke is thus also important for his defense of the right of revolution.

    Under Natural Law, all rights not ceded or given to the government were retained by the people (10th Amendment). As applied to the 2nd Amendment, since the people had never ceded any of their rights of self defense (from criminals or a criminal government) to the government, the right to "Keep and Bear Arms" was not created by the 2nd Amendment, it was merely an acknowledgement of an existing, in-alienable right.

    Quoting from David Kopel's review ( "It Isn't about Duck Hunting: The British Origins of the Right to Arms") :
    "By the middle of the eighteenth century, Blackstone, after describing the three Primary rights of Englishmen--personal security, personal liberty, and private property--then pointed to the five auxiliary rights that served to protect the primary ones:
    'The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law ... And it is indeed a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.'
    Blackstone's treatise immediately became legal orthodoxy in Great Britain and America. He wrote as if he were merely describing an ancient common law right, rather than one that had come into formal existence in 1689. Just as Blackstone had uncritically accepted the Convention Parliament's claim that it was only recognizing old rights, the Anglo-American legal community uncritically accepted Blackstone--at least until Joyce Malcolm came on the scene.

    Repealing the 1st amendment would not repeal your right to worship as the first 8 Amendments are in-alienable, plus the 9th Amendment states that there are other unenumerated rights which exist and can be enforced.

    Those having moral issues over using deadly force can't understand the difference between Murder and Homicide. This excellent paper by Jonathan Spelman takes you through the reasons why it is your Christian Duty to protect yourself and your family, even using deadly force if required.
    Http://www.Google.Com/url?Sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fashbrook.Org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F06%2F2008-Spelman.Pdf&ei=gyg0VLTxGoW0yATMnoAI&usg=AFQjCNFgkkUBWAYC6sQs8vdjQ4FaNA06qg&sig2=WEk0K-SUwuCVb6TwGesOCw&bvm=

  • No Prohibition Again!

    How dare you suggest that we don't control the gin in this country. If somebody is of legal drinking age, and they don't drive under the influence, their gin consumption is none of the government's business. If they get liver problems from drinking too much gin, that is between them and their doctor.

  • No, The Right to Bear Arms is Necessary

    The US does not need stricter gun control, if anything there is too much gun control already. The right to bear arms was written into the Bill of Rights from the beginning because the founding fathers understood that the only way to prevent the government from taking too much control was to allow the individual the right to defend themselves. As gun control gets more strict, we move closer to being a police state, with more people in prison now that Communist Russia or China at their worst, and most there for victimless "crimes." Though I am not advocating violence, I think the individual has the right to defend themselves, and this right is slowly but surely being stripped away with gun control.

  • No, I believe that we control our GIN quite well.

    In my opinion,I believe that we control our GIN quite well. Now on the matter of Gun control I would also say that the controls we have in place are quite sound. However we need better enforcement of the existing rules. The fact that individuals who are not of sound mind are allowed to purchase and use guns against other people in the USA is disturbing.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.