US right to to be tested by Supreme Court

Anarkistsdream · Post by **Anarkistsdream** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:19 am

RadicalJerk wrote:Guns should be, like banned. the kkk southern americans should hand them in right away.

And what about the other 50 million people who own guns?

RadicalJerk · Post by **RadicalJerk** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:22 am

Anarkistsdream wrote:
RadicalJerk wrote:Guns should be, like banned. the kkk southern americans should hand them in right away.
And what about the other 50 million people who own guns?

They should be forced to hand them in....so many poor, innocent people get shot by farmers and land owners...it's so like dangerous! someone who i know went to america, and saw a poor spanish person get shot, for stealing some bread or something.

Dancing Mustard · Post by **Dancing Mustard** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:24 am

khazalid wrote:in a perfect world there would no atom bombs.

Yeah, that was sarcasm... I don't think that giving every nation atom-bombs would reduce the chances of atmoic warfare, I don't think that giving everyone knife-bats would cut the amount of knife-bat related violence, and I don't think that giving everyone a gun would reduce gun-crime. That was the point I was trying to make there.

Anarkistsdream · Post by **Anarkistsdream** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:25 am

RadicalJerk wrote:
Anarkistsdream wrote:
RadicalJerk wrote:Guns should be, like banned. the kkk southern americans should hand them in right away.
And what about the other 50 million people who own guns?
They should be forced to hand them in....so many poor, innocent people get shot by farmers and land owners...it's so like dangerous! someone who i know went to america, and saw a poor spanish person get shot, for stealing some bread or something.

Hahahahaha...

Dancing Mustard · Post by **Dancing Mustard** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:26 am

RadicalJerk wrote:They should be forced to hand them in....so many poor, innocent people get shot by farmers and land owners...it's so like dangerous! someone who i know went to america, and saw a poor spanish person get shot, for stealing some bread or something.

Yeah, but the problem isn't really the killing though is it? It's the lost resources; it'd be fine if we just ground down the bodies and used them as food (maybe for animals if not humans) or something... it's the waste that's the true crime. People just need to learn to be efficient with their gun related waste, then they wouldn't be a problem.

RadicalJerk · Post by **RadicalJerk** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:28 am

Anarkistsdream · Post by **Anarkistsdream** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:29 am

Dancing Mustard wrote:
RadicalJerk wrote:They should be forced to hand them in....so many poor, innocent people get shot by farmers and land owners...it's so like dangerous! someone who i know went to america, and saw a poor spanish person get shot, for stealing some bread or something.
Yeah, but the problem isn't really the killing though is it? It's the lost resources; it'd be fine if we just ground down the bodies and used them as food (maybe for animals if not humans) or something... it's the waste that's the true crime. People just need to learn to be efficient with their gun related waste, then they wouldn't be a problem.

Soylent green?

V.I. · Post by **V.I.** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:33 am

heavycola · Post by **heavycola** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:35 am

Anarkistsdream wrote:
Dancing Mustard wrote:
RadicalJerk wrote:They should be forced to hand them in....so many poor, innocent people get shot by farmers and land owners...it's so like dangerous! someone who i know went to america, and saw a poor spanish person get shot, for stealing some bread or something.
Yeah, but the problem isn't really the killing though is it? It's the lost resources; it'd be fine if we just ground down the bodies and used them as food (maybe for animals if not humans) or something... it's the waste that's the true crime. People just need to learn to be efficient with their gun related waste, then they wouldn't be a problem.
Soylent green?

I never got the end of that movie. Charlton heston screaming, 'Soylent green is purple! Soylent green is purple!' When it was clearly green. A metaphor too far for me i'm afraid.

RadicalJoke - nice monkey. (sorry jake

)

Anarkistsdream · Post by **Anarkistsdream** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:37 am

heavycola wrote: I never got the end of that movie. Charlton heston screaming, 'Soylent green is purple! Soylent green is purple!' When it was clearly green. A metaphor too far for me i'm afraid.

I hope you are joking.

Dancing Mustard · Post by **Dancing Mustard** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:42 am

Anarkistsdream wrote:Soylent green?

Never heard of it I'm afraid...

Now I feel poorly read.

suggs · Post by **suggs** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:42 am

Ps I have decided that i win all arguments from now on.
As Anne would say:

Anarkistsdream · Post by **Anarkistsdream** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:45 am

Dancing Mustard wrote:
Anarkistsdream wrote:Soylent green?
Never heard of it I'm afraid...

Now I feel poorly read.

Never read the book or seen the movie?

I am terribly disappointed in you.

Go rent it... RIGHT NOW!

suggs · Post by **suggs** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:56 am

Is it a gardening programme?

Anarkistsdream · Post by **Anarkistsdream** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:02 am

suggs wrote:Is it a gardening programme?

Soylent Green is a 1973 dystopian science fiction movie depicting a bleak future in which overpopulation, global warming, and the resulting severe damage to the ecology have led to widespread unemployment and poverty. Real fruit, vegetables, and meat are rare, expensive commodities, and much of the population survives on processed food rations, including "soylent green" wafers (from soy(bean) + lent(il)).

The film overlays the genres of science fiction and the police procedural as it depicts the efforts of New York City police detective Robert Thorn (Charlton Heston) and elderly police researcher Sol Roth (Edward G. Robinson) to investigate the brutal murder of a wealthy businessman named William R. Simonson (Joseph Cotten). Thorn and Roth uncover clues which suggest that it is more than simply a bungled burglary. The film is loosely based upon the 1966 science fiction novel Make Room! Make Room!, by Harry Harrison.

suggs · Post by **suggs** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:05 am

Sounds cool. And Joseph Cotton is THE man.
Hmm, perhaps i should watch some movies. As opposed to obsessivlely playing mafia

VOTE ANARKISTS DREAM

Sorry, I'm trying to break it but i CANT STOP.

khazalid · Post by **khazalid** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:06 am

vote lynch suggs

heavycola · Post by **heavycola** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:19 am

Harry Harrison was da bomb. I'm off to start a thread RIGHT NOW.

Anarkistsdream · Post by **Anarkistsdream** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:20 am

heavycola wrote:Harry Harrison was da bomb. I'm off to start a thread RIGHT NOW.

I have the whole "Bill, the Galactic Hero" series.

Napoleon Ier · Post by **Napoleon Ier** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:08 pm

heavycola wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/17/usa.usgunviolence

Fingers crossed they see sense.

Perhaps an american could explain something to me: Why is this amendment so sacred, when, for example, everyone was happy to see the amendment prohibiting alcohol be gotten rid of?

Bill of Rights, if I had to hazard a guess. I mean, self-defence has to be considered a fairly basic right (hell, even the UN recognises it), and the right to bear arms enshrines your right to use weapons to defend yourself, your family, and your community.

heavycola · Post by **heavycola** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:37 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:
heavycola wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/17/usa.usgunviolence

Fingers crossed they see sense.

Perhaps an american could explain something to me: Why is this amendment so sacred, when, for example, everyone was happy to see the amendment prohibiting alcohol be gotten rid of?
Bill of Rights, if I had to hazard a guess. I mean, self-defence has to be considered a fairly basic right (hell, even the UN recognises it), and the right to bear arms enshrines your right to use weapons to defend yourself, your family, and your community.

I would agree that self-defence is the only rational argument that pro-gun folks should be using. Because arguing that a civilian population needs to be armed in case its government gets too uppity is ludicrous. The US military, whose C-in-C is also the head of that same government, is the richest and most resourceful fighting machine the world has ever seen. A bunch of suburbanites with .45s aren’t going to get anywhere. And where were they when PATRIOT got passed? Seriously? And where is your faith in teh democracy that is so amazing we need to spread it to every other country in the world? What sort of message does that send to our goatherding brothers and sisters?
Also, just because something was written down does not make it an unalterable truth. I understand the respect that americans have for their constitution, and fair enough. But to point to a decontextualised sentence from three centuries ago as support for gun-ownership is also, frankly, ludicrous.

Self-defence – OK. Let’s argue

Napoleon Ier · Post by **Napoleon Ier** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:42 pm

heavycola wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:
heavycola wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/17/usa.usgunviolence

Fingers crossed they see sense.

Perhaps an american could explain something to me: Why is this amendment so sacred, when, for example, everyone was happy to see the amendment prohibiting alcohol be gotten rid of?
Bill of Rights, if I had to hazard a guess. I mean, self-defence has to be considered a fairly basic right (hell, even the UN recognises it), and the right to bear arms enshrines your right to use weapons to defend yourself, your family, and your community.
I would agree that self-defence is the only rational argument that pro-gun folks should be using. Because arguing that a civilian population needs to be armed in case its government gets too uppity is ludicrous. The US military, whose C-in-C is also the head of that same government, is the richest and most resourceful fighting machine the world has ever seen. A bunch of suburbanites with .45s aren’t going to get anywhere. And where were they when PATRIOT got passed? Seriously? And where is your faith in teh democracy that is so amazing we need to spread it to every other country in the world? What sort of message does that send to our goatherding brothers and sisters?
Also, just because something was written down does not make it an unalterable truth. I understand the respect that americans have for their constitution, and fair enough. But to point to a decontextualised sentence from three centuries ago as support for gun-ownership is also, frankly, ludicrous.

Self-defence – OK. Let’s argue

I do see an extent of soundness in the argument that guns provide a means of resisting oppressive authority, if things got really out of hand. History is rife with examples of successful counter-insurgency and overthrowing of apparently immutable, solid, invincible governments. PATRIOT though isn't quite enough for most to grab the 12 bore and head off to the town square to proclaim secession.

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:35 pm

It should have been enough to make people head to the town square though, preferably armed with righteous outrage and banners bearing slogans protesting against what their government was doing to their rights.

Napoleon Ier · Post by **Napoleon Ier** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:57 pm

MeDeFe wrote:It should have been enough to make people head to the town square though, preferably armed with righteous outrage and banners bearing slogans protesting against what their government was doing to their rights.

I entirely agree. What a sad place America is becoming, in which NeoCon authoritarians and Democrat Socialo-Fascists erode Civil Liberties and the American Spirit foreigners like me so admire your great nation for.

DangerBoy · Post by **DangerBoy** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:02 pm

The title of the article is a little misleading. It's not the individual right to own a gun that is threatened. If you read the story it's the District of Columbia's right to impose restrictions on gun ownership that's being tested.

US right to to be tested by Supreme Court

Re: US right to to be tested by Supreme Court

Re: US right to to be tested by Supreme Court

Re: US right to to be tested by Supreme Court