Ummm. OK

Damn that Bush!
When does Obama become president?

Broken record from a parallel anti-Earth solar system. The real numbers don't lie. Bush killed more Americans in Iraq than Al-Quaeda has throughout it's existence. Imagine the term limit amendment being waived and a contest between Obama and Bush for a third term. Bush is so popular with Republicans he wasn't even invited to their last two national conventions.

Wont you take me to,....funky town.

Obama lied.
Obama lied to himself.

He really, really wanted to believe 9/11 was all about Osama Bin Ladin. When we got Osama it would be over.

He didn't want to believe there was a war with Islamists and we had to fight them in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and interrogate them in places like Gitmo.

Of course Al Qaeda didn't kill our Ambassador. We got Bin Ladin didn't we? It was the video.

Obama is a fool, and his Middle East house of straw is collapsing.

George W. Bush knew better.

Who would want Quebec after the miserable performance by the Canadiens. No parade on St. Catherines this year, eh?

Once a Commonwealth (C)
Once a Nation (N)
Once a Domninion (D)

OR

C,eh; N, eh; D eh !!!

(Just a little apolitical history lesson for those with a sense of humour).

You can have it

maybe all the heavily armed US citizens should invade Canada and take Quebec for America

did you know that if you spelled out every one of the states in the United States the only letter you would never use is the letter Q?

And who knows more about the olden days that one who is stuck in the past?

in olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking

Militias are discussed in the main body of the Constitution. There was a clear rationale for having a system of state militias that could be nationalized by the President (which the anti-Federalists opposed). I will leave it to you to figure out the rationale since you have also stated your opposition to spoon feeding. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to make sure that citizens (at least, males) had weapons to bring with them if and when they were called into the militia. And once again, I don't know how to get through your stubborness on this issue. The Amendment states very clearly the purpose was for "the security of a free State". Nothing in that Amendment makes any reference to arms for individual use.

And, once again, in case you didn't notice, or don't remember, the Anti-Federalists lost the argument 13-0. And here you are still arguing a 200+ year old issue. You are living in the wrong century.

You seem to be confused as the meaning of "militia". Militia is the whole of able bodied citizens with their own arms.

You will see once you read the Constitution as I have requested that the Second Amendment refers to the "People"'s right to keep and bear arms not the government's.

No they opposed a standing army, meaning a permanent army. They did not oppose a "national army of any kind". Militias have their place but there is also a national army called up in time of need. You really need to read the documents I mentioned.

"Should I assume you realize that they opposed a national army of any kind and the ability of the President to nationalize the militia (National Guard) and that you see no need for a standing army as well? "

I have read the Constitution multiple times.

The fact that a relatively obscure collection of essays supports your view is quite irrelevant, in particular since the authors lost the argument as you may recall. Should I assume you realize that they opposed a national army of any kind and the ability of the President to nationalize the militia (National Guard) and that you see no need for a standing army as well? How would Bush have had his war in Iraq without the National Guard and his power to use them?

So tell us, how many of the 80-90 anti-Federalist essays have you actually read? I happen to love this quote from the argument against a standing army: (Number 24 Part I)

"But, why is this provision so ridiculous? Because, says this author, it is unnecessary. But, why is it unnecessary? Because, “the principles and habits, as well as the power of the Americans are directly opposed to standing armies; and there is as little necessity to guard against them by positive constitutions, as to prohibit the establishment of the Mahometan religion.” It is admitted then, that a standing army in time of peace is an evil. "

Now, if I thought like you, I would maintain that you are supporting the views of those who associate with Muslim terrorists. I can take things out of context just as well as you.

Read the Constitution and the Anti-Federalist Papers. They support my view. Why should I spoon feed you if you won't make an effort?

"Wrong again. The Constitution including all of the amendment is a document that spells out powers that we, the people, have given to the government and how those powers are to be allocated and shared within the government and between the government and the people. It's a two sided document, not one sided as you seem to believe.

Regardless, what we have here is a clear misunderstand of the amendment itself. You claim it grants rights that it simply does not and you imply an intent which never existed. When you can explain the part about a militia and national security and WHY those two key phrases are part of the amendment, you may get some respect. Until such time, your myth will continued to be exposed for what it is: A big fat lie."

Wrong again. The Constitution including all of the amendment is a document that spells out powers that we, the people, have given to the government and how those powers are to be allocated and shared within the government and between the government and the people. It's a two sided document, not one sided as you seem to believe.

Regardless, what we have here is a clear misunderstand of the amendment itself. You claim it grants rights that it simply does not and you imply an intent which never existed. When you can explain the part about a militia and national security and WHY those two key phrases are part of the amendment, you may get some respect. Until such time, your myth will continued to be exposed for what it is: A big fat lie.

Yes, of course. That makes perfect sense. Everybody knows that the Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is a part, is about government rights not individual rights.

"Wrong. You are the one who is avoiding the real issue. The 2nd Amendment is very clear about the purpose of having arms. Of course you can't have a militia without weapons. That is exactly the purpose of the amendment. It is NOT about use of arms for individual purposes. It is meant to ensure that militias (as described in the Constitution) do have arms. "

During the George W. Bush years, there were mulitple attacks on American Embassies. Far more than 4 Americans died in those attacks?

Where was the Bush administration then?

Did Democrats jump all over Bush for them? Did they try to blame Bush before any facts were known? Nope.

Only 3 minor Congressional hearings were held. Not surprising since Republicans controlled things for 6 of those years.

Rep. Dan Issa (R-CA) publically stated after the 2010 election that it would be the job of his committee to hold ongoing investigations of the Obama administration looking for malfeasance.

How much more obvious can it be that the current Benghazi hearings are purely political? I guess that Republicans, unlike Democrats, don't understand the concept of national unity during times of national crisis, but will use any opportunity to undermine this country for perceived political gain.

And for those who have forgotten, it took the Bush administration 2-3 days before they determined that 9/11 was an Al-Quaeda operation without any political attacks from the Democrats.

Can you say: Double standard?

Completely tasteless in light of recent events in Cleveland. And not surprising either.

there was a young girl from Yonkers
who had enormous bazonkas
so being a right wing fanatic
I imprisoned her in my attic
and shot her in the head with the gun I obtained cos I AM FREE (shit, doesn't rhyme)

Hey, Mr. Flagman. You are falling behind. You are jeopardizing your NRA Merit Badge for childish flagging. Get with it !

America has an army. It also has a National Guard system which is the militia. At present, both organizations supply all the weapons needed. If you believe that not allowing any weapon to any person for any purpose would hurt our military, I suggest you talk to the Germans, Italians, and Japanese who are still old enough to remember WWII. I suggest you ask all of the National Guardsmen who fought in Iraq whether they had their own weapons or whether they were supplied by the government.

There is neither a basis nor a justification for your extremist position. I have every right to use the word extreme since virtually every poll supports the notion that close to 85-90 % Americans support gun control and regulation much in the same way we do for personal vehicles. I'm surprised you don't argue againts car registration since, obviously, it allows the government to control your ability to move around and, the way you think, that makes it on the slippery slope of travel permits, driving restrictions, and eventually complete house arrest. Sound stupid? Not any more so that your made up interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Note also that I have not called you an idiot or any other such term. I criticize your positions, but not you personally. I guess when you don't have credible positions all you can do is call others names. I still believe that honest men can disagree with one another and still show respect. And that begs the question as to whether you are an honest man.

Wrong. You are the one who is avoiding the real issue. The 2nd Amendment is very clear about the purpose of having arms. Of course you can't have a militia without weapons. That is exactly the purpose of the amendment. It is NOT about use of arms for individual purposes. It is meant to ensure that militias (as described in the Constitution) do have arms.

You have proven absolutely nothing with your numbers. The numbers are completely irrelevant to the intent of the amendment which was to make sure that militias had arms (and that the arms would not be provided by the state, but by individuals). Your reading ability, your comprehension, and your logic are completely flawed as is obvious to anyone who actually reads the amendment.

Once again, the challenge is there. Where does it talk about any right to bear arms for a purpose other than a militia? There simply is NO SUCH RIGHT and repeating your claim won't ever change that. It just makes you a serial liar.

Do you also believe that I have a right to own machine guns, tanks, and jet fighters?

I know you won't or can't answer the above. All you can do is to change the subject and babble along with your meaningless, out of context, right wing talking point 'statistics'.

A very clumsy attempt to change the topic.

We have shown that your precious gun control laws make people less safe, so why should we pass them?

"Thank you for focusing this discussion on the real issue which is the misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment. It's about time that someone stood up and refuse to concede anything to the NRA gun huggers whose entire argument is based on a myth of their own creation. The entire basis of their argument is a fraud. Thanks again for the truth."

you genuinely think that the right to an armed militia is the same as the right of individual citizens to arm themselves?!

You can't have a militia without armed CITIZENS idiot.

WB Flagman.

Show me where it says that INDIVIDUALS have a right to own arms for THEIR OWN USE !! Go on, I dare you !!!

(Only direct quotes from the Constitution are acceptable answers).

You have no case and you know it.

Quite clearly, you have no clue about what you're going on about.

But please, continue making a fool of yourself. It's entertaining.

Moron labe...

Thank you for focusing this discussion on the real issue which is the misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment. It's about time that someone stood up and refuse to concede anything to the NRA gun huggers whose entire argument is based on a myth of their own creation. The entire basis of their argument is a fraud. Thanks again for the truth.

The right wing needs to learn how to read. There is NO, repeat, NO, individual right to bear arms, PERIOD. The right pertains to a militia and is necessary for the security of the country. Militia, country, not an individual. And most certainly not for the purpose of an armed revolution against the government. This latter claim is the most absurd and evil concept yet to be introduced by the NRA. I would love to hear an explanation of why any government would sow the seeds of its own destruction by 'encouraging' a violent revolution against itsef. Of course, when facts don't matter, you can say anything that pops into your mindless brain or repeat the rantings of those who have pretty much admitted to being enemies of the state (aka right wing talk show hosts).

"AS it turns out the British gun control ban hasn't reduced gun crime."

because hardly anyone had guns to begin with

AS it turns out the British gun control ban hasn't reduced gun crime. In some years it has gotten worse but never better. It has also resulted in more violent crime with other types of weapons.

In the US gun crime and violent crime has been reduced as law abiding citizens have armed themselves.

The science is in and the debate is over. The conclusion is clear. It is a public good that citizens be armed.

Piers, you may now depart this free and prosperous country you will never understand.

"But what other incidents count as “violent crime”? Different countries will have different opinions about this, and the percentage of crimes that are actually reported to the police will vary wildly too, making international comparisons difficult.

The FBI – the source of that “466 in 100,000″ figure (the number is actually from 2007) – defines violent crime as murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

The British definition is much looser, including all crimes against the person and sexual offences, hence the much higher number."

------------------------------------------------------

yes, I feel safer in the UK

The U.K.’s strict gun controls mean it has a lower homicide rate than the U.S. even though there’s more violent crime, according to a study that also found violence in Britain fell over the past decade.

According to the Sydney-based Institute for Economics and Peace, the U.K. had 933 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2012, down from 1,255 in 2003. In the U.S., the figure for 2010 was 399 violent crimes per 100,000 people

From Bloomberg, no less.

You're 3x more likely to be assaulted, raped, kidnapped or robbed in the UK than the US.

/sarcasm on/
Yep, that makes me feel really safe going to the UK.
Hell, you're alive; even though you've been beaten to a bloody pulp, blinded, raped and had 5 bones broken.
/sarcasm off/

Benghazi should sink Obama but it won't. It will at least douchebag Hillary out of the WH.

Sounds like foreigners like Piers Morgan need to bone up on American history and the constitution.

Maybe some of our home-grown leftists could do some homework also?
Then we wouldn't have to be constantly correcting their retarded babbling on our rights under the Second Amendment.

From the link below:

So when conservative commentators like Ben Shapiro talk about armed resistance to tyrannical government, this may sound to non-American ears like the stuff of extremist conspiracy theory, but it is entirely in keeping with the historical context of the US constitution.

Read it all the way to the conclusion.

Blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/gun-control-what-can-america-learn-from-britain/12466

Who is the bigger idiot? The right wing nut job here (Mr. flagman), or the reasonably rational people who give him credibility by arguing.

(Watch for the talking points to move today to SC or Libya.)

And don't forget to flag me. Two more and you qualify to become a true flag-bot.

"Your assertion means nothing unless you can quote statistics on a per capita basis. The US is a large Country so of course there are more gun related crimes overall."

-------------------------------------------

Gun related deaths/100,000 people:

USA = 10 (year 2010)
UK = 0.25 (year 2011)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_...

Your assertion means nothing unless you can quote statistics on a per capita basis. The US is a large Country so of course there are more gun related crimes overall.

"This coincides with the largest expansion of legal firearms ownership in American history."

---------------------------------------------

and yet the rate of firearm related murders in the US is still orders of magnitude higher than any other developed country which has gun controls......

Thank the NRA and the campaign to liberalize concealed carry permits.

This coincides with the largest expansion of legal firearms ownership in American history.

WASHINGTON–Firearm-related homicides declined 39 percent and nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69 percent from 1993 to 2011, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. Firearm-related homicides dropped from 18,253 homicides in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011, and nonfatal firearm crimes dropped from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011.

I just want to know if Piers is gone yet.

Guess not...nobody wants him; including us.

You talk like a fag and your shits all retarded.

Compliance and submission noted, flagman. Very good.

Oops, sorry. Flag, please. Make that two now.