Printable View
In fairness, if I walked into a Kerry rally and started yelling, "fuck the ketchup guy" or something like that I'm sure I'd be "escorted" out in nearly the same way. Although I have little to no hair to grabl hold of. :DQuote:
Originally posted by tuffy109
that's an anti-bush protestor being "escorted" out of a rally yesterday.
grabbing a woman by the hair is a complete bitch move.
a bush supporter started yelling during a kerry rally the other day and some random dude sitting near put him in a choke hold.
True the hair hold sucks but its taught as an effective means of control to most or all law enforcement. That guy doesn't look too much like a cop but I imagine somewhere in his past he's had some training by a police accademy. Again, if you keep your locks cropped short (or if you have the benefit of being folically challenged like me) then you are at an advantage when going toe to toe w/ these guys.
Now the choke hold, guess you need to have a small head.
I don't know man, I really don't get fired up enough about this stuff to assault other people if they're saying something I don't want to hear, even at a ralley.
Hey hey hey.... let's be fair here.
Anyone at a Kerry rally yellin' things is just expressing their opinion.
Anyone at a Bush rally yellin' things is a LIAR! Because, you know, they had sign a loyalty oath to get in!!
Now how's that for message management?
Yes, it quite clearly states its purpose--it's for well-regulated militias, that's it (as the courts have clearly confirmed).Quote:
Originally posted by 1080Rider
One more thing to think about since the assault weapons ban was brought up. When bush wins again (he is pulling away ever so slightly) and we have a pure fascist state (as y'all are predicting) aren't you going to be a little upset that the only thing you can fight back w/ are shotguns and hunting rifles? That 2nd amend really does have a purpose. Just food for thought.
Pisser that we're not allowed to have rocket launchers and stocks of sarin nerve gas.
You're just not doing it right.Quote:
Originally posted by tuffy109
grabbing a woman by the hair is a complete bitch move.
Militia:
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
This may work in a dictionary, but is wrong where the 2nd amendment is concerned--as the courts have made clear. See U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia. And when the town of Morton Grove, IL, was sued on 2nd ammendment grounds over a gun control law, the Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that not only was the ordinance valid, but there was no individual right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment (Quillici v. Morton Grove). In October 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of this ruling, allowing the lower court rulings to stand.Quote:
Originally posted by 1080Rider
Militia:
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
There ya go--no Constitutional individual right to bear arms, beyond the maintenance of an organized militia.
Your point? Yes, its a collective right, all that means is that the federal gov't can regulate it. It doesn't change the meaning of the amendment. It is in relation to able bodied americans holding arms so that in the case of a crisis they may be called upon to use those arms. I highly doubt the framers anticipated that the arms would never be used against the state (especially since they went through a little thing called the revolution). But whatever, hopefully you'll act as your own lawyer when the time arises.
Since you clearly missed my point. If we had to overthrow the govt, would you want the same guns that they had or would you want something inferior? To me, the answer is pretty clear.