In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 2675
Online now 2387 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
You're giving them too much...
What you're talking about takes actual balls instead of pulling a trigger
www.yohoodent.com ... errybawdee awn ignorle
This is literally the dumbest post in the history of your stupid posts.
lolz at your assumptions about what people will and will not do, and what we need.
The second amendment was certainly not for that reason....
University of Alabama: The high mark of college football since 1892
I also question if he knows what the second amendment was for
You actually read Glen Beck's website. My god, that is embarrassing.
Genius. All I need is a stove, a pot, a gallon of water, and 5-10 minutes for it to reach the proper temperature and I am safe. I can't believe that I have never thought of that one before. Anybody want to buy some guns?
A well regulated militia?
Attacking military commander checklist for ground invasion:
national guard check, okay we can handle them
1/3 of military active oversees okay
300 million guns (estimated in US) rethink strategy
Ill keep my guns. China hates out gun situation
I give credit to libs for strongly advocating that the government will never take any of our rights away. On the downside, the reason that is so is because they advocate freely giving up all our rights.
I think libs aren't worried about being shot, or defending themselves. They are mainly concerned with what conservatives are thinking and how can they make them stop thinking that way.
I'm not a lib, but I'm mainly just laughing at all of you. The paranoia and all around stupidity is fantastic comedy.
Ha ha ha ha... okay.
So, the protection of rights, as Harrington theorized...
Also, one must include the necessity of the standing army, and the need for the citizens to protect themselves against it, (tyranny), though that debate speaks more towards the military clause...
These , though, are the federalist views...
The anti-federalist views, however, such as those put forth by Richard Henry Lee and Patrick Henry, were that the right to own firearms not only to protect against the standing army, but also against a tyrannical government far removed from the needs if its citizens...
George Mason, though, took this one step further, noting that the protection offered by gun ownership also allowed man to protect himself against his neighbors...
We could go on and on... but yes... the primary reason for the second amendment was to protect the citizenry from the tyranny of the government...
Thus government tyranny calls for a rising up against the government, yes.
You all must be lost by the facts, though
We didn't even have a standing army until the civil war, lolz
Ish. Pulling a trigger takes balls. When I was twelve I shot a buddy of mine through the hand with a crosman 760. 10 pumps at 30 yards. I had him lined up square in the iron T for a good minute before I could summon the courage.
One shot, one kill.
Aaaand you've just proved nothing.
You should be more well read before you attack
I prove that what you posted amounts to nearly nothing since half of it was what founding fathers thought about something that the USA did not have at their time.
Amroll just shut up
fsufsu said... I've got about 10 great stories on Lane but all you need to know is he will never be a loser, that's for sure.
You ever heard of a samurai sword ni**a ?
These are facts, not arm chair ideological views like barney posts.
No shit its a fantasy world, just painting a picture for how retarded gun ownership is
Humans beings are the ultimate failure of planet earth
Golden is better then Jimbo... I feared it was true. He is going to hoist a crystal ball there - fsufsu
You are wrong.
The founding fathers are the ones who designed the second amendment, and for which reasons they included it.
You wish to discuss the reasons for the second amendment, though to ignore the reasons and reasoning behind it by the founding fathers?
Case closed, I'd say.
Like I said, be more well read before you attack. Might I suggest the Federalist papers, as well as the Anti-federalist papers?
Or you could just stop digging that hole
If a country did not have a standing army, who would defend it?
I wouldn't sweat any true gun seizure. Not enough law enforcement officers out there to seize them. No sheriff would enforce this law. His deputies would be hypocrites.
Nobel idea but just not realistic
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports