It's only an unlawful order when it violates the Constitution of the United States. If the right to bear arms was removed, then soldiers could not use that as a reason to make war on American citizens. I still don't know if the military would follow the order. It will probably lead to an attempted coup d'etat.
One of the many Obama quotes in article that angers me: "As a student of history, I know that civilization owes a debt to Islam".
Does that sound like the opinion of an objective or rational man?Obviously, he's referring to the Crusades (again) because he stupidly thinks, like most people, that Christians were the aggressors of that conflict when they clearly weren't. The muslims' aggressions towards Christians is what started that shit so if anyone owes any body a debt it's the ****ing muslims.
Originally posted by Robtardyup, all this after me wccusing you of getting angry after misconstruing my point. It's much easier to repeat me than coming up with a rebuttal huh👆
You got emotional really quick. If you felt I misread your post, you could have calmly and without snarky remarks said "no, you misread my intent" and that would have been that.
Originally posted by Star428
One of the many Obama quotes in article that angers me: "As a student of history, I know that the world owes a debt to Islam".Does that sound like the opinion of an objective or rational man?Obviously, he's referring to the Crusades (again) because he stupidly thinks, like most people, that Christians were the aggressors of that conflict when they clearly weren't. The muslims aggressions towards Christians is what started that shit so if anyone owes any body a debt it's the ****ing muslims.
I think he is referring to Islam preserving most of the thought of Greek philosophers as well as being mainly responsible for scientific advancements during the European dark ages....
Originally posted by psmith81992
yup, all this after me wccusing you of getting angry after misconstruing my point. It's much easier to repeat me than coming up with a rebuttal huh👆
Alright, I see where this is going and prefer we just skip to the end where you claim I'm emotional (check?) and declare yourself the winner. Thanks, bye now.
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
It's only an unlawful order when it violates the Constitution of the United States. If the right to bear arms was removed, then soldiers could not use that as a reason to make war on American citizens. I still don't know if the military would follow the order. It will probably lead to an attempted coup d'etat.
The second amendment is part ofthe Bill of Rights. Those rights are unalienable. Which means they can NEVER be taken away. It's against the law for Congress to amend any of the first 10 amendments. They might very well do it but if they do, they're doing it illegally.
I just think the whole "right to bear arms" thing is such an outdated amendment. It made a lot of sense to put that in during the time period when it first came into existence, but it has been a long long time since then.
Not that I want to get rid of all guns, but you see some gun people who act as if taking their guns from them would be akin to taking their first born child.
Originally posted by Robtardhttp://www.killermovies.com/forums/search.php?action=showresults&q=Emotional+userid%3A144515
...skip to the end where you claim I'm emotional (check?) and declare yourself the winner.
Originally posted by Star428
The second amendment is part ofthe Bill of Rights. Those rights are unalienable. Which means they can NEVER be taken away. It's against the law for Congress to amend any of the first 10 amendments. They might very well do it but if they do, they're doing it [b]illegally. [/B]
Liberals are much for tradition. Those rights could very well be done away with. It will probably cause a second Civil War though.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/search.php?action=showresults&q=Emotional+userid%3A144515
Alright, I lol'd
Originally posted by Star428
The second amendment is part ofthe Bill of Rights. Those rights are unalienable. Which means they can NEVER be taken away. It's against the law for Congress to amend any of the first 10 amendments. They might very well do it but if they do, they're doing it [b]illegally. [/B]
I have heard this before as well. Googling it it is hard to find the information, and I can't find it in the constitution either, could you point me to on what basis they are inalienable?
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Liberals are much for tradition. Those rights could very well be done away with. It will probably cause a second Civil War though.
Yeah, that's what I was getting at. If Congress violates the Bill of Rights then it would probably instigate a second revolutionary war.
There is no law about the Bill of Rights being impossible to change. 'Bill of Rights' is just a name for the first ten amendments. The amendments can be changed via Congress like any other part of the Constitution.
It's a slightly ridiculous concept anyway, because even if there was such a law, you could just repeal the law. Laws are set by legislatures.
But in any case, there is no such law.
So I just saw a few articles that apparently the gunman was targeting Christians specifically. That was why he went around asking people what their religion was.
So sad ...Another LeftWing Nut Job gets ahold of a gun and loses control of it. There aught to be a law....saying that Democrats/Liberals/Progressives shouldn't be allowd to own weapons.
They just don't' have the mental stability to handle them.