Geeze, you're right. How could I possibly get the idea that someone who believes a constitutional amendment has no purpose would ever want to do away with that amendment? That's just crazy talk! Shame on me.

It's called imagination. See if you close your eyes and think about a situation in your head you can sometimes imagine about how you'd respond to those situations. Imagination is great! You can also use it to turn your couch into a medieval fortress, and your dog into a firebreathing dragon. You could even be like Jillian and imagine your intellect is adequate and your politics are relevant!

Go ahead, give it a try! I bet you can create whole worlds out of a simple cardboard box. :)

http://imgcache.allposters.com/images/APG/F102126.jpg

I find that to be amusing as well. I also find this "Despanan" to be a handsome chap who's antics are cheeky and fun.

People are often much to flattering to themselves in their imagination. In a situation where my life is on the line, I'd like to imagine I'd be able to take the other person's life before they were able to take mine. I'd also like to imagine I'd have the self control to check my rage and disable them without resorting to killing. That's the problem with imagination, unless you've been put into the situation, it's all a bunch of useless speculation.

An educational point about Rednecks and Hillbillies.

Redneck comes from Scotland, where a particularly strong-minded group of Presbyterians against the Church Of England wore red scarves around their necks to remind others of how strongly they felt after signing a declaration in their own blood. When emigration to America began, it was many of these red-necks who left for America and settled in remote and hilly areas to be free of the Church of England's influence.
Hill-billies derives from a term for the supporters of King William of Orange who fought against the Catholics when settling Ireland and later moved to settle in America.

Though the origins of the term may have been forgotten even in the communities, some of the stubbornness about gun rights in these groups may be their heritage, coming from Scotch-Irish groups with such a strong history of battle and bloodshed. Gun ownership is a cultural thing that dates back to actual war and culture clashes more significant than the modern stereotypes of shooting animals and city folk.

Gun ownership, or the belief in gun ownership rights, is a really complex subject with widely varied beliefs and motivations. Pretty much the only thing that binds the varying groups together is the belief that people should be able to own guns. Some people for gun ownership rights believe the types of guns allowed should be regulated, assault rifles and wait periods for example, and some believe you should be allowed to own anything you can get your hands on. For a lot of them paranoia is the overriding motivator. Self defence, government rounding us all up to be placed in FEMA camps or whatever. For others it is sport like hunting and target shooting that makes them want to keep guns available (These are the ones that tend to be more open to regulation.) Then there's the ones that are strict constitutionalists, they seem to have a belief that the constitution is some infallibly divine inspired document (Along with the paranoids, they're the most resistant to regulation. After all, the constitution doesn't say the right to bear some arms). There for, if it is in the constitution, there's no need to examine any underlying reason behind why it was, still is or if it should still be in the constitution. Then there's the fear of change morons. They feel the same way towards just about any subject. That's the way it has always been, hence, it shouldn't be changed.

It isn't the fear of change.

What was talked about was the burning of the Constitution Re-writing a new one.

When I think it is a far better Idea to Keep the original because hell it has survived this long and things have worked out well considering We The People dropped the ball somewhere along the line but I think the people of this nation are just now starting to get their heads back in the game from the way things are looking.

Who is to decide what is to be changed and what should be left in?

I don't think you'd fit in the fear of change group, Deadman. From some of the statements you've made, I think you fit more into the paranoia group. Don't take that the wrong way. I'm not saying you're crazy or anything as paranoia, in this case, is just an irrational fear of needing a gun to defend yourself. The reason I say it is irrational is that the chances are slim, unless you own a convenience store in a crack neighbourhood that you've been neglecting to tell us about, yet you talk about it like there's a very real threat out there against you.

As for the a rewrite on the constitution, I think it is overdo. The thing was written by a bunch of guys, over two hundred years ago, who had no idea what kinds of technology and situations would be around today. As for who would be writing it, same way it was done before. Only issue I see with this is that we've become polarised by region, red/blue/purple states, and may not be able to remain whole as a country. Then again, I don't see this as being necessaryly a bad thing. It doesn't seem like we're one country any more as it is, more like a couple of countries forced to try and act as one and nothing gets done to anyone's liking.

You seem to have a great misunderstanding of the subject you talk about like an out of date carton of milk.

I think you need to re-read the constitution that was written 200 years ago by some "Old dead white guys",look at the documentation provided by the Bush,Clinton,Bush Jr. ,and Obama's laws that have been and will be signed into effect.

Compare the Document of some "Old Guys" from 200 years ago to the bullshit that has been and is being shoveled out now,most importantly,Compare them to the Bill Of Rights.

First Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_A...s_Constitution

Second Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution

Third Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_A...s_Constitution

Fourth Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_...s_Constitution

Fifth Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_A...s_Constitution

Sixth Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_A...s_Constitution

Seventh Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh...s_Constitution

Eighth Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_...s_Constitution

Ninth Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_A...s_Constitution

Tenth Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_A...s_Constitution

To illustrate my point I'll use the 4th and the internet as an example. The fourth, pretty much, gives us a right to privacy in our homes/papers/belongings. How do we apply this to the internet? After all, if I send you something via the net, it doesn't go directly from my computer to yours. It is broken up into chunks and each chunk is sent out multiple times, via multiple routes, to you. When it arrives it is then reconstructed on your end. How should the 4th be applied to this situation? The government didn't come into either of our homes and read the document, they just intercepted it as it traversed the network. Same goes for the 4th vs cell phone and voice over IP conversations. Is not a rewrite of the 4th in order to say that the government can't listen in to internet communications.

How about your beloved 2nd? It places no restrictions on the level of arms you have the right to bear. Theoreticaly you have the right to a nuclear arsenal under the 2nd guarded by tanks and machine guns. The second also talks about the need for militias. So what about private security firms like Blackwater? Do we, as a people, want private armies allowed in our country. Private armies with 2nd amendment guaranteed rights to have whatever weapons they can get their hands on? Sorry, to me at least, it seems like this will lead us to Cyberpunk futures with powerless government and ultra powerful corporations that rule the country through use of private armies?

The Second Amendment shouldn't have restrictions.

Now am I saying that everybody should be able buy and own Machine Guns?

If they can afford the cost of parts and ammo.

They can own one or several now if they have the funds and a clear record.

Hell if you have a clean record you can get a Federal Firearms License and buy them online or through mail order.

We're going to discontinue the conversation at this point, at least from my end. By all means, feel free to go on speaking to yourself. First Amendment and all that. Because your last statement has proven to me you have no idea WTF you're talking about. Sure, you can own a machine gun, so long as it isn't operational. Even former military can only keep their assault rifles, not the firing pins. What do you think Waco was about? It wasn't DHFS due to child safety or mental health, tt was the ATF that led the thing because the dude was modifying weapons to be full auto, against current federal regulations. Assault weapons, though the current law is lacking due to being more about banning a look of weapon more than functionality of that weapon, are not legal.

Prove me Wrong then.

Show me where the Law states American Citizens (Private Civilians no less) cannot own Machine Guns now.

Look up Class 3 Machine Gun Licenses and the requirements to qualify.

You just proved that you're completely ignorant of U.S. Gun Laws and the Second Amendment,let alone the rest of the Constitution.

You've just been taken to school and don't realize it or don't want to realize it.

Source http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

Definitions

A fully automatic weapon (a machine gun) is one that fires a succession of bullets so long as the trigger is depressed or until the ammunition supply is exhausted. In addition, any weapon that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot automatically, more than one shot at a time by a single trigger pull, is legally considered to be a machine gun.

Submachine guns are fully automatic weapons that fire a handgun cartridge and can be operated by one person. Sometimes they are referred to as machine pistols.

A machine gun can normally fire between 400 and 1,000 rounds (bullets) per minute, or between 7 and 17 rounds per second.

Federal Firearms Regulations

[Disclaimer: Firearms laws change frequently, and vary from state to state. None of the information here should be considered legal advice or a legal restatement of any Federal firearms laws or regulations. Consult a lawyer, your local law enforcement, and/or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for further information regarding firearms laws and taxes in your area.]


It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the BATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

--------------------------------------------
So, while in the theoretical it is possible to own one if you already do, in reality, it is another story to actually do so. And that is just to own one. There's so much red tape involved in the transfer of ownership that I'm sure coming down with carpel tunnel by the time you have the gun, is of higher probability than approval of the transfer every going through. Further more:
-------
Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.

-----

As for schooling me. I'll be man enough to say i'm 1/8th schooled due to you being correct about the legality of "owning" a machine gun, if you happen to be over the age of 75 or so, in which case the machine gun is unreliable enough to be worthless and the recoil would probably knock ya on yer rear anyway.

O ya, and that's just federal law. I didn't delve into further state regulations which can be even more restrictive than federal laws. So maybe 1/16th schooled.

One final note. I didn't want to leave out that pretty much everyone you see on TV that does have a machine gun is part of some military history group the filming crew has one on loan from one, they're about the only ones that can get through the red tape. Them and private collectors. I met some guys in a military history group that was into WWII (I volunteered doing computer crap like add photos to the web site and keep up a database of the group's collection, they had all sorts of cool crap from including jeeps and fully functioning Lugers.) One of the members that was a WWII vet died and even they had a hard time getting all the paperwork through to transfer the ownership of the Luger after he died. As I remember they had to make the weapon non-operational for months while waiting for everything to go through. And this was a WWII historical society that did local parades and had actual WWII vets in it. Good F'ing luck trying to buy a fully functional, full auto, machine gun as a private citizen.

Really???

Well Citizens can get a Class three Machine gun License You proved yourself wrong on that one,as stated previously Machine Guns are Legal for civilians to own....How the hell else do you explain events like this....?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8o4r...eature=related

Yes there are Companies that display their Full Auto's at this shoot (and many others) and if you meet the proper requirements,pay the $200.00 tax stamp,jump through all the hoops,go through an inspection,further background check,then you have to fork over the couple thousand or so dollars for the weapon,and you have a Legal civilian owned machinegun.

I already addressed all that.

I know I haven't been very involved in this discussion, so forgive me a bit for butting in. ^_^

Honestly, if I met a private citizen who not only wanted to own a machine gun, but also did, then I would be much much more concerned about the private citizen than I ever am of any government agency.

Maybe that's naive on my part or whatever, but that's how I feel. [Then again, crazed fanatics of -any- kind tend to put me off, simply because they are so damned unpredictable.]

So says the Christian. But you do have a very valid point, and it just shows how fucking ridiculous these people's paranoia is. Not to mention the fetishism that is talking about the constitution like it's a fucking godsend.

Jillian: On the constitution thing, I think we're agreed. I'm glad for the freedoms we have in the U. S., but similar [or hell, many of the same] freedoms can be found in other countries under different kinds of governmental systems as well.

[That may sound unpatriotic of me, but whatever; I've never really been a fan of my own country.]

No no, that's precisely right. We're not saying George Bush was right in saying "it [the Constitution] is just a god damn piece of paper"
But if it's so perfect then the Bill of Rights wouldn't be a list of amendments they didn't give enough of a shit to include in the actual Constitution.
And if someone will argue for the Bill of Rights, well, what's so goddamned special about it? Precisely because it is imperfect it has included many more amendments throughout history, one of which we even canceled out.
Caring about its permanence more than its impositions, both good and bad, upon society, is just stupid.

You really have to separate out those who own machine guns, and t those who would want to own them for nostalgic reasons, from the nuts. Everyone I've been introduced to who owns a machine gun does so for historical purposes, the fact that they're fully operational is more of an authenticity thing. I'm sure there's a few out there that own machine guns for the sake of owning a raw killing machines, however, they keep their base feelings behind historical façade. That isn't to say you won't find loonies firing them off. The thing is that loonies like Deadman don't own them. They're just using one that a history buff has at a show.

Then there's those who want them. If they're not outright nuts then they fall into the history buff group. Either they're into machine guns for their various war period links or as a more general history of warfare/guns. However, if you ever encounter someone who wants a machine gun just on the fact that they're "f'ing cool as hell", and that's the least scary reason I've heard for them to want one, then they're crazy, and thus shouldn't be allowed to own any firearms, plain and simple.

Onyx: That's a good point; a history buff is an entirely different kind of collector. Those kinds are usually pretty cool folks. The ones that bother me, though, are the crazies who are a wee bit too eager to form militias.

If I heard someone say that about a machine gun, I'd have to ask them if they meant that in a fun, historical sense or in a scary, "I wanna join the army so I can kill lots of people" way.

That's something you really have to respect the framers for. No matter how you feel about what they did, or didn't include, or how they did, or didn't, set things up. At least they were smart enough to know they were to stupid to get it perfect and left things open to be modified.

Some rich tradesmen figured out that they should allow the government they imposed on everyone else to be able to be changed by popular demand or otherwise it won't look like a representative democracy?
These guys were geniuses!

Which is why they're pretty much the only ones that can get their hands on on them. I'm serious about the amount of red tape you have to go through. Deadman tries to make sound like there's just a matter of a background check, license and fee. It isn't like that at all. For EVERY transfer, no matter if you already have the licence or not, you still have to go through a lot of paperwork, including the signing off of a "chief law enforcement officer" of your area. There also has to be a reason of necessity for the transfer included in the paperwork, and "because I want one" isn't going to cut it. Granted, "because I'm a collector" could be used to skirt this requirement, however, the signing off of law enforcement is a check on this. So, if you're just some nut and not a real collector, good luck getting the sheriff or chief of police to sign off on the transfer of ownership.

And, as I said before, this is just federal regulation and doesn't cover any further regulations on the state level that could prohibit the ownership all together.

What you don't get Jill is the fact that the United States of America is supposed to be a Republic where the only laws are the Constitution and Bill Of Rights.

The United States is not a Democracy.

This is going to amuse me. Hey deadman, what is a republic?

A Republic is a State or Country that isn't led by a Monarch.

And that's totally dichotomous with a democracy, ergo your erroneous attempt at a correction?

From Webster's Online Dictionary:

Definition of Democracy.

Definition of Republic.

Honestly, it sounds like the U. S. government is a combination of both, from these definitions. Then again, I guess the dictionary could be incorrect in relation to how these terms are normally used..?

Kind of like how a platypus has a little of both a platypus and a mammal...?

I think the platypus is either proof that there is no god or proof that, if there is a god, it has one twisted sense of humour.

Being an atheist, I still see it backwards. I feel that religious people could make a compelling argument about God creating everything, as the weirdest animals are all in the corner of the world, implying he was bored by the sixth day.

I dunno, I think at this point it is time to quit feeding the troll. Sometimes it is fun to feed the troll. However, this troll is no fun to taunt. Anyway, weird creatures being everywhere are no proof of a deity being around and becoming bored, just further proof of the oddities that natural selection can produce. No offence Tam, I'm not saying my lack of faith is any more valid than your faith. Quite the opposite, as a divine creator still makes more sense than everything springing forth from nothing at this point in our understanding than everything just coming forth from nothing. There's still the issue of where the divine creator came from to deal with though. I still just fail to reconcile the divine creator with the lack of his presence in recorded history. Though, if you take into account the relative youth of the universe relative to us and his absence, it could make sense that he decided his being known in our presence in our being just made shit worse and decided it would be better to let us work crap out on our own.

After all, is coming to the divine, under threat of the sword, really coming to the divine, or just coming to the dictator? In the bible it is said man(woman, as well, to be correct) are given free will. Can one be truly given free will if we know the difference?

Also, if given an and/or proposition between hell or Jesus, is that a choice between the divine or damnation? After all, I help my fellow being, to the determinant to myself. Is that not, in and of itself divine? Is Jesus demanded to be divine? Or is Jesus demanded to be divine? I have to profession of belief in Jesus, nor the divine, yet I lead a more divine existence than most Christians than most I meet.

Anyway, being well under the influence of barbiturates, I'm sure my post has no bearing to this discussion. So I'll leave it at this and thank spell checking for not making more mistakes than I'm sure I've already made.

O ya, wasn't trying to imply that you were being a troll Godslayer. Was talking about Deadman. Sorry if it sounded that way.

I fail to see how sticking to my own threads is being a troll.

Being a troll would be going from one thread to another with the only goals being to get the post count up and piss off as many people as possible.

See how denigrating it feels to need to address unbased idiotic insult attempts?
How about you don't pay attention to it, refuse to be hypocritical and stop doing it yourself, and actually try to defend why the fuck you could possibly believe in the bullshit that is New World Order theories. I half expect you to end up saying you actually believe David Icke and his lizardman shit.

The Reason I believe in the New World Order "Bullshit" as you call it,is because too many things add up for any rational human being to deny the possibility when confronted with the evidence for 9-11-01 - to our current problems both monetarily,as well as with our infrastructure.

George Sr. talked about "A New World Order" and tried to sell the American public on how "Great it WILL be" the date on that little gem was 9-11-'91.

Ten years Later to the fucking day the World Trade Center Towers as well as the Pentagon are attacked and under which Administration? Bush Jr.


That Administration setup a piece of shit "Feel good" legislation known as the Patriot Act,under that the Federal Government gained more control.

The Patriot Act laid the ground work for what we are faced with now,and that is a very possible complete take over,unless people realize what they are seeing take form is not a Utopia,but a grim Dystopia.

Judge and insult all you want.

We'll see who was telling the truth and who wasn't after this comes to a head,I just hope some of us are left alive to talk about it.

So you're telling us that:

1 - A ridiculously powerful elite that, like the idiot in your video believes, is old enough to have actually started both modern capitalism AND modern communism with the same goals of global control needed to set up an explosion in two towers a hundred years into the future to have an excuse to attack one country.

2- George Bush's talk of New World Order CLEARLY proves your batshit crazy theories of New World Order, just like us Goths are CLEARLY the guys that sacked Rome.

3- George Bush planned exactly when to reveal the idea of New World Order and waited EXACTLY ten years until his son became president and America wasn't as strong to finally unleash his plan.

4- Noam Chomsky, instead of being right by saying just how helpless governments were to 9/11 but how elated they became when they realize they could increase their power by appealing for further national security, Chomsky is merely another of the authoritarian elite who gave this perfectly reasonable explanation for the Patriot Act to uncover how the government planned it all.

5- The momentum that is taking us to "not a Utopia,but a grim Dystopia" [sic] is because of the fault of a handful of shady characters, possibly lizardlike in nature, and certainly not the fault of the system itself. A powerful government doesn't clearly care about perpetuating its own power at the expense of the people. No sir, IN FACT we do need a government but it should be a government based on what I like because I know the TRUTH.

At what point did I mention Lizard men or Norm Chromsky?

The Lizard Men was just a shot at the New World Order theories overall, and Noam Chomsky I mention because of his much more reasonable alternative to government reaction to 9/11 and will keep bringing it up until you directly address it and Jones's assertion of Chomsky.

I don't know what Jone's feelings are pertaining to Chromsky and that isn't much if any concern to me,quite frankly it isn't a blip on my fucking radar screen.

I think this statement alone is very telling of your character and leads me to the following two questions...

Do you think a One World Government is a Good Idea Jillian?

And

What type of One World Government do you think would work the best?

Feel free to explain why it would or wouldn't work.

Not until you tell me why it's "very telling of [my] character" because if you said that because of why I think you said it, then it's another exemplification that you are a fucking idiot.

If you'll go back and look through the posts on the last few pages,you won't find any attempt by me to try and force any type of government on anyone,I tried to inform people on here of what type of Government this country was founded as.

I made mention of protecting the Constitution and why it and the Bill Of Rights are still relevant,even though the document was written 200 years ago.

You were the one Projecting your views and Ideals onto me as if they were my own.

I merely pointed that fact out.

Will you answer the questions Jillian?

My point exactly. Your ideals are stupid, ritualistic, and absolutist.
No projection anywhere, Anyone else but you would laugh at your attempt to claim that what you want is for everyone to have their own autonomy after all your opinions you have voiced.

Show me where I said or made any mention that people should not do as they pleased as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others (Example Of Rights Infringements:Robbery,R*pe,Murder,Child Molestation,home invasion,ect)?

You still haven't answered the other questions Jill.

How about the fact that you keep talking about Truth and how I, a perfect example of the person that will disagree with you to the point of not respecting you, is not simply a dick, but a person that is actually 'in the mist.'
To any sensible person it clearly shows that you fucking believe there's a concrete answer, and you have it, and people that don't listen to your Truth are against you.
This is also my argument with your bullshit idea that there actually IS an elite group trying to murder us (and as I mentioned you are one of the selected few who know this Truth) which completely cops out the system and places the blame on some literally evil people that just like suffering. Once again, what you're saying is OH NO THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM, IT'S JUST THE PEOPLE RUNNING IT, but it wouldn't be this bad and the selected few wouldn't want to kill half of the world if they weren't there; if maybe instead they were replaced by the selected few that, like you, know the Truth, huh?
You might have seen how I actually answered your questions before you asked them, but you were too quick to say "ah! I can attempt another unbased insult because this looks like projection! Fuck the argument, I'll attack the persona again. Your move Alan!"

What makes my Ideals stupid Jill?

In all of your...19 or so years you must be so well versed in the workings of the world.

And

If the Constitution is so flawed how would you change it?