Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

To put it another way, rational people value their lives and will take steps to perversive it.

These people are not rational. NRA types say "Mass killings happen in gun-free zones." Yes, because those are public places where there are people to kill.

Not by a long-shot ----------- yet, but those that need legal representation will be getting the very very best money can buy  -------- until the legislation is eventually overturned, or they becomes meaningless, whichever comes first.

Does Avis rent armoured cars in the US? It seems advisable. Perhaps one with a rear gunner?

Quote from: string on 2014-01-19, 10:52:19

Does Avis rent armoured cars in the US? It seems advisable. Perhaps one with a rear gunner?

Do you have a problem with front mounted guns?

No - I think that would be an admirable choice of transport. I imagine that if you get hit by that gun it Hertz.

RARE WWII RUSSIAN 1944 T34-85 COMBAT TANK
This Unit was built in mid to late 1944 in the Omsk, Russia factory. Many historians have rated this the #1 tank of all time. The unit is original and complete at $100,000. We have the facilities and will; restore it for an additional $25,000 . However you may want to leave it as is.

PRICE (AS IS ) $100,000.00
PRICE ( fully restored ) $125,000.00

Is that the wagon of choice in Detroit mjm?

I am in the somewhat weird position of being pro-second amendment while at the same time being more than a little afraid of some of the pro-concealed carry crowd. I read some of what these guys write on various forums, and so help me they're some of the very last people who should be allowed to have guns. The reason is that in too many cases it's apparent that gun ownership has more to do with their manhood issues than it does with any legitimate need for protection, hunting, target shooting or any perceived threat a renegade government might provide. Before you have a conniption, Smiley-- I'm calling it the way I sees it, according to way too many posts on forums other than these D&D forums. I state again that way too many people want to carry because the gun seems to help them with their manhood issues-- which is one of the worst reasons imaginable for packing heat. Regrettable incidents have a way of happening when folk like that are armed, and they perceive they've been "slighted" in some way.

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2014-01-20, 01:38:26

I am in the somewhat weird position of being pro-second amendment while at the same time being more than a little afraid of some of the pro-concealed carry crowd. […]

Agreed. I'm pro-second amendment too. I just question the wisdom of allowing anyone that feels like to stroll into the school, courthouse, etc with a gun. I'm also for universal background checks, but don't suffer the delusion that they'll stop all criminals and lunatics from getting guns. […]

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-01-21, 01:41:35

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2014-01-20, 01:38:26

I am in the somewhat weird position of being pro-second amendment while at the same time being more than a little afraid of some of the pro-concealed carry crowd. […]

Agreed. I'm pro-second amendment too. I just question the wisdom of allowing anyone that feels like to stroll into the school, courthouse, etc with a gun. I'm also for universal background checks, but don't suffer the delusion that they'll stop all criminals and lunatics from getting guns. […]

Perhaps that's somewhat weird in the US, but it doesn't sound like a particularly weird position to me.

In other news, it's okay not to tell the truth because it's not lying.

Separation of church and state is a means to succinctly describe the much more specific language in the first amendment, and that's similar to the way it is in most Western nations. Afaik only France and Turkey have laws that use the words separation between church and state, but that is followed by further qualifications because on its own that doesn't suffice.

Also, again in just about every modern democracy—and I hope you're not one of those silly "the US is a republic, not a democracy" people—there is a tradition of interpretation called (legal) precedent. The details of course vary. In Dutch it's called legal peace; in English it's called stare decisis (to remain by the decided, or something along those lines). The result is much the same: courts are generally supposed to follow precedent unless there's a really good reason not to. To avoid setting a precedent, a court might also produce a brief (if that's the right word) that says it's a one-time-only exception. I don't know if the US has something similar in place, but I'm already straying from the point.

So, what's my point here? Even if your interpretation of the words were correct; even if saying government and church aren't allowed to be the same thing were somehow not separating them: legally speaking all that would matter is how it has been interpreted over the past two centuries. And in the rare case that interpretation does seem to differ wildly from what is written, it's probably most likely that some aspect of the language changed since.

Enough is enough! I am tired of these mother fscking snakes on this mother fscking plane!

GRAND RAPIDS, MI – Prompted by more school shootings and a local open-carrier’s desensitization trainings, Mayor George Heartwell criticized Congress for being too lax on guns and called on like-minded people to “arm yourselves with the righteousness of our position.”

I'll believe that when I don't hear it