Latest PSU headlines:

Page 24 of 27 FirstFirst ... 1424 ... LastLast
Results 576 to 600 of 652
  1. #576
    Supreme Veteran

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Age
    29
    Posts
    17,585
    Rep Power
    123
    Points
    168 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Cheers mate lol

    On topic:

    Now with the role Obama has to play in this situation is something he will lose

    The NRA have way to much influence and i think Obama does not understand how big


  2. #577
    Super Moderator
    Admartian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    New Zealand
    PSN ID
    admartian
    Age
    26
    Posts
    12,295
    Rep Power
    124
    Points
    30,555 (0 Banked)
    Items ArsenalVitaUser name styleSteamPS3 Slim
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Blacksite View Post
    I don't mind. I actually like how you guys say 'cheers' instead of 'thanks'.
    Haha no worries. Was just going off on those of what I saw.


    Oh and cheers.
    Quote Originally Posted by DeviousOne View Post
    Mate is the uk version of Bro....I call uk mates and us peepz bro's lmao
    Here in NZ, those two are pretty interchangeable. Probably due to the large Poly population.



    ON TOPIC:
    I think this whole Obama thing is just posturing. I don't think there's anyway he can do anything of significance against the 2nd Amendment.

  3. #578
    Supreme Veteran

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Age
    29
    Posts
    17,585
    Rep Power
    123
    Points
    168 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    True... He has little influence in changing anything major or small to the amendment...


    He can find common ground and then again, loopholes will be found
    Last edited by claud3; 12-20-2012 at 20:36.


  4. #579
    Dedicated Member
    Arimax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    PSN ID
    Netherlord
    Age
    24
    Posts
    1,066
    Rep Power
    60
    Points
    3,479 (0 Banked)
    So far they've come out the woodwork(way of saying coming out in support) of more guns. Some people have, and some idiots have gone off the deep end I think and blamed god, and lack of prayer, and everything else.

    Just not guns and while I realize guns aren't the only problem. They can make the problem worse.

    Plus with out overly easy access to guns in this day that's something we need to correct. In fact I'm pretty upset with my state of GA most guns used in killings have been said to come mostly from this state *sigh*.

  5. #580
    Forum Guru
    -Dj-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    PSN ID
    djpenny1
    Age
    24
    Posts
    3,514
    Rep Power
    67
    Points
    71,241 (302,302 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBettaKnow View Post
    I never have understood why people say things like that. It irks me to no end.

    Unless of course you were making a South Park reference.
    i'm a real Canadian people here talk like that

  6. #581
    Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    The state of Natural
    Posts
    146
    Rep Power
    10
    Points
    2,359 (0 Banked)
    I'm not qualified to say definatively, if the guy was or was not a nutcase. I only have my opinion. No offence to anyone from what is considered a third world country, but in some of those countries going into a village and killing man, woman, and child happens so that people that might hear about it in the U.S. don't really get a true grasp of the calibur of what is happening. It just seems that only when something terrible happens do they really get a better understanding as best as possible. A coworker and I were talking about this and he asked the question that really was kind of a scary thought. He said, "What if he didn't have a reason to do it?" "what if he just did it because he was evil?" "Evil people do exist in this world."

    What if everyone is so caught up with finding a reason or a cause, but in reality there was no real cause or reason. I saw on the news today that he had destroyed his computer and they were trying to figure out if they could reconstruct the hard drive to see if they could find anything on his computer. Since I have had a few hours to process that, I have to wonder why. I mean what point is there now to try to go through the trouble to find out if there was signs or evidence. It's too late now. If they want it to study for profiling then that's something I guess. It's kind of weird the guy would care enough to destroy his computer before doing what he did. Really makes you wonder.

    On a different note. It looks like "gun control" may be starting earlier than we think, weather you agree with it or not. I went to a local walmart today. I was in the sporting goods and I asked the guy if they were still going to carry AR-15 rifles. He immediately told me "No, we aren't going to have "those" anymore." Some places like walmert have started pulling them off the shelves. Just Last Friday, you could walk in there and get one with no problem. It's sad because I really don't think that's the answer. I asked the guy why they were getting rid of the rifles when they could be restricting the little small things under the guns (bullets), because without those it pretty much makes the guns useless. He didn't really know what to say. I couldn't blame him. What can you say?

  7. #582
    Dedicated Member
    Arimax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    PSN ID
    Netherlord
    Age
    24
    Posts
    1,066
    Rep Power
    60
    Points
    3,479 (0 Banked)
    Think it would become tougher to find the guns instead of the bullets though.

    As for what you were saying about the guy just being evil now that probably would be a shock cause everyone screaming about the mental health problem wouldn't really have much to stand on after that.

    Then you're left to ponder how could you stop someone like that regardless. I'll admit he would be one of those few to do whatever it takes to get what he needed, but even with that said with some fun of gun control. No matter how smart he may think he was he would have created a paper trail somewhere along the way.

  8. #583
    Veteran
    weskurtz81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Age
    33
    Posts
    4,834
    Rep Power
    71
    Points
    18,129 (0 Banked)
    The kid decided to commit this atrocity, then he picked the weapon, in this case it was a gun. Someone like this would have chosen some other weapon had a gun not been available, explosives maybe, a sword, who knows. Unfortunately, there's simply no way to prevent these types of things from happening, and no matter what type of "gun" ban you put into effect, these things won't go away.

    It honestly seems like it's a cultural problem here in the US, until that changes these types of things will happen one way or another.
    "you are both the product and the architect of your environment"


  9. #584
    Forum Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    31
    Posts
    8,269
    Rep Power
    97
    Points
    4,895 (0 Banked)
    It seems there's more than meets the eye. Honestly, I think something fishy is going on because there's too much coincidence behind the Connecticut shooter and the Colorado shooter.

    http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/12...libor-scandal/

    By the way, the LIBOR scandal is freaking HUGE and the mainstream media at large has been working very hard to keep it from the public.

  10. #585
    young rich and tasteless
    squirrelbo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London
    Age
    22
    Posts
    16,747
    Rep Power
    129
    Points
    14,772 (0 Banked)
    Items ChelseaPS3 Fat
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    The libor scandal could potentially cost billions. They managed to prove that UBS profited from it (something they didnt for barclays) so people could have lost their houses as a result of this
    "Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life"

    Quote Originally Posted by dc89 View Post
    If this makes time travel possible I'll go forward in time voluntarily to get my hands on CoD34 and Final Fantasy Versus XIII. They come out in the same year.
    Quote Originally Posted by Seahawkk View Post
    I dont think i could take a ****, 1. im not gay and 2 one time i stuck my finger in my butt to see how it felt and i wasn't very pleased with the experience

  11. #586
    Supreme Veteran

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Age
    29
    Posts
    17,585
    Rep Power
    123
    Points
    168 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Influence of the English Bill of Rights of 1689

    Main article: Bill of Rights 1689
    The right to have arms in English history is believed to have been regarded as a long-established natural right in English law, auxiliary to the natural and legally defensible rights to life.[9] The English Bill of Rights emerged from a tempestuous period in English politics during which two issues were major sources of conflict: the authority of the King to govern without the consent of Parliament and the role of Catholics in a country that was becoming ever more Protestant. Ultimately, the Catholic James II was overthrown in the Glorious Revolution, and his successors, the ProtestantsWilliam III and Mary II, accepted the conditions that were codified in the Bill. One of the issues the Bill resolved was the authority of the King to disarm its subjects, after James II had attempted to disarm many Protestants, and had argued with Parliament over his desire to maintain a standing (or permanent) army.[10] The bill states that it is acting to restore "ancient rights" trampled upon by James II, though some have argued that the English Bill of Rights created a new right to have arms, which developed out of a duty to have arms.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (200, the Supreme Court did not accept this view, remarking that the English right at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights was "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms.[12]
    The text of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 includes language protecting the right of Protestants against disarmament by the Crown. This do***ent states: "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law."[13] It also contained text that aspired to bind future Parliaments, though under English constitutional law no Parliament can bind any later Parliament.[14] Nevertheless, the English Bill of Rights remains an important constitutional do***ent, more for enumerating the rights of Parliament over the monarchy than for its clause concerning a right to have arms.
    The statement in the English Bill of Rights concerning the right to bear arms is often quoted only in the passage where it is written as above and not in its full context. In its full context it is clear that the bill was asserting the right of Protestant citizens not to be disarmed by the King without the consent of Parliament and was merely restoring rights to Protestants that the previous King briefly and unlawfully had removed. In its full context it reads:
    Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome (list of grievances including) ... by causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law, (Recital regarding the change of monarch) ... thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their ancient Rights and Liberties, Declare (list of rights including) ... That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.[13]
    The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, which both codify an existing right and do not create a new one, has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court.[15][16]
    The English Bill of Rights includes the proviso that arms must be as "allowed by law." This has been the case before and after the passage of the Bill. While it did not override earlier restrictions on the ownership of guns for hunting, it was written to preserve the hunting rights of the landed aristocracy and is subject to the parliamentary right to implicitly or explicitly repeal earlier enactments.[17]There is some difference of opinion as to how revolutionary the events of 1688-89 actually were, and several commentators make the point that the provisions of the English Bill of Rights did not represent new laws, but rather stated existing rights. Mark Thompson wrote that, apart from determining the succession, the English Bill of Rights did "little more than set forth certain points of existing laws and simply secured to Englishmen the rights of which they were already posessed [sic]."[18] Before and after the English Bill of Rights, the government could always disarm any individual or class of individuals it considered dangerous to the peace of the realm.[19] In 1765,William Blackstone wrote the Commentaries on the Laws of England describing the right to have arms in England during the 18th century as a natural right of the subject that was "also declared" in the English Bill of Rights.[20][21]
    The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.[22]
    Although there is little doubt that the writers of the Second Amendment were heavily influenced by the English Bill of Rights, it is a matter of interpretation as to whether they were intent on preserving the power to regulate arms to the states over the federal government (as the English Parliament had reserved for itself against the monarch) or whether it was intent on creating a new right akin to the right of others written into the Constitution (as the Supreme Court recently decided). Some in the U.S. have preferred the "rights" argument arguing that the English Bill of Rights had granted a right. The need to have arms for self-defence was not really in question. Peoples all around the world since time immemorial had armed themselves for the protection of themselves and others, and as organized nations began to appear these arrangements had been extended to the protection of the state.[23] Without a regular army and police force (which in England was not established until 1829), it had been the duty of certain men to keep watch and ward at night and to confront and capture suspicious persons. Every subject had an obligation to protect the king's peace and assist in the suppression of riots
    Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution


    Ideals that helped to inspire the Second Amendment in part are symbolized by theminutemen.[25]

    In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]

    • deterring tyrannical government;[34]
    • repelling invasion;
    • suppressing insurrection;
    • facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
    • participating in law enforcement;
    • enabling the people to organize a militia system.

    Which of these considerations they thought were most important, which of these considerations they were most alarmed about, and the extent to which each of these considerations ultimately found expression in the Second Amendment is disputed. Some of these purposes were explicitly mentioned in early state constitutions; for example, thePennsylvania Constitution of 1776 asserted that, "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state".[35]
    During the 1760s pre-revolutionary period, the established colonial militia was composed of colonists, which included a number who were loyal to British imperial rule. As defiance and opposition to the British rule developed, a distrust of these Loyalists in the militia became widespread among the colonists, known as Patriots, who favored independence from British rule. As a result, these Patriots established independent colonial legislatures to create their own militias that excluded the Loyalists and then sought out to stock up independent armories for their militias. In response to this arms build up, the British Parliament established an embargo on firearms, parts and ammunition on the American colonies.[36]
    British and Loyalist efforts to disarm the colonial Patriot militia armories in the early phases of the American Revolution resulted in the Patriot colonists protesting by citing the Declaration of Rights, Blackstone's summary of the Declaration of Rights, their own militia laws and common law rights to self-defense.[37] While British policy in the early phases of the Revolution clearly aimed to prevent coordinated action by the Patriot militia, some have argued that there is no evidence that the British sought to restrict the traditional common law right of self-defense.[37] Patrick J. Charles disputes these claims citing similar disarming by the patriots and challenging those scholars' interpretation of Blackstone.[38]
    The right of the colonists to arms and rebellion against oppression was asserted, for example, in a pre-revolutionary newspaper editorial in 1769 Boston objecting to the British army suppression of colonial opposition to the Townshend Acts:
    Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature, and have been carried to such lengths, as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon its inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as prudent as it was legal: such violences are always to be apprehended from military troops, when quartered in the body of a populous city; but more especially so, when they are led to believe that they are become necessary to awe a spirit of rebellion, injuriously said to be existing therein. It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.[37]
    The armed forces that won the American Revolution consisted of the standing Continental Army created by the Continental Congress, together with various state and regional militia units. In opposition, the British forces consisted of a mixture of the standing British Army, Loyalist Militia and Hessian mercenaries. Following the Revolution, the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation. Federalists argued that this government had an unworkable division of power between Congress and the states, which caused military weakness, as the standing army was reduced to as few as 80 men.[39] They considered it to be bad that there was no effective federal military crackdown to an armed tax rebellion in western Massachusetts known as Shays' Rebellion.[40] Anti-federalists on the other hand took the side of limited government and sympathized with the rebels, many of whom were former Revolutionary War soldiers. Subsequently, the Philadelphia Convention proposed in 1787 to grant Congress exclusive power to raise and support a standing army and navy of unlimited size.[41][42] Anti-federalists objected to the shift of power from the states to the federal government, but as adoption of the Constitution became more and more likely, they shifted their strategy to establishing a bill of rights that would put some limits on federal power.[43]
    Modern scholars Thomas B. McAffee and Michael J. Quinlan have stated that James Madison "did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment; the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions."[44]In contrast, historian Jack Rakove suggests that Madison's intention in framing the Second Amendment was to provide assurances to moderate Anti-Federalists that the militias would not be disarmed.[45]
    One aspect of the gun control debate is the conflict between gun control laws and the right to rebel against unjust governments. Blackstone in his Commentaries alluded to this right to rebel as the natural right of resistance and self preservation, to be used only as a last resort, exercisable when "the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression".[46] Some believe that the framers of the Bill of Rights sought to balance not just political power, but also military power, between the people, the states and the nation,[47] as Alexander Hamilton explained in 1788:
    [I]f cir***stances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[,] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.[47][48]
    Some scholars have said that it is wrong to read a right of armed insurrection in the Second Amendment because clearly the founding fathers sought to place trust in the power of the ordered liberty of democratic government versus the anarchy of insurrectionists.[49][50]Other scholars, such as Glenn Reynolds, contend that the framers did believe in an individual right to armed insurrection. The latter scholars cite examples, such as the Declaration of Independence (describing in 1776 "the Right of the People to...institute new Government") and the New Hampshire Constitution (stating in 1784 that "nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind").[51]
    There was an ongoing debate in the 1780s about "the people" fighting governmental tyranny (as described by Anti-Federalists); or the risk of mob rule of "the people" (as described by the Federalists) related to the ongoing revolution in France.[52] A widespread fear, during the debates on the ratification of the Constitution, was the possibility of a military takeover of the states by the federal government, which could happen if the Congress passed laws prohibiting states from arming citizens,[53] or prohibiting citizens from arming themselves.[37] Though it has been argued that the states lost the power to arm their citizens when the power to arm the militia was transferred from the states to the federal government by Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, the individual right to arm was retained and strengthened by the Militia Act of 1792 and the similar act of 1795
    Link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution


  12. #587
    Home Theater Guru
    Wrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Age
    26
    Posts
    6,352
    Rep Power
    93
    Points
    30,711 (0 Banked)
    Items Dark SoulsDemons Souls CoverDark Souls Cover

  13. #588
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    7,816
    Rep Power
    109
    Points
    39,352 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Wrath View Post
    West Germany? Did that not stop existing as its own entity around 1990.

    Nice try though.

  14. #589
    Home Theater Guru
    Wrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Age
    26
    Posts
    6,352
    Rep Power
    93
    Points
    30,711 (0 Banked)
    Items Dark SoulsDemons Souls CoverDark Souls Cover
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    West Germany? Did that not stop existing as its own entity around 1990.

    Nice try though.
    To be honest we still have a high economic and cultural disparity between East and West Germany, hence the apparent distinction.

  15. #590
    The Heisman
    DayWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    31
    Posts
    13,132
    Rep Power
    99
    Points
    956 (9,287 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    at the NRA Presser... oh how far we've come!

    On another note... CodePink and the NRA are equally annoying. #fact

    By Theft
    I am stunned that some people appear to love their Playstation(1,2,3) or Xbox(360) more than I love the Denver Broncos.
    Trust me, it's sad

  16. #591
    Power Member
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    16,650
    Rep Power
    120
    Points
    34,288 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    West Germany? Did that not stop existing as its own entity around 1990.

    Nice try though.
    Even though it is probably 20+ years old it is still shockingly high if its true.
    This is a local shop for local people you have no business here!

  17. #592
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    7,816
    Rep Power
    109
    Points
    39,352 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by keefy View Post
    Even though it is probably 20+ years old it is still shockingly high if its true.
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    Find me one of those countries with comparable demographics to the US.

    I'll be waiting.

  18. #593
    Power Member
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    16,650
    Rep Power
    120
    Points
    34,288 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    What does that even mean?
    Last edited by keefy; 12-21-2012 at 20:21.
    This is a local shop for local people you have no business here!

  19. #594
    Supreme Veteran

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Age
    29
    Posts
    17,585
    Rep Power
    123
    Points
    168 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    NRA is bigger than the president and government... These guys know and that's why the conference made no sense


  20. #595
    Indoril Nerevar
    Rapture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Equestria
    Age
    21
    Posts
    14,978
    Rep Power
    128
    Points
    70,262 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Two well constructed and relevant videos:



  21. #596
    Supreme Veteran

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Age
    29
    Posts
    17,585
    Rep Power
    123
    Points
    168 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    The NRA are the last word on this, no matter how you spin it


  22. #597
    young rich and tasteless
    squirrelbo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London
    Age
    22
    Posts
    16,747
    Rep Power
    129
    Points
    14,772 (0 Banked)
    Items ChelseaPS3 Fat
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Wrath View Post
    To be honest we still have a high economic and cultural disparity between East and West Germany, hence the apparent distinction.
    Mist be old because the latest stats I saw for Japan was 2 people.

    Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
    "Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life"

    Quote Originally Posted by dc89 View Post
    If this makes time travel possible I'll go forward in time voluntarily to get my hands on CoD34 and Final Fantasy Versus XIII. They come out in the same year.
    Quote Originally Posted by Seahawkk View Post
    I dont think i could take a ****, 1. im not gay and 2 one time i stuck my finger in my butt to see how it felt and i wasn't very pleased with the experience

  23. #598
    Supreme Veteran

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Age
    29
    Posts
    17,585
    Rep Power
    123
    Points
    168 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Next year will be the year something will happen on this issue, either in favor of a ban or control on gun laws,, or nothing at all
    Last edited by claud3; 12-21-2012 at 21:01.


  24. #599
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    7,816
    Rep Power
    109
    Points
    39,352 (0 Banked)
    In the end it doesn't matter, because there is no comparable country regarding demographics.

  25. #600
    Elite Member
    reasonable_doubt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,743
    Rep Power
    64
    Points
    7,595 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by claud3 View Post
    Next year will be the year something will happen on this issue, either in favor of a ban or control on gun laws,, or nothing at all
    I can give up video game but I can't give up the 2nd Amendment. Why? cause the 2nd Amendment allow me to fight people who want to ban ANYTHING including violent video games if I see it as BULL****. Is the youth of this generation all gone mad? Don't u understand, U DON"T have BILLION of dollar and arms guard like these rich people have in term of power. All u have is the 2nd Amendment( a god given right, a right that is given to u at birth) how can u just give that up for video games or anything without hesitation.

    Do u think the world change cause we have iPad and smart phones? Do u think just because u have 2000 friends on Facebook the government can't do anything to u after they take away ur fire arms( the ability to defend urself)?

    Just look at those who try to "debate" Hitler in Nazi Germany after he banned guns.

  26. Likes Morganator wishes they had posted this first.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

PSU

Playstation Universe

Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Abstract Holdings International Ltd. prohibited.
Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

vBCredits II Deluxe v2.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2010-2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.