Should the 2nd Amendment be Repealed?

Should the 2nd Amendment be Repealed?

  • Yes

    Votes: 33 78.6%

  • No

    Votes: 9 21.4%
  • Total voters
    42
Liberty said:
Who's the chick screaming in your avatar?
Click to expand...
It's a Chinese woman condemned for a drug trafficing conviction. She's lost her appeal the the central Chinese court. In China, when you lose a death penalty appeal the penalty is carried out almost immeadiatly. The woman in the picture was shot about 20 minutes after that photo was taken.

What I find particularly chilling about it is the look of the lady police officer behind her who looks no more concerned then if she were serving a ham sandwich.
 
Last edited:
Liberty said:
Who's the chick screaming in your avatar?
Click to expand...

It's a picture of her as she was sentenced to death for trafficking marijuana. She was immediately executed afterward. I just believe that the incredible evil and undeniable atrocity that is the death penalty needs to be aired openly. Death penalty supporters should be treated like the monsters they are.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
It's a Chinese woman condemned for a drug trafficing conviction. She's lost her appeal the the central Chinese court. In China, when you lose a death penalty appeal the penalty is implemented almost immeadiatly. The woman in the picture was shot about 20 minutes after that photo was taken.
Click to expand...

I thought it was Malaysia.
 
MakeMeASandwichBitch said:
It's a picture of her as she was sentenced to death for trafficking marijuana. She was immediately executed afterward. I just believe that the incredible evil and undeniable atrocity that is the death penalty needs to be aired openly. Death penalty supporters should be treated like the monsters they are.
Click to expand...
Agreed good sir. The DP has no place in a civilized nation.
 
MakeMeASandwichBitch said:
It's a picture of her as she was sentenced to death for trafficking marijuana. She was immediately executed afterward. I just believe that the incredible evil and undeniable atrocity that is the death penalty needs to be aired openly. Death penalty supporters should be treated like the monsters they are.
Click to expand...

Another prohibition related death.

The people that make and support that law should be put on a slave farm to work the rest of their lives to support her family, and themselves.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
There is no such thing as a "quintessential libertarian position." Speaking the "Thank you Mr. Obvious" fact that all governments are coercive in nature hardly makes one "Libertarian". It makes one "objective". Nice try at co-opting though.
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree with Stupid Superstition.

Come out of the closet Mott.
 
DeMartMan said:
That is heart wrenching and oh so unnecessary. We don’t have to outlaw guns to stop these things. The 2nd Amendment does not preclude background checks, waiting days, licensing, registration and training. .
Click to expand...

Exactly how would background checks, waiting periods, licencing or registration have prevented the tragedy of the kids playing with an unsecured gun?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
There is no such thing as a "quintessential libertarian position." Speaking the "Thank you Mr. Obvious" fact that all governments are coercive in nature hardly makes one "Libertarian". It makes one "objective". Nice try at co-opting though.
Click to expand...
Oh no no. It most certainly IS the very essence of Libertarianism. Because that is the nature of governments, as you yourself have conceeded, we must keep government small and limited, so that any attempt to usurp power will be easy to deal with.

I know it's a hard pill for you to swallow Mott, but Libertarian blood flows deep in your veins.
 
Phag Alert:

Barbara Boxer, V For Vendetta, Southern Woman, yellow_fellow, waterrnark, Threadrater, President Sarah Palin, and HUGH G DIPSHITZ, all currently viewing this thread...
 
Absolutely, unequivocally not. The first two amendments are absolutely essential to a free society. The first amendment covers freedom of speech, to assure the right to criticize government and discuss alternate solutions than those the government supports. It also covers the right to a free press, for people cannot function freely unless they have free access to information.

And the 2nd Amendment was designed to assure that the people also retain the freedom to enforce themselves on government should the need arise. We can discuss all the touchy feely fineness of a free society being a peaceful society and how violence begets violence, etc. But in the end, all of human history shows one inescapable truth: violence, and the ability to wage violence, has more REAL political authority than any other factor. If we haven't the authority to back up our desires against a recalcitrant government, then we will, eventually, end up obedient to a tyranny. It is not by accident that all tyrannies control their people's access to firearms.

As to when it is "right" to carry a firearm, that is just more fear mongering by the anti-gun twits. "they have the right to carry, but is it right to do so?" <--absurd. Why would it be wrong to do so? Because of others irrational fears? The mere presence of a firearms comprises zero danger to anyone else at the park or elsewhere. Those who intend harm with their firearm are not going to be stopped by neither societal customs nor laws - and that includes those idiot laws that tell us who may own what under what circumstances. The vast majority who have no ill intent for their firearm (or any other means of violence) are not the threat and it is stupid to assume that they are the ones who need to curb their behavior. Honest citizens bearing firearms do not do so out of fear, and anti-gun twits have no reasonable excuse to demand they refrain from doing so because of their irrational fears.
 
Last edited:
Good Luck said:
Absolutely, unequivocally not. The first two amendments are absolutely essential to a free society. The first amendment covers freedom of speech, to assure the right to criticize government and discuss alternate solutions than those the government supports. It also covers the right to a free press, for people cannot function freely unless they have free access to information.

And the 2nd Amendment was designed to assure that the people also retain the freedom to enforce themselves on government should the need arise. We can discuss all the touchy feely fineness of a free society being a peaceful society and how violence begets violence, etc. But in the end, all of human history shows one inescapable truth: violence, and the ability to wage violence, has more REAL political authority than any other factor. If we haven't the authority to back up our desires against a recalcitrant government, then we will, eventually, end up obedient to a tyranny. It is not by accident that all tyrannies control their people's access to firearms.

As to when it is "right" to carry a firearm, that is just more fear mongering by the anti-gun twits. "they have the right to carry, but is it right to do so?" <--absurd. Why would it be wrong to do so? Because of others irrational fears? The mere presence of a firearms comprises zero danger to anyone else at the park or elsewhere. Those who intend harm with their firearm are not going to be stopped by neither societal customs nor laws - and that includes those idiot laws that tell us who may own what under what circumstances. The vast majority who have no ill intent for their firearm (or any other means of violence) are not the threat and it is stupid to assume that they are the ones who need to curb their behavior. Honest citizens bearing firearms do not do so out of fear, and anti-gun twits have no reasonable excuse to demand they refrain from doing so because of their irrational fears.
Click to expand...
:hand:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top