powered by Google  
  Track your favorite teams and players.
Free membership, Register Now
Already a member, Log In
 


Community
Newsletters | Help
Foget the 2nd amendment Sports News
  Home   Fantasy     NFL  |  MLB  |  NBA  |  NHL  |  College FB  |  College BK  |  Golf  |  More CBS College | High School | Mobile | Shop  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Horses Home
 Live Racing
 Youbet Update
 Carryovers
 Free Selections
 Contests
 U. of BET
 Message Board
 
 
 
 
 Cycling Home
 Results
 Standings
 Stages
 Teams
 Riders
 Message Board
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Arena Football
 Auto Racing
 Boxing
 CBS College Sports
 CBS Sports TV
 College Baseball
 College Hockey
 Collegiate Nationals
 Contests
 Fantasy FB Today
 Fantasy News
 Horse Racing
 Message Board
 MMA
 Olympics
 Poker
 Soccer
 SPiN
 Tennis
 Tour de France
 Video
 WNBA
 Women's Coll BK
 World Sports
 
 Site Index
 
 
 CBS College Sports
 Coll Sports Tonight
 Get CBS Coll Sports
 XXL - Watch Now
 Talent Bios
 Schedules
 School Sites
 
 
 Find your School
 Football Scoreboard
 Football Rankings
 Football Passing Leaders
Football Rushing Leaders
Football Highlights
Volleyball Rankings
MaxPreps High School Sports
MaxPreps TV Schedule
 
 
 Featured Application
 Mobile Web
 Alerts
 Applications
 Video
 
 
 Home
 NFL
 NCAA
 MLB
 NBA
 NHL
 Fantasy
 
Community Home | My Profile | My Blog | Groups | My Settings | My Account | Member Search | Blog Search | About Community
 

Foget the 2nd amendment


View Message Board ·  Return to StoryViews:      


Foget the 2nd amendment
-
Level:Amateur
Since:May 6, 2008

May 6, 2008 1:48 pm

"COnsidering that the amendment was made over 200 years ago when the sountry fought with muskets and cannons, maybe we should just get rid of it in genral.  I for one dont own a gun and dont think that i would be safer if i did."

Get rid of it?  ALL the amendments in the Bill of Rights are 200+ years old.  How about we get rid of the whole deal.  We'd be so much safer if criminals didn't have fourth amendment rights, and if they couldn's "take the fifth" then we could force testimony from 'em easier.

And the BEST thing is there's be no first amendment rights so we wouldn't have to read pesky editorials we disagree with, and then government could force us all into a church and turn us into angels.

 

Doesn't that sound terrific????

 

If you do you're a knaif! 


Foget the 2nd amendment
-
Reputation:98
Level:Superstar
Since:Nov 23, 2007

May 6, 2008 2:04 pm
look all i am saying is that if there are less guns, there are less murders.  I put this post up to see where everyone stands and to start a nice little argument over the toruble of guns in this country.  Other countries have gun laws and they have far less gun violence.  If you own a gun, good for you, i hope you know how to use it.  But if someone breaks into your house you cant use it anyway because you will get charged just as quickly as the other guy will.  Just because you own the gun doesnt give you the right to use it.  I'm not saying that u should trash the whole constituion but maybe you should tweak a few things.  This country would be far more less of a dangerous place if dumb people didnt bare firearms.  and teaching kids how to use guns at a young age is also a problem.  How many more school kids need to be murdered before you people realize that we have a problem in this country.  you dont need to own an assaualt rifle.  Or a foreign hand cannon. 

Foget the 2nd amendment
-
Reputation:91
Level:All-Star
Since:Sep 28, 2006

May 6, 2008 2:35 pm

You should really do some research before you spout nonsense. England had a low murder rate BEFORE they instituted gun control. The Swiss have 7 million people with hundreds of thousands of fully automatic rifles in their homes (as do Israelis) and both countries have very low homicide rates.

The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European country's total murder rates. On the other hand, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Mexico have non-gun murder rates in excess of our total murder rate.

All from http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_
gcgvinco.html
but there are many studies that attempt to understand the relationship of guns and gun control to homicides and none can clearly link them.

On the surface it SEEMS like it should correlate but there are many many other factors.

Bottom line is your comments have absolutely no basis in fact and are therefore irrelevant.


Foget the 2nd amendment
-
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
Since:Jan 1, 2007

May 6, 2008 3:27 pm
thebirds, I love your follow up post retreating off your original stance because it has been proven ignorant.  Whats even funnier is this post is just as full of bs as the first. 

I WANT TO MAKE SOMETHING VERY CLEAR ABOUT THIS "ARMOR PIERCING HANDGUN"  The caliber of this handgun has nothing to do with being armor piercing.  It is a very small bullet that travels at high speed.   The ammo that is available to the public is not armor piercing, its actually quite the opposite.  It tends to come apart on impact and does not penetrate very far. It leaves a big entrance wound and thats about it.  Armor piercing ammo is made for this gun but is not available to the public just like many , many, other calibers.   I have a lot of guns and among them a .357 Colt Python revolver made in early '50s.  They made armor piercing ammo for that gun as well back up until the 80s.  Some of it is still floating around here and there.  Should we call that revolver a "COP KILLER" too??  What a ridiculous article that is misleading.   Furthermore, just about any big game rifle ammo can shoot through a "bullet proof" vest anyway. 

Foget the 2nd amendment
-
Reputation:29
Level:Rookie
Since:May 6, 2008

May 9, 2008 7:26 pm

BHDAU1-

That's why they are actually called bullet resistant and why rifle plate inserts are offered.  You keep spouting that armor piercing ammo isn't available to the public...why?  You know any criminal can get it.  Should I post my recent email for this thread too?

Don't be a gun home, kool aid drinker.  I have no problems with guns but do with people.  The problem is those people that I have a problem with get access to guns that aren't TRULY necessary and it's bad news.

So, should I expect you to insult my bravery again in this thread?  If so, remember I'm the one who actually goes out on the street against these guns every day I work, not you!


Foget the 2nd amendment
-
Reputation:97
Level:Superstar
Since:Oct 2, 2007

May 11, 2008 4:03 am
crzy jo,

Fat Hobbits does NOT agree with you. He was being sarcastic....

You know, folks, the Second Amendment isn't going anywhere, which I think is a good thing. I believe in the adage: "That government functions best that is most accountable to the people." That means local and state is better than federal, and federal elected is better than federal bureaucrat. In Waco, TX in 1993 our federal bureaucracy illegally used military weapons against private citizens, ironically enough, in an effort to deprive those citizens of their potentially illegal automatic weapons. (Too bad the local sheriff was not consulted to substantiate those allegations.) More people died during that "law enforcement action" than in all the school shootings Freeman cited in his social commentary--combined.

The most amazing thing to me is that Dolphin Jim and the originator of this thread actually believe that politicians today could actually hope to replace the 2nd A with something better. Who are you guys kidding? Politicians today don't do anything for the good of the country--anything they do is to get more people to vote for them to keep them in their cushy jobs. And you know what? That's what we expect of them. Name a politician today who actually sacrifices to serve his country. If Congress doesn't do anything for the next 4 years, I would initially say that's a good thing. Then I would realize that the ultimate power to create new policies would then be assumed by the bureaucrats who run the various land-grubbing, power-mad agencies who we can't vote out, so I guess that I would rather Congress do something. Preferably something smart, but I doubt I'll ever see that again.

No, I don't believe the Founding Fathers were Prophets --not profits-- who foresaw everything that was going to happen 200 years into the future, but they knew they were creating a special document (try reading The Federalist Papers, the best commentary on the section of the Constitution called The Bill of Rights. What's that? Can't understand the vocabulary words used in The Federalist Papers? And you're trying to argue Constitutional importance on these boards? stay there a minute, I'll go get my high schooler to explain the big words to you. We home school a