(January 22, 2016 at 8:20 am)Losty Wrote:
Guns don't kill people, bullet wounds kill people.

Cigarettes are pretty awesome though.

(January 22, 2016 at 8:20 am)Losty Wrote:
Guns don't kill people, bullet wounds kill people.

X-FILES! The first love of my life...

(January 22, 2016 at 10:04 am)Vic Wrote:

(January 22, 2016 at 7:44 am)Losty Wrote: You know what I fucking love? This thread. It's like heaven for girls like me. I just post the memes and watch the results. I laugh every teim.

Hehe is that so wrong of me? The thread is supposed to be for memes. Yet no one else seemed to be posting any memes. I posted memes and watched people get all upset over it which amused me. So I googled "offensive gun control memes" people get so upset over a meme. I don't believe any of this crap, I'm just having fun.

(January 22, 2016 at 8:20 am)Losty Wrote:
Guns don't kill people, bullet wounds kill people.

I know you're just in this for the lulz, but wouldn't a fairer comparison be "Cigarettes don't kill people, people kill themselves by smoking cigarettes"?

(January 22, 2016 at 2:12 pm)Aegon Wrote:

(January 22, 2016 at 8:20 am)Losty Wrote:
Guns don't kill people, bullet wounds kill people.

I know you're just in this for the lulz, but wouldn't a fairer comparison be "Cigarettes don't kill people, people kill themselves by smoking cigarettes"?

It depends on what point you're trying to prove. It's the difference, I think, between saying "gun don't kill people, people kill people" vs "guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people".

For an outsider who knows very little about the US constitution, I read the second amendment as basically saying, and I am probably very wrong here, that citizens are permitted to bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia in defense of the security of a free state.

Now, when I hear interviews on gun ownership in the US, the majority of citizens explain that they own guns for the purpose of self protection and hunting, not for defense of the state. I am wondering actually how many US citizens are members of a well regulated militia? From what I read and hear, I would hazard a guess and say the majority of US gun owners are not members of a militia group.

If this is right, could not the government indirectly regulate gun ownership by insisting every gun owner in the US comply with the second amendment and become a registered member of  a well regulated militia group and then, in turn, ensure the militia force is very well regulated ?

It seems pretty straight forward to me and i'm sure if some blow in from across the Pacific can think of this then it has already been considered and debated in the US.

 I'm wondering what the arguments for & against this strategy are or were.

Edit:  Sorry for no meme. Just had this thought in my head, didn't want to drag up an old thread and really didn't want to start a new one.

Penn Jillette says the militia referred to in the second amendment is the US governments armed forces of all stripes, and to provide a check and balance against that power, the people have a right to arms.

I can already imagine that take may not be popular, but rather than random condemnations, I guess I'd rather hear from English majors and authorities in 18th century grammar and idioms. Contemporary writings from that era on the topic would be nice too.

I'll be gobbsmacked !!

First time I've used a hide tag and it worked !!!

PRAYSE JEEBUS !!!

Reminiscing in this thread. Laughing mischievously.