Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
so 2 guns is better than one. Gotcha.
oh, by the way, i'm 33 and have never needed a gun. Just lucky?
|
I'd say yes, considering that the fbi last reported that a person stands a 1 in 4 chance of being a victim of violent crime.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 05 : 21 : 51-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halx
I certainly didn't say anything about your right to carry a gun. In fact, I believe I made the same point about equalizing, but in a different way. Now, does it matter what KIND of gun you have?
|
I was just trying to provide you an explanation over my statement that confused you. I didn't take it as you questioning my right to a gun or not.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 05 : 26 : 17-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
My life has nothing to do with a gun, so this argument doesn't apply to me.
|
I didn't mention 'gun' in this particular part. You said that the times changed and one part was gone, so the supreme court 'corrected' or reinterpreted that amendment. That is an explicit approval of having 9 judges determine your rights and their status.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
All logical fallacies are invalid, logically.
|
until it actually happens. The slippery slope is not a fallacy because some actions have precipitated that slope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Amendments change the Constitution. If 2/3 Congress proposes a new amendment which is ratified by 3/4 of the Senate, then that's now a part of the Constitution. Slavery was allowed originally in the Constitution. That right was removed via an Amendment.
|
once again, CHANGING the constitution and REINTERPRETING to keep with new times are two different things. and actually, THAT change didn't outlaw slavery because owning other people had been illegal for some time. What the 13th and 14th Amendment did was change the status of blacks to people instead of property and then qualify them with the same rights as whites.