Originally Posted by Jetblast

The shoot and drill set has all the answers. Look at the great credibility Fox News has.

The problem here is you can't be pumping out guns as a profitable product and banning them in places. People will get them. So the real answer here is guns are bad and they need to be seriously limited. So what you are really saying is guns weren't regulated or restricted enough in those crime ridden urban areas. There were too many guns made available as a sold product.

The best way to look at this is Texas. Texas has an archaic cowboy shoot-em ethic of gun tolerance that has lead to a "move and you're dead" culture. This culture produces the most executions without having any effect on crime either - yet I don't see these same neanderthals making that argument in that case. Texas has also produced a loose canon president who has currently mired this country in a disasterous war campaign that could be the beginning of the end of our nation. Need I say more?


I guess we'll ignore the part about the kids getting killed or shot.

Originally Posted by 36shadow

One that new a lot more about the bill of rights would not agree with you. Because in fact the bill of rights caused a big divide between the federalist and the anit-federalist from the moment Madison introduced it. The anti-federalist thought that by only listing certain rights that other rights would be taken away from citazens.

This is the main reason the 9th amendmant was put in the bill of rights. Or are you not familure with the 9th. It is in this and numerous papers written by the founders that prove that the bill of rights was written to give us specific rights per say. Rather it was to limit the govt. from taking these specific rights.

It is in fact a limiting thing not an empowering thing because one could not cover every single right a free citazen had in a single document.

The belief of the founders and the exact words of the 9th amendmant prove this to be so.

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

Clearly however, the 14th in many ways, trumped both the 9th and 10th, and indeed "gave" rights, as opposed to "limiting" power

Originally Posted by 36shadow

Yes but the 14th amendment should be legaly abolished. Any true constitutionalist would have to clearly agree do to the fact it was not ratified by 3/4 of the states Ohio and Jersey to be exact did not support it. They ignored the constitutional law wich is requiered to legaly amend the constitution. hmmmmmmmm

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

I would not want to live in an America without it.

There are those who advocate a 50 state patchwork where everyone is equal, but some are more equal then others..I am not one of them