Comments on: THE 2ND AMENDMENT

By: Aerliss

Aerliss — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:32:49 +0000

I still have to wonder why no one took up and used their rightfully owned arms to kick out Bush when he literally stole the election the first time round. Isn’t that what the 2nd Amendment is all about? But then I also have to wonder why no-one with an illegally owned arm has got round to shooting Gordon Brown yet.

Oh, do us a favour? Next time he visits the USA, put those guns to some use and shoot him.

By: Aerliss

Aerliss — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:26:12 +0000

Who the hell says kick-arse except ‘British’ people in American films? Srsly. Ass is a British term. Read some Shakespeare…

By: Ariana

Ariana — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 03:10:09 +0000

Amen!!!!

By: Shushnik

Shushnik — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:45:27 +0000

You’re correct. This isn’t worth continuing. You’re obviously more interested in beating up strawmen than facing my argument or facts.

Education is a wonderful thing. Look into attaining some.

By: Shushnik

Shushnik — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:43:57 +0000

You are correct, it’s not worth continuing. You keep establishing strawmen to attack instead of my points.

Education is a wonderful thing. Look into some.

By: paws4thot

paws4thot — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:20:49 +0000

This isn’t worth continuing; you clearly have no idea what the functions of the Supreme Court are. Even if you did, that does not mean that when they make a ruling on the constitution, that that ruling becomes fixed for evermore.

By: Shushnik

Shushnik — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:52:51 +0000

Where did I say I like or dislike what the supreme court ruled? I just pointed out that you’re wrong, not that I approve of one thing or another. You’re wrong because the supreme court is the final word as to interpretation of the constitution. It is their only function, and they are the final voice on constitutional law. If you seriously think yours, mine, or any other citizens interpretation trumps theirs you really should crack a few more books and educate yourself.

By: paws4thot

paws4thot — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:42:52 +0000

Intent – aim, purpose or design.

It’s quite possible for a court to misinterpret or re-interpret a point of law, particularly one that’s over 200 years old. It’s even possible for them to pervert the original intent of a law. Just because you happen to like a specific interpretation of a law doesn’t make it correct, or someone who has a different interpretation of the original text (which is why I went to Wikipedia; I wanted the original text, not a court’s interpretation of that text) to you, wrong.

By: Shushnik

Shushnik — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:31:28 +0000

Of course. Why check what the US Supreme court has ruled is the correct interpretation when you can reference Wiki! Everyone knows user-edited databases are more knowledgeable than the highest court in the land.

Seriously, chief, the supreme court says the 2nd amendment is an individual right as well as a state’s right to form militias. The people’s right to arm themselves is not dependent on the existance of a militia to which they owe allegiance. Sorry, try again.

By: James

James — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:45:34 +0000

FAIL

By: Bwggy

Bwggy — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:33:27 +0000

Not over-compensating, just matching…

By: Toolie

Toolie — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:11:48 +0000

Daniel. It is a gun. Please put it in your pocket. Then I can ask the question. Then we can debate the response.

By: paws4thot

paws4thot — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:37:02 +0000

From the Wikipedia article, it’s quite clear that the 2nd Amendment’s intent was to confer the right to own and be trained in the use of firearms for the purposes of forming an armed militia, and for game hunting.
That would seem to indicate that you may only own military grade weapons or hunting weapons (so no handguns except for members of a militia), and you may not “carry concealed” (except plain clothes law enforcement and possibly militia officers), and may only carry or use military grade for formal training.

By: Lwrdude

Lwrdude — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 09:35:04 +0000

FAIL.

not even close to the correct interpretation, it is the people like you who are trying to manipulate the interpretation to strip this right away from the people. Maybe you should look at the DC ruling and you should really do your homework on this amendment. It seems you do not understand or appreciate it at all.

By: turtle

turtle — Fri, 22 May 2009 20:17:03 +0000

Good post, Sir!

Not to forget that “keep and bear arms” may be a metaphor for “keeping an armed force in battle-ready state”, meaning that the weapons and the training of soldiers is constitutionally guaranteed. You never know with 18th century English…

By: turtle

turtle — Fri, 22 May 2009 20:08:21 +0000

Civilians.

Uhhhh. Really?

Didn’t you read “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State…”?

By: turtle

turtle — Fri, 22 May 2009 20:02:05 +0000

If (and only if) the 2nd Amendment applies to individual persons, it applies to all people who are legally staying in the U.S… (See the definition of the term “people” which was discussed in United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez).

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 22 May 2009 02:58:20 +0000

Well, if we are speaking strictly Constitutionally, the 2nd ammendment does not gurantee the right for every citizen to bare arms. It only gurantees the right of every citizen in a Militia to bare arms. Back then that did included mostly everybody, but now with a large army and no fronteir to protect, it mainly gives the right for the National Guard to Bare arms since they are the modern day version of the Militia. It was a Republican-controlled Supreme Court that upheld that the 2nd ammendment ment everybody, regardless if they belonged to a militia. They conveniently changed the meaning of the 2nd ammendment to make it say what they wanted it to say.

By: David W.

David W. — Thu, 21 May 2009 23:03:09 +0000

Godja – Good call!

By: bearer of knowledge

bearer of knowledge — Wed, 20 May 2009 01:44:19 +0000

Bill of rights- N. first ten added amendments to the US Constitution… (cut short for other bills of rights) it is in the bill of rights, and in the constitution…

By: Taker Park

Taker Park — Tue, 19 May 2009 03:06:13 +0000

Fail.

Daniel Craig is notoriously anti-gun, yet he doesn’t hesitate to make a buck off of a movie using them.

Boycott Daniel Craig

By: Renae

Renae — Mon, 18 May 2009 16:58:39 +0000

Damn. As MUCH as I HATE it when Europeans talk down about Americans when they haven’t been here, this comment, I believe…is the reason why.

THANK YOU…for proving their point…when a lot of us are trying to fight against it.

*head desk*

By: Mrs Craig

Mrs Craig — Sat, 16 May 2009 14:18:56 +0000

oh, get over it — search for the beauty – the hunkiness – the primal ‘oh my’ factor. This shot overwhelms any caption.

By: MissMaybe

MissMaybe — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:32:17 +0000

Whether it applies or not, this isn’t too funny.

By: Nicole

Nicole — Tue, 12 May 2009 12:51:09 +0000

Is it just me, or does Daniel Craig’s face look awkwardly photoshopped in this picture? I haven’t seen the new Bond movies, so I really have nothing to compare it to, but it just looks odd.

Oh, and FAIL. 2nd ammendment totally wouldn’t apply to James Bond. License to kill, foreign visitor…yaddayaddayadda… all I’m doing is repeating what’s been said.

By: Rikoche

Rikoche — Tue, 12 May 2009 09:18:22 +0000

Fail, fail, fail. I am British and part of the point of James Bond is that he, unlike practically everyone else not in military uniform in the United Kingdom, has a licence (not license, thank you very much) to kill. Anyone he damn well feels like.

And anyway, Roger Moore did the job for years and years, and he was literally terrified of guns. Watch some old Bond – you’ll rarely see his face in shot when he fires. Every single time, his eyes were shut.

By: you

you — Mon, 11 May 2009 23:26:45 +0000

Godja FTW.

By: BS

BS — Mon, 11 May 2009 22:20:42 +0000

Most Americans don’t even use it properly.

By: Forge

Forge — Mon, 11 May 2009 22:18:50 +0000

It’s not about the power of the gun but the precision of the shot. Bond could take that wimpy little popgun and put a bullet right in the center of your eyeball from a quarter mile out.

By: Kev

Kev — Mon, 11 May 2009 18:03:31 +0000

This one reminds me of how, sometimes, one of my friends will say “I plead the fifth!” when they don’t want to answer a question for whatever reason.

I never hesitate to point out that we can’t plead the fifth, we’re Canadian.

OUR constitution says that we have to politely ask people not to pry into our affairs, and then we’ll all go out for a beer and forget about it.

“Plead the 5th”. Pffft, half of them don’t even know what it means!

By: Kev

Kev — Mon, 11 May 2009 18:00:04 +0000

But it’s just not funny enough to compensate for the core ignorance!

it can be right, or it can be funny, or it can be both. This one is neither.

By: Kev

Kev — Mon, 11 May 2009 17:56:31 +0000

I guess you’ve never worked in retail

By: hehehe

hehehe — Mon, 11 May 2009 11:39:38 +0000

Right… Cause a long tube that ejects stuff when squeezed is in no way phallic.

Though win on the Truck one, I’m still waiting to see one of those things driving on the highway with even a smug of dirt on them.

By: lb

lb — Mon, 11 May 2009 08:07:21 +0000

On a totally unrelated to dumb-assery note, I am pretty sure that neither the SIS nor MI6 are actually a part of the M.O.D.

By: Godja

Godja — Mon, 11 May 2009 05:01:39 +0000

You’re aware more kids die every year of poisoning (swallowing detergent) or drowning than from accidental firearm discharges. I forgot the exact numbers but I remember drowning were 10 times higher than firearm accidents.
Yet, you don’t here people bitching about banning private swimming pools (like the ones in some backyards), right? You know why? Because:
a) Some politicians would love to gain more power but need to disarm the population first
b) Some politicians use the “I’ll reduce criminality” argument to get elected, for this reason they NEED criminality. And by taking away people’s means of self-defense they create more criminality (have a look at criminality stats in Washington DC after they banned firearms in the 80’s).
In either case, in order to get what they want those politicians make people believe owning guns is a bad thing. And average people like you and me believe them and follow them.
That is why people fight the right to own a firearm but don’t do anything about private swimming pools. Yet, banning swimming pools should be easy since nobody will claim swimming pools save lives.

By: Godja

Godja — Mon, 11 May 2009 04:46:35 +0000

Well if he doesn’t think gun owners are responsible people, then he must think they are either criminals or irresponsible James Bond wannabees.
However, after all the gun smugglers stopped in his movies, he should know criminals get illegal guns.
Therefore he believes gun owners are James Bond wannabees.
Therefore he should believe his movies promote guns.
Therefore he should stop making James Bond movies.

Oh, and it’s Ironic how James Bond kills most criminals and hardly makes prisoners (and if he does he usually executes them later). Gun owners rarely shoot people in a case of self-defense (drawing your gun is usually enough to scare muggers away). James Bond does it ALL THE TIME, even when it’s not self-defense.

DANIEL CRAIG FAIL!

By: yume18

yume18 — Sun, 10 May 2009 23:59:05 +0000

This is being taken too seriously…just laugh

By: Pinky

Pinky — Sun, 10 May 2009 23:27:51 +0000

That’s not a compensator, that’s a silencer! (giggles…)

By: Cymond

Cymond — Sun, 10 May 2009 20:50:49 +0000

I see now that you’re right. The rail under the barrel is a dead giveaway. I had it in my head that Craig’s Bond had gone back to the PPK so I didn’t really take a close look at the gun in the pic. It is a bit blurry. Maybe if we’re lucky he’ll pick up the new PPS in future films (but I doubt it).

By: Kelly

Kelly — Sun, 10 May 2009 20:50:26 +0000

don´t forget the right to kill your own family members by mistake.

By: RageyMcRage

RageyMcRage — Sun, 10 May 2009 20:36:10 +0000

I’m glad this made others so cross as well – move it to the fail blog, or put it at the back of the internets to rot.

By: picgirl7

picgirl7 — Sun, 10 May 2009 14:57:17 +0000

ummmmm the bill of rights is IN the constitution. they are the first ten ammendments. so you, dear v guard and at like infinity fail. you are infinifail

By: AC

AC — Sun, 10 May 2009 14:13:09 +0000

He can be as right as he likes, I wasn’t contesting that, but he’s still un-cheery and grumpy and it seems to have spread to you…
Have some joyousness, grumpy Eric…

By: Whir

Whir — Sun, 10 May 2009 11:58:25 +0000

At the risk of sounding like a gun nut, that’s a Walther P99 which can be chambered for either .40S&W or 9mm rounds. It’s larger, and more powerful than the old PPK.
It’s still only a handgun with a silencer though, I agree it’s hardly overcompensating. The whole thing would probably come to 12 or so inches.

Agree that this post is total fail.

By: Zok

Zok — Sun, 10 May 2009 10:11:35 +0000

We have to right to bear arms, arm bears and all points in between.

By: Zabimaru

Zabimaru — Sun, 10 May 2009 09:31:00 +0000

You are aware that there’s a difference between movies and reality right? Right? I love guns in movies and other entertainment, but I hate guns in real life. That is not inconsistent in any way. In real life we can kill people with guns, in movies we pretend they kill people – there’s a huge difference.

So no, I really don’t see your point about an actor using guns in movies and being against gun-ownership.

But as for your other point, I thought about that too as soon as I saw the picture. He usually has tiny guns. I’ve never thought of a Bond as overcompensating with guns. Cars are a different matter though.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sun, 10 May 2009 07:49:31 +0000

Looked up the Bill of Rights to see what document it’s in yet? Since Frank was right at all your failings, and thus I’m dubious of your abilities, I’ll point it out- it’s part of the constitution, and hence all that spiel Frank went into and I’ll summarize by saying this: FAIL.

By: Cymond

Cymond — Sun, 10 May 2009 06:28:38 +0000

Daniel Craig sure does make a lot of money swinging guns around for a guy who openly talks about disliking guns & gun-ownership.

PS – Using a silencer is NOT overcompensating. That’s a Walther PPK. They’re typically chambered in 32acp, or more recently 380 auto. Those are very weak bullets in case you don’t know. And it isn’t a big gun, it’s a tiny little pocket pistol!

By: forge

forge — Sun, 10 May 2009 05:40:33 +0000

HOW IN THE NAME OF HELL DOES CRAP LIKE THIS GET VOTED ONTO THE MAIN SITE????

By: forge

forge — Sun, 10 May 2009 05:39:07 +0000

And what exactly is the Bill of Rights? Go look it up right now, then come back here and tell us all what an amazing moron you are.