Fox T-Bird/Cougar Forums  

I think everyone should just go back to carrying swords.

So that freaks me out. Having some trouble with the fact that I don't have your opinion, or what? I expect to be the odd man out in this thread. I'm not an idiot.

I think everyone should just go back to carrying swords. At least then there would be some sort of skill involved.

Jcassity
I can’t believe local law enforcement gave you that much time.

I think everyone should just go back to carrying swords.  At least then there would be some sort of skill involved.

I'm gonna get a bazooka permit tomorrow.

Using the same "It's my God-given right" logic that right wingers usually use, it should be perfectly OK for everyone to store a nuclear weapon under his bed, or to stockpile bilogical weapons. Nuclear arms are arms, right? And the second amendment does not specify the type of arms, right? A .410 shotgun is exactly the same as an M16 is exactly the same as a Glock is exactly the same as a Blackhawk helicopter. They're all arms, right? Obviously when that amendment was written, it was written in the sense that everyone should have a handgun in their vest, an assault gun strapped to their shin, and a nuclear bomb hidden in the closet. I'm sure that's what the forefathers meant.

This is exactly what I meant in that other recent thread, about how people pick and choose the parts of the constitution they want to hear. They want anything that they agree with to be interpreted as broadly as possible (we all know the original writers of the document did not have machine guns in mind, but since they didn't specifically mention anything against machine guns they must be OK, right???). Meanwhile they want everything they don't agree with to be interpreted as narrowly as possible (equal rights couldn't possibly be extend to gays, could it? Did the forefathers really want to protect those dirty homoshaguals?)

...And as I mentioned in that other thread, BOTH sides are guilty of this manipulation of the wording of the constitution. Just like each religion (and on a finer note, eact religious person) is guilty of picking the parts of the bible that suit them while ignoring the parts that condemn them. This is why we don't see "God hates Adulterers" signs protesting soldiers' funerals. The bible clearly states that adultery is wrong, but it slips under the radar of religious folk because it's something they can see themselves doing (or indeed, already do). In the minds of these people it's OK to fvck around on your wife, as long as it's with a woman. The bible is pretty clear that this isn't true, but we'll just ignore that little bit because it might affect us.

And even the Catholic church itself is guilty of this "bending the rules" bit. Catholic tradition clearly states that marriage is until death, but if you pay a church enough they will "unmarry" you so you can marry someone else. I know this as fact because my brother married a catholic woman. He had been married before, so the church wasn't going to allow him to marry her (in their eyes, since divorce doesn't exist, he was still married). All was not lost, though: After paying the church a princly sum he was "unmarried", so that he could pay the church another princly sum to get remarried.

nuclear weapon under his bed, or to stockpile bilogical weapons. Nuclear arms are arms, right?

And the second amendment does not specify the type of arms, right? A .410 shotgun is exactly the same as an M16 is exactly the same as a Glock is exactly the same as a Blackhawk helicopter.

This is exactly what I meant in that other recent thread, about how people pick and choose the parts of the constitution they want to hear. They want anything that they agree with to be interpreted as broadly as possible (we all know the original writers of the document did not have machine guns in mind, but since they didn't specifically mention anything against machine guns they must be OK, right???). Meanwhile they want everything they don't agree with to be interpreted as narrowly as possible (equal rights couldn't possibly be extend to gays, could it? Did the forefathers really want to protect those dirty homoshaguals?)

Just like each religion (and on a finer note, eact religious person) is guilty of picking the parts of the bible that suit them while ignoring the parts that condemn them. This is why we don't see "God hates Adulterers" signs protesting soldiers' funerals. The bible clearly states that adultery is wrong, but it slips under the radar of religious folk because it's something they can see themselves doing (or indeed, already do). In the minds of these people it's OK to fvck around on your wife, as long as it's with a woman. The bible is pretty clear that this isn't true, but we'll just ignore that little bit because it might affect us. And even the Catholic church itself is guilty of this "bending the rules" bit. Catholic tradition clearly states that marriage is until death, but if you pay a church enough they will "unmarry" you so you can marry someone else. I know this as fact because my brother married a catholic woman. He had been married before, so the church wasn't going to allow him to marry her (in their eyes, since divorce doesn't exist, he was still married). All was not lost, though: After paying the church a princly sum he was "unmarried", so that he could pay the church another princly sum to get remarried.

religion is not as concrete as the documents that were established for our country.