Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
  • Announcements

    • Greg

      New Members Please Read   10/07/2016

      New forum members should review the Forum Rules and GuidelinesĀ before contributing to the discussion forums.

H10

Members
  • Content count

    154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About H10

  • Rank
    Full Member
  1. Well the last case I can remember with gun rights going to the supreme court saw washington d.c. gun control struck down as anti-constitutional. At that time you had a swing vote and 4-4. But even with a liberal majority like in the 60s, I didn't see it get struck down. The US was not suppose to even have a standing army when the 2nd amendment was drafted. The militia was not suppose to come from the national government, probably not even the states. Most likely they envisioned the militia's coming from the local community. Look at how it is worded, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." its not the right of the state or the national or federal government. It would be presumed naturally a government can have militias and arms. So people here has to mean individuals. Lets be realistic, back in the 1770s most guns were 1 shot a minute and highly inaccurate unless you had like a column of 30 people shooting all at once. Further the US government was flat broke and didn't want to pay to field a national army, so it was easier to just say everyone protect yourself. It wasn't like Canada where the RCMP and army and police settling an area. In the US, they encouraged settlers to just go take land, use their guns to defend themselves from Indians.
  2. Liberal gun grabbers just want to grab up all the guns. Shame on you, this is the right og all americans.
  3. I agree, the original intent was for arms which could be used to launch a military assault against modern armies, we need to expand the understanding to include other small arms like rocket launchers, anti- aircraft weapons, tanks, military bomber planes and so on. If the right to free speech includes the most complex printing presses and manufacturing machines then the right to bear arms should include the most complex weapons.
  4. I think he should sabotage the PC party. He brought that party from the ash heep, was winning in the polls, then they all turned against him and tried to kick him out the caucaus weeks before an election. He should definetly run, win, fire vic fedelli and the conservative elite and clean house and prepare for the next election. Brown can't let these scum get away with this. He has the popular support.
  5. He'll probably still win, because the other candidates are low iq and severely incompetent.
  6. Israel's proportionality

    I believe the word is colonized. There are tens of thousands of US troops and the Japanese cannot even have a real army.
  7. Israel's proportionality

    It is fair to say Israel is well on the path to being the next Nazi state, all they do is rant and rave about being a "Jewish" state and deporting refugees and calling them "infiltrators. They are currently trying to deport 60,000 refugees from the darfur and eritrea who'd face certain death upon return. At this point they have basically become the Nazi party.
  8. Brown shouldn't have resigned, he should have trumped it, deny everything, call the media liars, the accusers liars and proclaim his innocence while continuing to campaign. If they kicked him out, threaten to run a slate of candidates 3rd party.
  9. Separation ...... what if ?

    point being?
  10. Separation ...... what if ?

    no
  11. De-policing hurts us all

    Given that he shot a child in the back for according to him was at worse punching him in the face, complete overreaction and he should be in prison. If this is the way cops think, they should really de-police, shooting someone for walking in the street is sickening, maybe in Nazi Germany this is acceptable, not America.
  12. De-policing hurts us all

    There exist a rebuttable presumption once you have a police interaction with a racialized group that racism is the defining issue due to the history of racism in Canada. It really is a reverse onus because everyone is already presumed innocent until guilty, so the police have a lot ot prove to prove they aren't behaving racistly. Good, we want our police to stop and think about their conduct before they engage in them. If they see a suspicious character, we want police questioning what about this character is suspicious. Is it just their skin color, or is there an actual suspicious action that is possibly criminal occurring. This shows anti-racism training is working.
  13. Well technically, I don't think there is a central America. It is just a fabricated area to cut the mestitos out of north america.
  14. I already said my piece on this, I favor a conservative who will give tax holidays to normal Ontarians.
×