Its not a double standard, if you want to get a bodyguard knock yourself out. You are trying to make me say that I think bodyguards are allowed to break the law, I don't. All I am saying is that Ted Kennedy is not your average citizen and needs extra protection, you don't.

8/11/2006 2:48:09 PM

Quote :

"Its not a double standard, if you want to get a bodyguard knock yourself out. You are trying to make me say that I think bodyguards are allowed to break the law, I don't. All I am saying is that Ted Kennedy is not your average citizen and needs extra protection, you don't. "

no what I am trying to say is that you think it's ok that some people are allowed protection when these people don't even live in the real world... it has nothing to do with bodyguards breaking the law... personally if someone wnats to have an armed bodyguard thats fine by me, but don't say I'm not allowed to do it while you can. Your life is not more valuable than my own,I don't care who you are... I have the right to be safe and live just as much as anyone else

and yeah Ted Kennedy is not your average citizen, he is a criminal and has committed more crimes than either you or I ever have or will.

his protection on capitol hill and at his office should suffice, I mean... it's safe enough that every other citizen doesn't have to be armed


http://www.gunowners.org/abcnews.mpg

mms://a568.v129484.c12948.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/568/12948/v0001/vod.ibsys.com/2005/0908/4946889.300k.wmv

[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 3:36 PM. Reason : see it's ok, we're safe]

8/11/2006 3:31:17 PM

I just said you are allowed to do it, can you not read? If guns are made illegal they will still have bodyguards, if those bodyguards break the law I think thats wrong. Some people in power are more important (not because their life is more valuable but because of their position and responsibilities) but that is not why it should be obvious why Ted Kennedy may need a bodyguard and you don't. The reason is because when someone has any celebrity status the crazies come out of the woodwork.

Ted Kennedy has had family asassinated because of crazies, and your off tangent remark just an example of how people might have a hardon for him.

It should be pretty obvious why Ted Kennedy needs a bodyguard and you don't. It has nothing to do with his life being more valued, it has all to do with his celebrity status and his position.

The fact that I have to explain something so simple makes me really scared that you are allowed to cary a weapon of any kind.

8/11/2006 3:38:36 PM

Quote :

"I just said you are allowed to do it, can you not read?"

i'm allowed to own handguns

thank god

Quote :

"The fact that I have to explain something so simple makes me really scared that you are allowed to cary a weapon of any kind."

always the cheap shots to convince yourself that you are right

8/11/2006 3:44:00 PM

what?

8/11/2006 3:45:11 PM

yeah...

because I don't feel Ted Kennedy's life is more valuable than my own, or anybody else for that matter you resort to that?

I'm the last person with a firearm you need to worry about

8/11/2006 3:47:10 PM

i'm glad the 2nd amendment holds more weight than smcrawff's personal opinions

8/11/2006 3:48:26 PM

But you understand now why its stupid to think that because your life is equally as valuable he doesn't need a bodyguard more than you, I just want to make sure I explained that well.

8/11/2006 3:55:50 PM

Quote :

"criminals do not follow laws "

so

every criminal

has broken every law?

...

8/11/2006 3:58:34 PM

thats fine that he has a bodyguard


what's not fine is him saying that the american public shouldn't own firearms while his bodyguard rides around strapped with an auto MP5 and handguns

8/11/2006 4:06:45 PM

Quote :

"You can not extend even the losest interpretation of the 2nd amendment to hand guns. They were clearly talking about long guns. "

ah ha

8/11/2006 4:07:44 PM

i prefer the winnest interpretation

8/11/2006 4:08:22 PM

clearly

8/11/2006 4:14:12 PM

Question: Why do we assume that the second amendment was talking only about long guns when even then handguns (pistols) existed, and so it's not like they couldn't imagine weapons getting smaller and more powerful.

Furthermore, if we're going to imterpret the wording within the context of the time, and thus declare that arms was only relevant to long guns, then we need to further extend that to the meaning of the word militia which at the time was a collection of local volunteers bringing their OWN weapons to become a defensive fighting force.

Therefore clearly the second amendment is designed to secure average citizens the right to bear arms.

8/11/2006 4:34:05 PM

Quote :

"Why do we assume that the second amendment was talking only about long guns when even then handguns (pistols) existed, and so it's not like they couldn't imagine weapons getting smaller and more powerful. "

the smart people don't assume that

but i've been asking that same question and gotten a bunch of bullshit answers

[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 4:35 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2006 4:35:03 PM

only inbred ignorant gun toting deer killing gun racking having rednecks think that


clearly

8/11/2006 4:36:11 PM

Because they haven't been educated enough to see the dangers of applying strict constructionism in other areas more dear to them?

8/11/2006 4:57:58 PM

Quote :

"what's not fine is him saying that the american public shouldn't own firearms while his bodyguard rides around strapped with an auto MP5 and handguns"

you are smrt

8/11/2006 5:38:43 PM

is his bodyguard a member of the american public?

simple question...don't overanalyze it...its a very simple question

8/11/2006 5:39:53 PM

what?

8/11/2006 5:45:28 PM

IS IT OR IS IT NOT OK FOR HIS BODYGUARDS TO HAVE FULLY AUTOMATIC SUBMACHINE GUNS AND HIGH CAPACITY HANDGUNS WHILE HE GETS ON TV AND TELLS THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT THEY SHOULDN'T POSSESS THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE DANGEROUS TO SOCIETY?

it's a simple question

Quote :

"Because they haven't been educated enough to see the dangers of applying strict constructionism in other areas more dear to them?"

I think you are afraid of the wrong people honestly... I'm not worried about the uneducated yokel that lives in Kinston legally purchasing any weapon he chooses, because as uneducated as he may be, he probably understands the repercussions of a crime with a firearm



[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 6:35 PM. Reason : OMFG THAT REDNECK POOR PERSON IN THE TRAILER PARK DOESN'T HAVE A COLLEGE EDUCATION, HE ISN'T FIT TO OWN A FIREARM]

[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 6:36 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2006 6:31:56 PM

Trained bodyguards aren't the general public, Ted Kennedy isn't an average person, and his bodyguards shouldn't be carrying weapons illegally, and I've already explained this.

8/11/2006 7:55:45 PM

we shouldnt outlaw murder because murders dont follow the law

8/11/2006 9:04:36 PM

The laws aren't there for prevention as much as they are for the punishment of those who do it.

Anti-murder laws sure have stemmed the flow of murders! It's really a thing of the past.

8/11/2006 9:57:41 PM

the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon... or whatever it says.

I'm sorry, but that's pretty fuckin explicit, smcrdumbass. I mean really... To try and say that the 2nd doesn't apply to handguns is just plain stupid. You can't take the typical "living, breathing document" interpretation that the gun-hating french-living libies love to spout and then go on and say "the 2nd only applies to long guns..."

Quote :

"Ted Kennedy isn't an average person,"

You are right. He gets to kill people in rivers and get away with it and then go stammer around for a day or two before he remembers and tells the police

[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 11:49 PM. Reason : ]

8/11/2006 11:47:08 PM