Oregon Shooting: US Gun Deaths Compared To UK And Those Killed By Terrorism

First topic message reminder :

Thursday saw yet another mass shooting bring death, carnage and frustrated misery to the US as nine people were killed by a gunman on a college campus. Chris Harper-Mercer was carrying four guns when he opened fire on the grounds of Umpqua Community College before being shot dead himself by police.






A clearly exasperated Barack Obama once again addressed the nation to urge for tighter gun controls - something vigorously opposed by many in the US. While the debate continues, this chart lays bare the stark reality of the numbers of US citizens killed on US soil by guns compared to terrorism related deaths and gun deaths in the UK. Despite the disparity, the US continues to spend billions of dollars every year on counter-terrorism ($16bn in 2012) while the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) submitted a request for £1.2bn for 2016.

Obama expressed frustration that it was necessary for him to frequently console victims' families and that he was again calling for new gun control regulations."Somehow this has become routine," Obama said from the White House. "We've become numb to this. "We should politicise it," he said. "As I said each time we see one of these mass shooting, our thoughts and prayers are not enough. … It does not capture the heartache and grief and anger that we should feel."


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10/02/oregon-shooting-us-gun-deaths-uk_n_8232148.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! Yes, I'm human. We have emotions.

Are you a Vulcan?

I wish. lol

I have plenty of positive emotions, you should try learning to have some mate

Lol!

Emotions are neither positive or negative. It's how you react that assigns an emotion a polarity.

No wonder you have pent up problems.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


I wish. lol

I have plenty of positive emotions, you should try learning to have some mate

Lol!

Emotions are neither positive or negative. It's how you react that assigns an emotion a polarity.

No wonder you have pent up problems.

But its you that has the dislike and over a forum.
Me I would never have any real ill will towards you
It shows you are too emotional and do not know how to control them

Shame really

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol!

Emotions are neither positive or negative. It's how you react that assigns an emotion a polarity.

No wonder you have pent up problems.

But its you that has the dislike and over a forum.
Me I would never have any real ill will towards you
It shows you are too emotional and do not know how to control them

Shame really

Yes, I dislike sanctimonious, arrogant dicks. In any forum. Lol!

No ill will. Don't get paranoid again. I'm not going to do anything with you.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

But its you that has the dislike and over a forum.
Me I would never have any real ill will towards you
It shows you are too emotional and do not know how to control them

Shame really

Yes, I dislike sanctimonious, arrogant dicks. In any forum. Lol!

No ill will. Don't get paranoid again. I'm not going to do anything with you.

lol further emotions trying to big yourself up again and you wonder why I call you Mowgli and twiggy ha ha ha

Sit down, you are getting way too excited buddy

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Yes, I dislike sanctimonious, arrogant dicks. In any forum. Lol!

No ill will. Don't get paranoid again. I'm not going to do anything with you.

lol further emotions trying to big yourself up again and you wonder why I call you Mowgli and twiggy ha ha ha

Sit down, you are getting way too excited buddy

The only thing that is clear Didge: you are jealous over my mind and my body.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

lol further emotions trying to big yourself up again and you wonder why I call you Mowgli and twiggy ha ha ha

Sit down, you are getting way too excited buddy

The only thing that is clear Didge: you are jealous over my mind and my body.

As I have never seen it, that is illogical you dummy.

Seriously this is why you end up making yourself look a tit.
But again you need to big yourself up, ha ha ha
Seriously you are getting way too emotional now

Your avatar also indicates that you do have an inferiority complex.

That's the real reason.

Start working out and you may get in shape too. But stop being a hater. Not cool.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Your avatar also indicates that you do have an inferiority complex.

That's the real reason.

Start working out and you may get in shape too. But stop being a hater. Not cool.

PMSL, no it just shows I love Irish mythology, mainly because I am half Irish

Mate I am happy with how I look, the fact it plays on your mind, says many insecurities you have.

Sorry you feel that way, wish I could help lol

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Your avatar also indicates that you do have an inferiority complex.

That's the real reason.

Start working out and you may get in shape too. But stop being a hater. Not cool.

PMSL, no it just shows I love Irish mythology, mainly because I am half Irish

Mate I am happy with how I look, the fact it plays on your mind, says many insecurities you have.

Sorry you feel that way, wish I could help lol

How can you be half Irish is there's no such thing as "race"? Were you born half in Ireland and half elsewhere?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

PMSL, no it just shows I love Irish mythology, mainly because I am half Irish

Mate I am happy with how I look, the fact it plays on your mind, says many insecurities you have.

Sorry you feel that way, wish I could help lol

How can you be half Irish is there's no such thing as "race"? Were you born half in Ireland and half elsewhere?

First off I am half Irish ethnicity
Second for the tenth time, races biologically do not exist, they are a social construct to define groups of people.
Do you want me to dumb this down further so you can understand lol?

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How can you be half Irish is there's no such thing as "race"? Were you born half in Ireland and half elsewhere?

First off I am half Irish ethnicity
Second for the tenth time, races biologically do not exist, they are a social construct to define groups of people.
Do you want me to dumb this down further so you can understand lol?

What is "Irish ethnicity"? How does it manifest itself?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


First off I am half Irish ethnicity
Second for the tenth time, races biologically do not exist, they are a social construct to define groups of people.
Do you want me to dumb this down further so you can understand lol?

What is "Irish ethnicity"? How does it manifest itself?

ethnicity/ɛθˈnɪsɪti/
noun
the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.
[/tr]
[/table]

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What is "Irish ethnicity"? How does it manifest itself?

ethnicity/ɛθˈnɪsɪti/
noun
the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.
[/tr]
[/table]

So how does you being "half Irish" fall into that category? Did you half grow up there?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:



ethnicity/ɛθˈnɪsɪti/
noun
the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.
[/tr]
[/table]

So how does you being "half Irish" fall into that category? Did you half grow up there?

lol are you seriously that dumb?

Let me know when you have something intelligent to say

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So how does you being "half Irish" fall into that category? Did you half grow up there?

lol are you seriously that dumb?

Let me know when you have something intelligent to say

You mean you can't answer. You often say that national boundaries are unnatural, but it seems you don't apply that to Ireland.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


lol are you seriously that dumb?

Let me know when you have something intelligent to say

You mean you can't answer. You often say that national boundaries are unnatural, but it seems you don't apply that to Ireland.

No you are being an idiot

My mother is Irish, so what does that tell you?

Every summer we went to Ireland gorwing up, what does that tell you?



Like I say let me know when you have something intelligetnt to say, as if you say something idiotic again, do not be surprised if you do not get a response

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You mean you can't answer. You often say that national boundaries are unnatural, but it seems you don't apply that to Ireland.

No you are being an idiot

My mother is Irish, so what does that tell you?

Every summer we went to Ireland gorwing up, what does that tell you?



Like I say let me know when you have something intelligetnt to say, as if you say something idiotic again, do not be surprised if you do not get a response

It tells me that your mother is Irish. I'm curious as to how you think that Irishness is passed on via genes though.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What is "Irish ethnicity"? How does it manifest itself?

ethnicity/ɛθˈnɪsɪti/
noun
the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.
[/tr]
[/table]

My culture and social group is English.

Does that make me ethinically English?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:



ethnicity/ɛθˈnɪsɪti/
noun
the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.
[/tr]
[/table]

My culture and social group is English.  

Does that make me ethinically English?

You can define yourself in any capacity you want to as they are just concepts.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

nicko wrote:No problem didge, half the time he does not know what he,s talking about.

Is Dist. of Columbia v. Heller part of the constitution or an interpretation of the constitution.

The orginal drafters of the constitution wanted the people to defend themselves against the government. Not to give people unlimited rights to carry firearms.

Otherwise, why don't all states allow you to carry arms? D'UH!

In District of Colunbia v. Heller Justice Scalia goes through the history of the 2nd Amendment quite thoroughly.  He explains the terms "bear arms" and "carry arms", as well as the prefatory clause ("a well-regulated militia being necessary...") and concludes that the background of life at the founding was that everyone, always carried guns...and the Constitution should be read against that background.

However, he highlighted the fact that the Stuart/Hanoverian British had adopted a pattern of, not outlawing associations or groups, but confiscating their guns.  Thus, he argued that the prefatory clause was not a limitation on the reason for carrying guns, but essentially, it was a make-weight argument for why people should be able to carry guns; like: Oh yes, and the clincher is, they also need their guns for the militia.

It's a shaky argument.  I must say Scalia treats the Constitution as a casual, running dialogue, rather than a real code.  Perhaps that is his Italian background.  But, I am more convinced that the 2nd Amendment should be seen as a code, with every word in it given express meaning.  The Constitution is a document conferring express powers, not a running dialogue with your neighbor.  I believe the prefatory clause should be read as a limitation.

But as I say, you probably ain't gonna see it change in our lifetime.  And Zack, there is not much difference between the Constitution and opinions interpreting the Constitution.  There's always the debate of whether people who lived 300-years ago were smarter, or are we smarter today; should their writings count for more?  

It doesn't matter, since we are alive and they are not.  To distinguish between what the Constitution said, and interpretations of the Constitution, can only lead to a pyrrhic victory.  We can do whatever we want...and the contemporary interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court is the one that will prevail in the here and now.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:But as seen by winning in such cases they can which is why your point was incorrect, you would need to show where people have lost in such cases, hence why Nicko was right.

Then why doesn't it apply in all states?

It does. The right to bear arms was incorporated (made applicable to the states) in McDonld v. Chicago (2010).

terrorism??

its workplace violence isnt it??

Thank you Quill, for putting Zack right.

nicko wrote:Thank you Quill,  for putting Zack right.

It's still an interpretation of the constitution. Not part of it.

That was my point and it still stands.

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

My culture and social group is English.  

Does that make me ethinically English?

You can define yourself in any capacity you want to as they are just concepts.

So I can define myself as black South African then?

See how your logic turns into fallacy. lol!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

You can define yourself in any capacity you want to as they are just concepts.

So I can define myself as black South African then?

See how your logic turns into fallacy. lol!

Well are you Not British?
Tell me what race is British?
The concept of British did not exist until a few centuries ago and yet many people from different ethnicities can define themselves as British.
Are you saying they cannot?
If you want to claim you are South African, what is stopping you?
Black, is their just one ethnicity there?

I see you cannot admit you were wrong on the gun law

nicko wrote:Thank you Quill,  for putting Zack right.

He has an inability to admit he is wrong.

Amusing mind

Well, guys I'm not jumping all over Zack.  In fact, I'm in sympathy with his idea that the 2nd Amendment was not intended to block all gun control legislation.

But sympathy and reality are two different things.  We may as well face the fact that this is the way the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted by this Supreme Court.

The answer is a new Supreme Court.  Keep electing Democratic presidents, who appoint Supreme Court justices, and eventually we will get over this conservative blockage.  Most of these decisions have only been 5-4 anyway.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

You can define yourself in any capacity you want to as they are just concepts.

So I can define myself as black South African then?

See how your logic turns into fallacy. lol!

that depends on whether you own a spear or not

Original Quill wrote:Well, guys I'm not jumping all over Zack.  In fact, I'm in sympathy with his idea that the 2nd Amendment was not intended to block all gun control legislation.

But sympathy and reality are two different things.  We may as well face the fact that this is the way the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted by this Supreme Court.

The answer is a new Supreme Court.  Keep electing Democratic presidents, who appoint Supreme Court justices, and eventually we will get over this conservative blockage.  Most of these decisions have only been 5-4 anyway.

That's my point. It's an interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

So it can be changed, in my opinion.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

So I can define myself as black South African then?

See how your logic turns into fallacy. lol!

that depends on whether  you own a spear or not

Don't be racist.

https://youtu.be/7OZIOE6aMBk

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

So I can define myself as black South African then?

See how your logic turns into fallacy. lol!

Well are you Not British?
Tell me what race is British?
The concept of British did not exist until a few centuries ago and yet many people from different ethnicities can define themselves as British.
Are you saying they cannot?
If you want to claim you are South African, what is stopping you?
Black, is their just one ethnicity there?

I see you cannot admit you were wrong on the gun law

British is a legal nationality - it's not a race.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Well are you Not British?
Tell me what race is British?
The concept of British did not exist until a few centuries ago and yet many people from different ethnicities can define themselves as British.
Are you saying they cannot?
If you want to claim you are South African, what is stopping you?
Black, is their just one ethnicity there?

I see you cannot admit you were wrong on the gun law

British is a legal nationality - it's not a race.

Bravo, but is it a concept?

Yes

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

British is a legal nationality - it's not a race.

Bravo, but is it a concept?

Yes

No - there's nothing abstract about it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Bravo, but is it a concept?

Yes

No - there's nothing abstract about it.

Lol!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Bravo, but is it a concept?

Yes

No - there's nothing abstract about it.

\

So who was British before the unification, if its not a concept?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Well, guys I'm not jumping all over Zack.  In fact, I'm in sympathy with his idea that the 2nd Amendment was not intended to block all gun control legislation.

But sympathy and reality are two different things.  We may as well face the fact that this is the way the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted by this Supreme Court.

The answer is a new Supreme Court.  Keep electing Democratic presidents, who appoint Supreme Court justices, and eventually we will get over this conservative blockage.  Most of these decisions have only been 5-4 anyway.

That's my point. It's an interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

So it can be changed, in my opinion.

Little chance. As an example, Roe v. Wade, the decision legalizing abortion, was decided in 1973. Abortion is still the hottest ticket in the Republican dance, but in all this time they haven't been able to reverse Roe. And even now, when they have a majority on the Court.

There are no cases to pose the challenge.

The USA should just make an amendment to get rid of the 2nd amendment.

USA didn't even trust in god until Reagan
Constitution can be changed pretty easy in the USA compared to Australia and New Zealand. it is odd that Americans act like it is set in stone when clearly it is open to amendments.

Zack says "it can be changed" but it has not been changed at the moment. So I am correct. An apology would be nice, but I will not hold my breath.

veya_victaous wrote:The USA should just make an amendment to get rid of the 2nd amendment.

USA didn't even trust in god until Reagan
Constitution can be changed pretty easy in the USA compared to Australia and New Zealand. it is odd that Americans act like it is set in stone when clearly it is open to amendments.

Article V of the Constitution prescribes how an amendment can become a part of the Constitution. While there are two ways, only one has ever been used. All 27 Amendments have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

The other method of passing an amendment requires a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States. That Convention can propose as many amendments as it deems necessary. Those amendments must be approved by three-fourths of the states.

The actual wording of Article V is: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

http://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp

Easy?  Can you imagine getting three-quarters of the states to agree?  On gun control?  Massachusetts, New Jersey agreeing with Texas and Arizona on urban legislation?  Or the south agreeing with the north on civil rights?  

The last amendment was in 1992 and involved congressional pay, as boring a subject as you could have.

@quill
yep that's pretty easy

Chapter VIII specifies the procedures for amending the Constitution. Section 128 provides that constitutional amendments must be approved by a referendum. Successful amendment requires:

• an absolute majority in both houses of the federal parliament; and
  
• the approval in a referendum of the proposed amendment by a majority of electors nationwide, and a majority in a majority of states.
  

The referendum bill must be put to the people by the Governor-General between two and six months after passing parliament. After the constitutional amendment bill has passed both the parliamentary stage and the referendum, it then receives Royal Assent. When proclaimed, it will be in effect, and the wording of the Constitution will be changed.

You will notice we need the Queen to agree 

combined with mandatory voting
means only 8 have ever passed

veya_victaous wrote:@quill
yep that's pretty easy

Chapter VIII specifies the procedures for amending the Constitution. Section 128 provides that constitutional amendments must be approved by a referendum. Successful amendment requires:

• an absolute majority in both houses of the federal parliament; and
  
• the approval in a referendum of the proposed amendment by a majority of electors nationwide, and a majority in a majority of states.
  

The referendum bill must be put to the people by the Governor-General between two and six months after passing parliament. After the constitutional amendment bill has passed both the parliamentary stage and the referendum, it then receives Royal Assent. When proclaimed, it will be in effect, and the wording of the Constitution will be changed.

You will notice we need the Queen to agree 

combined with mandatory voting
means only 8 have ever passed

Oz has been around, what?  Since 1901?

When you consider the first 10 Amendments of the US were automatic, then it took a civil war to get the 13th, 14th and 15th passed.  That leaves only 12 Amendments after 1870, and 2 of those were wasted on alcohol.  So we've got 2 more Amendments, and 125 more years on OZ.

It's harder to pass them here.  And impossible, if you are talking about anything of actual political debate.  Besides, it's foolish to turn the amendment process into no more than a legislative function.  Pretty soon you'll have an amendment for celebrating Uncle Ed's birthday.

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:@quill
yep that's pretty easy

Chapter VIII specifies the procedures for amending the Constitution. Section 128 provides that constitutional amendments must be approved by a referendum. Successful amendment requires:

• an absolute majority in both houses of the federal parliament; and
  
• the approval in a referendum of the proposed amendment by a majority of electors nationwide, and a majority in a majority of states.
  

The referendum bill must be put to the people by the Governor-General between two and six months after passing parliament. After the constitutional amendment bill has passed both the parliamentary stage and the referendum, it then receives Royal Assent. When proclaimed, it will be in effect, and the wording of the Constitution will be changed.

You will notice we need the Queen to agree 

combined with mandatory voting
means only 8 have ever passed

Oz has been around, what?  Since 1901?

When you consider the first 10 Amendments of the US were automatic, then it took a civil war to get the 13th, 14th and 15th passed.  That leaves only 12 Amendments after 1870, and 2 of those were wasted on alcohol.  So we've got 2 more Amendments, and 125 more years on OZ.

It's harder to pass them here.  And impossible, if you are talking about anything of actual political debate.  Besides, it's foolish to turn the amendment process into no more than a legislative function.  Pretty soon you'll have an amendment for celebrating Uncle Ed's birthday.

All of ours (except maybe the abroiginals) have just been start up ones , So if you are going to knock 10 off your we have 1 "recognizing aboriginals as people", Zero chance Alcohol could even get close to referendum point Also Shows how easy it is to change that such a topic can become a amendment TWICE!, the only non administrative amendment was recognizing Aboriginals as humans! other points include USA has about 200 every 2 years in senate committees, Australia only 48 have gotten that far EVER. it is SO much harder to even get it off the ground.

USA constitution is Much Easier to change than Australian or New Zealand constitution. Our was Purposely Written so it would be almost impossible to change without royal assent. it purposely makes it harder than the US ones because we created as Vassal nations.

All the Amendments to the Australian Constitution total of 6 actual amendments (one contains 3 changes)

• 1906 – Senate Elections – amended Section 13 to slightly alter the length and dates of Senators' terms of office.
  
• 1910 – State Debts – amended Section 105 to extend the power of the Commonwealth to take over pre-existing state debts to debts incurred by a state at any time.
  
• 1928 – State Debts – inserted Section 105A to ensure the constitutional validity of the Financial Agreement reached between the Commonwealth and State governments in 1927.
  
• 1946 – Social Services – inserted Section 51 (xxiiiA) to extend the power of the Commonwealth government over a range of social services.
  
• 1967 – Aborigines – amended Section 51 (xxvi) to extend the power of the Commonwealth government to legislate for people of any race to Aborigines; repealed Section 127 which stated that "In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted."
  
• 1977
  
  
  
  • Senate Casual Vacancies – part of the political fallout of the constitutional crisis of 1975; formalised the convention, broken in 1975, that when a casual vacancy arises in the Senate, the state parliament concerned, if it chooses to fill the vacancy, must choose the replacement from the same party as the departing Senator if that party still exists.
    
  • Referendums – amended Section 128 to allow residents of the Territories to vote in referendums, and be counted towards the national total.
    
  • Retirement of Judges – amended Section 72 to create a retirement age of 70 for judges in federal courts.
    
  
  
  

That's why the new Aboriginal one to recognize them is a waste of time we should just have one more referendum to rewrite the entire constitution including putting in a better method for amendments like the much easier US system, plus lots of other shit like maybe some 'rights' or something that says we have Prime minsters etc there is whole bunch of shit not written down as it was just "we'll do like England unless specifically stated otherwise"

I remain unconvinced.  Royalty means nothing in OZ; they don't even know the monarch's name.  And she wouldn't dare meddle in things that are none of her business.

You've not set up the question in the way necessary.  How do you define."easier"?  Besides an irrelevant royal family, what impediments does Oz have for its amendment process that the US does not have? Ask the question directly.

In the US we have 50 states and sixteen territories (five of which are inhabited).  They all have constitutions.  So it is not an unstudied subject.

The conclusion most studies reach is that if the constitutional amendment process becomes a super legislature, it loses significance.  Most also conclude that the constitutional amendment process should be reserved for foundational and procedural questions, not for transitory political issues.

"Royalty means nothing to oz" Whenever a royal vists Australia thousands of people line the streets waving the union flag!

nicko wrote:Zack says "it can be changed"      but it has not been changed at the moment. So I am correct.  An apology would be nice, but I will not hold my breath.

You really are a desperate idiot. The only thing you deserve is a hard slap. It might kick your brain into gear.

If it can be changed, then it's not part of the constitution. So you're still wrong.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

nicko wrote:Zack says "it can be changed"      but it has not been changed at the moment. So I am correct.  An apology would be nice, but I will not hold my breath.

You really are a desperate idiot. The only thing you deserve is a hard slap. It might kick your brain into gear.

If it can be changed, then it's not part of the constitution. So you're still wrong.

Which means Nicko is still right that US citizens have a right to bear arms, the very thing you claimed he was wrong on and it turns out you are wrong on.
Wow the macho man saying a 74 year old suffering from COPD needs a slap.
Is that how you treat the elderly in your care?

74 isn't really elderly these days.

However, there are people who deserve a hard slap on this forum, but nicko isn't one of them.

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You really are a desperate idiot. The only thing you deserve is a hard slap. It might kick your brain into gear.

If it can be changed, then it's not part of the constitution. So you're still wrong.

Which means Nicko is still right that US citizens have a right to bear arms, the very thing you claimed he was wrong on and it turns out you are wrong on.
Wow the macho man saying a person suffering from COPD is 74 needs a slap.
Is that how you treat the elderly in your care?

Don't play the victim card, you spineless little bitch. I didn't say I was going to slap him.

Nicko is not exactly vulnerable, either.

He said it was an intrinsic part of the constitution. Does an individual person make up a well regulated militia? D'UH!