Philosophy Now Forum

reasonvemotion wrote:Judging from the response of people in America regarding this "latest" massacre, their love of weapons runs deep and strong.


The gun culture in America is obscene and the ingrained love of guns is depraved.


America is its own worst enemy.

The problem is that you don't know anything about the Bill of Rights because your country doesn't have one, at least I don't think it does, or you wouldn't be talking so stupidly.

chaz wyman wrote:There are 9 guns for every 10 Americans. That includes children.

Again, I get the impression you're trying to make some kind of point, but it escapes me.

bobevenson wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:There are 9 guns for every 10 Americans. That includes children.

Again, I get the impression you're trying to make some kind of point, but it escapes me.

I'll bet he didn't include Cap Guns, Squirt Guns, and Nerf guns. And what about Paint ball Guns, those things probably sting.

thedoc wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:There are 9 guns for every 10 Americans. That includes children.

Again, I get the impression you're trying to make some kind of point, but it escapes me.

I'll bet he didn't include Cap Guns, Squirt Guns, and Nerf guns. And what about Paint ball Guns, those things probably sting.

He also didn't include shooting off his mouth, which is more lethal than a machine gun!

No, Australia does not have a Bill of Rights.

Is it true the Bill of Rights legally only protects white men? If so, is this Bill not antiquated?

no it is not true

at the time of writing it would not have occurred to anyone that it applies to anyone other than white men

but the wording does not single white men out for special treatment

reasonvemotion wrote:Is it true the Bill of Rights legally only protects white men?

My God, what are you talking about???

Kayla wrote:No it is not true. At the time of writing it would not have occurred to anyone that it applies to anyone other than white men

What is that, some kind of joke???

So it would have included American Indians, African Americans and women? In the 1700s? Very liberal for the time.

reasonvemotion wrote:So it would have included American Indians, African Americans and women? In the 1700s? Very liberal for the time.

I guess you'd rather look into the distant past than deal with today's total lack of rights for any and all Australian citizens. You've got a lot of nerve criticizing the U.S. Constitution.

reasonvemotion wrote:No, Australia does not have a Bill of Rights.

Is it true the Bill of Rights legally only protects white men? If so, is this Bill not antiquated?

As the legal system in Australia is based on the Lex Britannica, you have the original Bill of Rights 1689.

bobevenson wrote:

reasonvemotion wrote:So it would have included American Indians, African Americans and women? In the 1700s? Very liberal for the time.

I guess you'd rather look into the distant past than deal with today's total lack of rights for any and all Australian citizens. You've got a lot of nerve criticizing the U.S. Constitution.

The problem is not with the constitution, the problem is with Americans that think a document written over 200 years ago, is still relevant.
You are absorbed with tradition and don't see it the way I do.

[edited by iMod]

we all seem a bit desensitized, do you think there are any other possible solutions out there?

i could imagine someone saying, 'no! no you pissant no!'

however, i can't imagine that same person saying 'yes, yes! i want to actually go through the horrors of war myself, my own family and other families too'

i suppose there are alot out their that might say, 'f you! i'll go through those horrors of war!' but would they actually themselves head off, by choice, to some purely anarchic area and actually go through that, and even stay there and rejoice in it!!!?? would they?