Many states here too.

In Canada also...

Sixteen is legal in the UK...

The one without the chain around it.

Nothing much as far as my history goes... He fought the French and there was a civil war, but I don't remember him being evil...

Um... King John? What did he do that was so bad, compared to these other guys?

Legend.

Crawdaddy or legend, and why?

I can't wait until Supreme sees this.

The Wizard of Oz.

How else is he going to get a +9 Ogre Slaying Knife?

Not to mention the definition of "perfect" could mean different things. If they used it as it's used in the New Testament for instance, doesn't mean the same thing as "perfect" in the common vernacular.

You are being too analytical. It means that they are trying to make a union closer to perfection.

While the Constitution does contain its share of grammatical and spelling errors, " Pensylvania ", with only one N, was an accepted spelling of the colony at the time. The Liberty Bell is inscribed with only a single N in Pensylvania. Alternate spellings, including defence, controul, and chuse, were all accepted spellings in the 18th century.

The "it's" shown in the picture is grammatically incorrect though.

Don't expect much of a different answer from Flyscratch though, disparter.

The obamessiah thank you! Also Captain flyscratch i never said id go around raping underage girls so wtf is going on with ur story about ur daughters friend? I meant (Obviously) that if the girl was under age (like 15, cos legal age is 16 in england) and she was hot as fuck and wanted it then id totally give it to her.

I did it before. To experience what it was like. Both in Europe and in the US. I got over my desire for the experience after a few months. There is something liberating about traveling and not worrying about when you were coming home.

Lol I find it odd that you would take offense at that. I think that society, our 40 hour work weeks, rich staying rich and the poor getting poorer are plenty of good reasons to drop out and give up. I can't understand why more people don't go homeless. Soon it's gonna be like "Elysium" and 90% of the population will be fucked.

Heard of Buddha?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IrKMTa6urZ0/UOOwiVRCMfI/…

I am surprised by how many members have never heard of Miranda Kerr, too... I am even more amused by IV checking her actual birthdate to make sure she is officially legit to wank off to...

I think what disparter was trying to say is that having to wait until you find out if a person, who you think looks underage, is legal before "fapping" is not really any better than masturbating to an actual underage person.

Personally, I don't understand how anyone can one, not recognize Miranda Kerr, and two, think she looks even remotely illegal.

I think it is highly unlikely that anyone chooses to be homeless. Frankly, I'm quite appalled that you would even suggest such a thing.

Interesting. I think I'll stick with a simple " Sorry. " though.

Yes..I make Ohio nice...

There are nice parts of Ohio? :P

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

Because then you won't get on H666.

I said nothing about guns. You assumed, incorrectly, that, just because this post was about guns and your statement was about guns, that I was referring to gun laws when I said " fuck this country over ". Many, many things are the cause for the country being in the state it's in now. Gun laws are merely a small portion of that cause.

I don't know why I bother though. It's clear that you only see things in shades of Red and Blue.

Ok, I can see your point. It's more a matter of determining what qualifies as a militia then, in my opinion. I'll need time to reflect on this. Either way I always appreciate a good Constitutional discussion that causes me to question my beliefs.

Relax......courts do not create rights. That part is clear.

The word "right" is not the word we are hung up on. The words "personal" or "individual" are. The question I'm raising is whether the 2nd amendment right is an individual right, or a collective militia right, hence the well-regulated militia statement in the 2nd Amendment. It's funny to hear someone tell me it's an individual right, then use the "protection from tyranny" explanation for that. That's the wrong reason to use for defending the "individual" right. That works for the collective militia right instead.

Pre-Heller, this right was seen as a collective militia right. Now it's rapidly shifting to be an individual right. All I'm saying is that I'll bet the Supreme Court continues to shift on this issue. Hell, maybe someday this statement will be interpreted as guns are mandatory for all US citizens to be carried around the clock.

Look at the (D)s and the (R)s attached to every proposed new gun law...95% are (D)s.
Your either playing dumb or you are, if you deny it.

Political party membership has nothing to do with this. Just as many Republicans have attempted to fuck this country over as Democrats.

I also object to your apparent assertion ( if my observation here is incorrect then please do correct me ) that the government or its courts can create, or bring into existence, rights.

The Declaration of Independence, although not a legally binding document, though, in my opinion, still a relevant guiding document in American common law, states that rights are endowed upon humanity by nature ( or its God ) itself. Therefore, it is my belief that the Constitution, or any decision of any court guided by it, can "create" any right. The Constitution simply protects these individual rights from the government.

Anything is possible with Supreme Court decisions. I should probably have chosen my words more carefully in retrospect, but I still believe that what is written in the Second Amendment ( which is the part of the Constitution in question here ) is clear and concise.

I would not say that I am redefining or interpreting anything in the Constitution by using the more relevant definition of the word " regulate " ( that is to keep an army or militia in a well equipped and ordered fashion ) given the context in which it is presented.

Words can have different meanings depending upon the other words used around them. I would not apply this definition of " regulate " to its use in, say, the commerce clause of Article 1 Section 8, because the context is not a martial one, but rather an economic one.

I have read the Constitution in its entirety multiple times. I do not, and will not, profess to be an expert on the document or its history, but I will say that I understand its meaning and its construction as a legal document.

I do not believe that using the context in which a word is used, in order to discover the meaning of the word, is insulting to the Framers. There is no guidebook or glossary or appendix to the Constitution so the only way in which we can understand the meaning of the words chosen by the Framers means is through context and an understanding of the words in the English language in use at the end of the 18th century.

I agree that the Supreme Court seems to blow with the winds. Dredd Scott and Citizens United were horrible decisions in my opinion. Ironically, the "individual right," (or as you said earlier a "person's right to keep and bear arms") didn't exist until 2008 when the Supreme Court decided DC vs. Heller. Might it be that the Supreme Court has swung to the winds of the current vocal society, and not really thought this one through? We might be looking back in 50 years, adding the Heller decision to the ones you listed.

You say that "there is no room for interpretation" but you were the one who wanted to redefine words in the text of the Constitution.......seems to me like there is room for interpretation then.

Ha! your attempt to redefine "regulate" to mean something other than a government intervention would render most of the Constitution meaningless. The Constitution (adopted in 1787) uses many variations of the word "regulate" to mean government laws or oversight. But you want me to believe that this definition changed radically by the time the 2nd amendment was adopted in 1791? Not gonna happen.....

The Constitution gets utilized to defend all kinds of positions. You should read the entire document several times looking at things from different perspectives. It's an amazingly powerful, yet flexible, document that is the underpinning of our entire system of laws and governance. Picking one phrase out of the whole document and suggesting that some words had different meaning in one sentence than they do in another is a bit insulting to the framers of the Constitution, dontcha think?

The reason why I do not wish for you to use Supreme Court decisions is because the Supreme Court is notoriously able to misinterpret things. Take the Dred Scott case, or Citizens United for example. Were either of those decisions in keeping with the original spirit of the Constitution? This is the problem with our Federal Courts ( or any appellate courts for that matter ) : the judges see fit to interpret the Constitution to fit a law, rather than interpreting a law to fit the Constitution. If the language of a law is not in keeping with the language of the Constitution, then it is unconstitutional.

My point is to show that the Second Amendment, which controls all laws pertaining to the ownership of arms, is resolute in its wording. There is no room for interpretation.

Also remember that " A well regulated militia... " does not mean that gun sale and ownership may be controlled in any manner. The word " regulate ", as it was used during the drafting of the Constitution, did not have the same meaning in this context as we understand it to have today. In this context, " regulate " means to establish good order and training amongst the militia.

At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, " militia " was understood to mean all able-bodied citizens.

I didn't think you had negged me....not that it matters.

So you want me to defend my LEGAL reasoning about the US Constitution, but I'm not allowed to use Supreme Court decisions? Seeing as how it's the Federal Courts that interpret the Constitution, I'm not sure that's even possible. That's like me handing you a bunch of bullets to defend yourself, but then I tell you that I'm keeping the gun they go with. :-)

As a lawyer then you should know what the Second Amendment says : " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

Perhaps you use a different dictionary than I do, but the one I use ( Merriam-Webster ) defines infringe as " to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another ". Prohibiting someone from owning any gun, under any circumstances, would be an infringement on that person's right to keep and bear arms, would it not?

Now before you retort with any reference to a Supreme Court decision or state or federal law, remember that the Constitution, which New Jersey signed and approved, is the supreme law of this country. Any law or decision that attempts to change or violate that Constitution, except as an amendment passed by Congress, and ratified by three fourths of the states, is unconstitutional.

I didn't neg you, or anyone else here, by the way.

99.99% Did.

Did anyone manage to watch this without having their eyes water?

Sadly no, while the Maxim is not classified as a firearm, however it is classified as a machine gun .......... That is part of the problem I think there as so many different rules and regs for this and that and the other. The firearms and explosives laws are almost as bad, maybe even a little worse than the tax code. They are SERIOUSLY complex and poorly written.

I've been to this island in a video game. It was called Vvardenfell then.

But it makes me feel much better to blame the government.

Does that mean I can stock up on 1890's era Maxims?

At my Gram's house that are glass and all bent and shit.

it's a girl cat - she will remain on it :-)

Let's see him do that with a doorknob.

For once jailbird, I can't find any reason to blame the cops. They reacted exactly as they were supposed to.

Because rich nerds don't have shitty plastic blinds on their windows.

Or who doesn't!

Or who needs to be on the payrolls.

What's with Australians and trains?

Not even with your dick my friend.

You mean you wouldn't give this a shot?
http://news365.co/wp-content/uploads/…

I personally like hair on a woman. It's a departure from what has become commonplace in our society so, in a way, it is now more exotic than the shaven look. Of course, there's a limit to everything.

it took me a solid 15 seconds to figure out what was wrong with that pic

I love this kid! I hope mine grow up to be as responsible and intelligent as he appears to be.

It's probably best that no one is having a child with the Messiah. We don't want to start another crappy book/movie craze.

I like how the one guy with dark skin is in the backround having a good ol' time

The three hot chicks had me hung.

It took me, until I cleaned up my mess to spot the nooses. ;)

Maybe more folks would be inclined to go if there were less hanging and more hot bitches.

What's weird about #8 ? No one here has ever been to a lynching?

Alright, I trust your judgment Cat. I could only go off what I can see after all.

I'm positive she is underage by the looks of her. I'm not going to argue her age here. Also a joke is a joke even if she is and I understand that. But to me she is obviously a kid and to make sexual jokes is weird.

(I have also seen the video of here and that was more telling)

That should read I'm NOT intending to argue with you.

I didn't neg you, but what makes you think she's a kid? I don't really see anything from this gif that can determine her age as being under 18. I'm intending to argue with you I'm just curious as to how you came to that conclusion.

That would be nice, but I envision lots of soliloquies directed at empty chairs.

I say make Clint Eastwood your president...that way he can tell the North Koreans to " get of my lawn, gook".

Ps I'm a zombie

Just gave you a plus to cheer you up

Thanks for the neg turtle boy!

I like turtles

once you pop a balloon the warranty will be void :-)

I'm guessing that this voids the warranty?

How can anyone who was on a poorly-acted angst-ridden Canadian teen drama be taken seriously as an artist?

I dislike Obama and Biden just as much as the next sane person but Boehner as president? Eesh, that sounds like a very bad day indeed.

We just have to wait until 2016 and vote in Rand Paul!

It's not my document.

Hey! That is for a two toed sloth man! Are you trying to be sneaky sneaky?

Remove the " /https// " and it will work. It's a pdf though so you'll need a program like Adobe Reader ( found here http://get.adobe.com/reader/ ) to open it.

I'm sure they are wonderful just the way they are. Fake breasts just look... odd. Do what makes you happy though.

I don't like them I've had a kid so there not really how they used to be lol

Why do you want fake breasts?

I can't wait to use*low tide.That's hilarious.

No you're right the first time. I too have a suspicion that she smells like low tide.

Return trips are definitely feasible, they're just fucking expensive!

Not really sure what you just said.

If like 'hendrix1175', you are ABLE to say that, you never needed them, and have utterly no clue how deep depression can drag you... and a council that does not care, forcing you to be penniless and homeless due to its OWN brainlessness, while you almost died in hospital, does not help... it happened to a personal friend..

I think you should tell him that, every time he feels like shooting up, he should come over to your place and you will blow him. If he doesn't want that then there is nothing you can do.

I agree, there is a big difference between someone being a bit low and someone suffering from an actual chemical imbalance/illness. But because of the over prescription of antdepressants everyone is seen as 'not needing them.'

The schools & Ritalin.. Got to be up there as over prescribed.. Will refuse the notion that kids need a drug to make them focus..

Anti-depressants are definitely over prescribed. However, many people, myself included, do need them to live a "normal" life.

into those GGGIFS's?

What do you mean was?

Your right..so now you have time to think about what you did....stupid kid!!

Ya, I saw that after.