Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

By that logic, if I were younger and single, and "on the prowl" to find women, if none would go home with me, that would also be punishment. I enjoy companionship. But that doesn't mean the world is obligated to provide it for me, or that I'm being punished if I don't get any.

Ahhh, if only there were something in the constitution that read, "Procreation, being necessary for the propagation of the species and health of the nation, the right of the people to copulate freely shall not be infringed". Unfortunately, even in the case of such an amendment, your example is not applicable. Your inability to get laid, or to be able to obtain a firearm, could have absolutely nothing to do with the government establishing a law denying you such things.

Originally Posted by cbwm

"Procreation, being necessary for the propagation of the species and health of the nation, the right of the people to copulate freely shall not be infringed"

lol, that's awesome. Reminds me of Brave New World's "Promiscuity is a Citizen's Duty"

Sadly I'd be against such an amendment, the religious right would some how find a way to use the wording to discriminate against gay people.

what religious right? are there such thing?

Originally Posted by ECSuite_Russell

Sadly I'd be against such an amendment, the religious right would some how find a way to use the wording to discriminate against gay people.

Hahaha. I can see the court battles now. They would use a very similar line of reasoning that the left used to try and remove our right to firearms. "The constitution states that procreation is necessary for the propagation of the species, therefore, the founding fathers intended us to have the right to copulate ONLY for the specific purpose of procreation." What about casual sex and friends with benefits?

Originally Posted by jabo

what religious right? are there such thing?

Well, in less civil circles they're also often referred to as the Reglious Reich

@cbwm

I'm pro second amendment so can't really defend those arguments. I think I quoted V here once before "People shouldn't be afraid of their government, government should be afraid of their people."

"The constitution states that procreation is necessary for the propagation of the species, therefore, the founding fathers intended us to have the right to copulate ONLY for the specific purpose of procreation." What about casual sex and friends with benefits?

I imagine the people who would raise such an argument have no issue denouncing any unnecessary fornication like casual sex as well.

I have a Mormon friend who married her highschool sweet heart after he returned from his mission overseas. They've been married months now and still haven't had sex because they believe it's for procreation only, and they're not in a place financially that they want to have children. Last I saw her, she was getting quite twitchy.

^^what? is that really true? married for months and no sex? what are they practicing celibacy or something?

There are quite a few groups that only have sex to have children.. So if you don't want kids you don't have sex..

Originally Posted by jabo

^^what? is that really true? married for months and no sex? what are they practicing celibacy or something?

Yeah it's true Jabo, Feydakin got it right, sex for kids and that's it.

Abstinence is the best birth control.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Abstinence is the best birth control.

I thought it was vasectomy... lol... anybody here undergone that procedure before? Abstinence and celibacy-whats the difference?

Celibacy
1. abstention from sexual relations.
2. abstention by vow from marriage: the celibacy of priests.
3. the state of being unmarried.

Abstinence
1. forbearance from any indulgence of appetite, esp. from the use of alcoholic beverages: total abstinence.
2. any self-restraint, self-denial, or forbearance.
3. Economics. the conserving of current income in order to build up capital or savings.
4. the state of being without a drug, as alcohol or heroin, on which one is dependent.

Abstinence doesn’t necessarily refer to sex or marriage while celibacy refers to only sex or marriage.

I live in the UK and we currently have a serious knife problem, mainly in the under 20s (gang culture ) and I think the next step is going to be guns. I think that guns should be limited to the armed forces and police and that there should be more emphasis on taking guns from the streets.

I also think that in democratic societies you should have no reason to need to protect yourself from the government.

I think you need a ban on knifes, to stop the senseless violence you describe.

We already have knife amnesties when knifes can be handed in no questions asked but the youth of today all say that they carry knifes to protect them selfs!

^^^ Thats just a sickening nonsense excuse they've cooked up as an excuse to carry out their violent actions. Next they'll be saying they need those knifes to cut their food with. When you look at the number of knife related deaths and stabbings, it seems pretty clear that these weapons need to be outlawed completely.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Of course you know I'd have to post just to disagree with you . I'm fairly certain the chance of fatality from a knife wound is about equal to that of a gun wound, depending on where you are stabbed or shot of course.

Its a fun discussion but people... people... the game is over! The supreme court just decided that the right of an individual to own a gun and the use of the gun for self defense is protected by the constitution. Sure Scalia threw in an addendum that regulation should be part of ownership, but I think many will find this decision as influential as Rowe vs. Wade. So the anti-gun folk can go on and on and on, but this is not something that is going to change anytime soon. I'm sure the next attack will come in the form of regulation requirements so stringent as to make acquisition more difficult. I always got a chuckle out of the 4 bullet assault weapon clip limit.

You have a greater chance of escaping a knife attack than a gun attack.
You can probably escape by beating him/her up and getting only a few or maybe no cuts.
I still firmly believe that if I had the power to do one thing, I would remove all firearms from Earth.
Nobody needs a gun.
The reason why the police hsve a gun, is because the criminals have one, and the reson thay have one is because the police have one.
So it is a never ending cycle.
Please Note: This, and all other posts in this thread is made with reference to the Indian constitution.

Originally Posted by rsrikanth05

You have a greater chance of escaping a knife attack than a gun attack.
You can probably escape by beating him/her up and getting only a few or maybe no cuts.
I still firmly believe that if I had the power to do one thing, I would remove all firearms from Earth.
Nobody needs a gun.
The reason why the police hsve a gun, is because the criminals have one, and the reson thay have one is because the police have one.
So it is a never ending cycle.
Please Note: This, and all other posts in this thread is made with reference to the Indian constitution.

What will it bring us? removing guns that is? With out guns, crimes would still be committed, its not guns that kill people but individuals kill people...

Originally Posted by jabo

What will it bring us? removing guns that is? With out guns, crimes would still be committed, its not guns that kill people but individuals kill people...

Atleast crime rates around the world would reduce.
Pollution would reduce.
Our resources won't be wasted much.

Originally Posted by rsrikanth05

Atleast crime rates around the world would reduce.
Pollution would reduce.
Our resources won't be wasted much.

I don't think so. Guns are used for killing but not generally as a form of crime. There has been many opinions that with the presence of license guns, crime rates actually reduces in some state of the country. Establishments or business owners are now more secured in having guns in their hands as form of self defense, and knowing this, criminals actually thinks twice before committing a crime. I think that crime would rather increase if guns would be removed on a world wide scale. Well, first stop then what would be the use of police officers if they wont have guns, they would be like bouncers in clubs and pubs. Crime could be done in many ways using many other instruments like knifes, bombs, even a piece of string could be use to kill someone.

Originally Posted by rsrikanth05

Atleast crime rates around the world would reduce.
Pollution would reduce.
Our resources won't be wasted much.

What do guns have to do with pollution or wasted resources?

A vast majority of crimes that are commited with a gun are not committed by people that lawfully purchased a gun. People who lawfully purchase guns use them for the intended purpose, be it self defense, hunting or target shooting, etc.