Search options (Page 3 of 8)

I don't know what you think about Elvis, but let me know, love him him or hate him, you can't ignore him.

Yesterday, I played some of my favorite tracks, you know why.

Anyway, these were my selections.

Mystery Train
That's all right
Jailhouse Rock
The Wonder of You
Blue Suede Shoes
King Creole
Peace in the Valley
Suspicious Minds

and many more ...

cheers

David

Here here! I never fail to squirm when there is a "praise band" playing at church. Usually they're not too good and all that happy clappy Kuhm by Yah (or whatever) freaks me out.

Each to their own, I suppose, but don't expect me to be dancing in the pews.

Grump grump grump.

Other things I hate.  Run on sentences.  Chalk that up to poor English education... 

sanguine wrote:

jerome.oneil wrote:

[Tell me, if the 2nd is required to hunt, as you state, how is it that there are more guns per capita in, say, Canada than here?

firstly what does what we are talking about have to with a well regualted malitia we are talking about hunting and the second ammendment not the right of the states to have a well regulated malitia

There is no relationship between hunting and the second amendment.  None.  Zero.  Nada.
***The second amendment alows the right to bear arms. without any sort of arms, we could not hunt.

and canada is far more restricting with guns than the united states and thats a fact look it up.

The number of gun control laws in Canada has no bearing on the number of guns per capita in Canada.   The per capita gun ownership numbers in Canada are on par with the US.  The difference is that in Canada, most of them are long guns used for hunting.

And the second ammendment has nothing to do with hunting and i never sid it did

"Why no hunting? and since im a hunter you must dislike me.  Not trying to start a debate but thats why we have the second amendment right?"

"i did not mean in any way to impose that we as americans have the second ammendent in order to protect hunting but without it we would not be able to hunt. "

what i did say is that it is integral to hunting because without arms you can not hunt and that includes bows and guns

The 2nd has nothing to do with bows, unless you're invading France in the 12th century.  It's about the state's ability to raise a militia, and that is all.

***Bows are considered arms, so the 2nd has everything to do with them. 

The wonderful hunting available in Canada is evidence enough that your premise is flawed.