Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Constitution- Get It Right.  
User currently offlineAvt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5
Posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1184 times:

Why does no one correctly quote the Constitution when referring to the right to bear arms? " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the state,the right of the citizens to bear arms, shall not be infringed." Why doesn't the NRA tell you that? Perhaps because it makes it obvious that there is no reason for everyone to be armed today? It seems clear to me that it has been twisted and prostituted to serve an end when the original need to bear arms is no longer necessary and hasn't been for at least a hundred years.
While everyone is thinking about it, I have been raised in a household with firearms, and been involved in target shooting compettions for many years. I am not anti-gun. I am against people having weapons for "self protection". My question is, how many people in the States have ever read the Article concerning this?

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUSAirways737 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1026 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1167 times:

I am all for people having guns, hell im 16 and I have 2, but I see no reason to have any type of handgun, or any type of machine gun or assault rifle. Those types of guns exist only for the use of killing people. Anyone that claims they need a machine gun to go hunting is nuts. A rifle or shotgun is all someone needs to hunt deer or other game.

I agree with you though that people do misquote the Constitution just for their benefit. You'll never hear the NRA read the actual lines from the Constitution.

Erik in MSP


User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 2, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1163 times:

"I am not anti-gun. I am against people having weapons for "self protection."

Avt007, talk about an oxymoronic statement. You claim you aren’t anti-gun but you support the very position all the gun grabbers preach. The whole purpose of owning a gun is for self defense, both in the 1789 and 2002. Secondly, it is not an article that you are quoting. It is the Second Amendment which was added after the Constitution was ratified.

You’re interpreting the part saying “A well regulated militia” as saying that the government should decide if we have the right to own a gun and who has that right. Another tactic by the gun grabbers. You slam the pro-gun lobby for only quoting the second ½ of the Amendment but you do the same thing by claiming only the first ½ should apply. Sounds like typical liberal hypocrisy.

All the gun laws in the world are not going to stop criminals. Murder, rape, armed robbery, assault, etc. are all ILLEGAL and yet people still do it. Do you think a criminal is going to say “I can’t use a gun, it is against the law. I’ll just stab the guy to death”. No, the guy will get a gun illegally and commit his crimes.



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineJessman From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1506 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1160 times:

Get into the right mindset before you start spouting off ignorance:

Prior to the Revolutionary War the United States was not a country, but was instead a part of Great Britian.

Those that fought the war were not members of "The Army" or "The Navy"; They were farmers, landowners, scientists, silversmiths, butchers. They were ordinary people, like you or me.

They fought because they felt that they were being oppressed by a government that denied them rights that were promised them (No taxation without representation among others)

So these ordinary men took up arms against a better eqiped, better trained, regular British Army. And these ordinary men won.

These ordinary men went on to set up a better government in the hopes that the rights of the people would no longer be trampled by those in power. However they realized that people in power often abuse this power. In a letter to William Smith in 1787 Thomas Jefferson wrote "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure."

So let's see, according to you they sacrificed their sons and spent years ousting a tyrant from their land so that they could say "All military might is now going to be centralized into this brand new government so that you can't do that again"

I tell you NO. The militia fights against the tyrannical government, it is not a part of the government, so "the right of the citizens to bear arms, shall not be infringed"

Think, man; would any government anywhere take arms away from its military? It's a no-brainer, the military by definition has weapons. The second ammendment to the constitution is there so that the government would have to fear its citizens; not the other way around.


User currently offlineJessman From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1506 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1148 times:

After writing that I found this great article; I would suggest reading it.
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/tree_of_liberty.htm


User currently offlineAvt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1135 times:

I`ll stick to my guns (pun intended). The 2nd Amendment is outdated and no longer applies. There is no need for the public to be armed to defend itself from enemies, domestic or international. THEY ARE THEIR OWN ENEMY NOW.

User currently offlineUs330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3841 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1110 times:

Since rebellion is allowed by the Constitution, then how can it be successful if people do not have guns to defend themselves from the gun-wielding military? How else would we be able to overthrow an elected president if he or she chooses to pull a Hitler and goes dictator on us?

User currently offlineImisspiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6260 posts, RR: 34
Reply 7, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1105 times:

I hate guns. Their only purpose is to kill which is against all my beliefs, yet I own a .45 semi and a 30.06. I've had to use the .45 twice to put a dog and a coyote out of their suffering after being hit by cars. The 30.06 is fairly useless for self defense for obvious reasons to those that know guns (for that matter so is the .45) but I still have both. God willing I will never have to shoot anything again that isn't made of paper.

As for the 2nd being "no longer necessary" is the 1st not also? Be careful suggesting amendments to the US constitution, you may give something up that you didn't intend to.



Is grammar no longer taught is schools? Saying "me and her" or some such implies illiteracy.
User currently offlineJessman From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1506 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1103 times:

Avt007;
People haven't changed since the Tower of Babel.
They still want to take over the world. They still want to kill each other. In any society there will be someone who wants to be a dictator. What happens when that person gains control of the military?

There always needs to be the check on power that the citizens bring.

Government is set up by people so that people agree to play by some set rules. If government itself does not play by those rules the people under it should be able to rebel. If they can not then Government has free reign to operate outside of the boundaries set for it.

Human nature dictates the need for popular control on government. Sometimes this requires force. It is a sad fact of humanity.



User currently offlineHamfist From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 614 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1097 times:

Great. A guy in Canada telling me I shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm in my own country!

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a responsible adult owning a firearm or using that weapon to defend his/her life, property or family! Should that person encounter a situation when a firearm is necessary, his/her actions should be reviewed and considered. If the force used is considered excessive or unnecessary by a group of peers, that person should be punished accordingly. However, gun owners should not be vilified simply for owning a gun.

I find it very odd the liberals who tend to denounce the ownership of firearms are typically the same people who are soft on the criminals who create the environment of fear that leads good people to buy guns for their own protection.

And while this may get away from the subject, this is the same side of the house (Dems) who would be inclined to fight to legalize marijuana and other drugs for use by "responsible" adults.

This is the same side of the house that is inclined to fight to ensure those who work for a living will continue to endlessly support those too lazy to get of their ass and earn a living (usually under the veil that the lazy are not really responsible for their lot in life).

This is the same side of the house that wants to manage your health by taking away your right to choose how you seek medical care. (I'm in the military, so my healthcare is managed...believe me, you don't want Uncle Sam to make these decisions for you!)

This is the same side of the house that wants the government to be intimately involved in every aspect of your life.

OK...enough rants. I'm very happy the NRA is probably the most powerful lobby in Washington. At least it's a lobby that actually supports the beliefs of our founding fathers. There's certainly enough of them (on that other side of the house) that want to tear our founding ideas apart!!


User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1089 times:

Can you tell me where in the US Constitution is there a provision for a Federal Reserve Bank. According to the US Constitution West Virginia is not a state. The Congress cannot devide a state or territory without 3/4 consent of the population of that state. Virginia never voted West Virginia is still part of Virginia technically.

Let me ask you. If we all vote and say this ammedment is no longer valid. What about the 1st Ammendment, or the 8th (excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishment) are these no outdated in this new world after 9-11?

Tell me in the Constitution where is there a right to an attorney stated? Where is the right to free public education spelled out? They are not. They are implied. The beauty of the Constitution is its flexability. Saying that the @nd Ammedment doesn't apply opens the Constitution to all sorts of reinterpetation that will leave us with less freedom.

I love the fact that everyone around the world just loves to tell us what we do wrong. But the millions of "your tired, your poor, yearning to breathe free" still try to come here. They must see something that you all don't. They are the better ones for it.


User currently offlineNWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1088 times:

I'm sick of all these pansies whining and crying about guns. Guns nowadays are not just made to kill, they were before. In America, guns are now hobbies, and protection weapons mostly. One of the main arguments from the Liberal pansies are that too many children are killed every year by accidental shootings from a weapon inside a house. You know what? That's the parents' fault, and nothing else. If you keep a firearm in your house, you lock it up, you make it impossible for your child to get it. Putting it in a box on top of a shelf doesn't count. Kids can climb things, believe it or not. Simple as that.

Also, there is still crime in America. Therefore, a right to protect yourself should not only be necessary, but simple common sense.

A year and a half ago, someone broke into my house at 2:30am. My wife heard the window break and woke me up. Fortunetly, I sleep less than 10ft away from a locked-up 12-gauge shotgun. While my wife called the police and went to get my child in the next room, I got my gun out and ready. Then the robber proceeded upstairs. As he got to the top, he was surprised to see the big barrel of a 12-gauge shotgun suddenly appear between his 2 eyes. I told him EXACTLY this:

"If you move, I will kill you you son of a bitch."

He stood frozen, and I kept him at gunpoint until the police arrived. They searched and cuffed him, he had an old pistol in his pocket, that he could've used to hurt my family. If I didn't have my gun, the situation could've been very different, now couldn't it?

When I was 13, I was staying at my grandparents' house for the Christmas holiday, while my parents when on a special trip together. 2 guys broke into the house in the middle of the night, my grandfather took me into his bedroom, and got his rifle. He then confronted the guys with his gun, one of them pulled out a knife, and he shot and killed him in front of my eyes. The other one fell to the ground crying "Don't shoot me man!".

That's when I learned my lesson.

Don't take things for granted people, one of those things being your safety. Some people learn this the hard way.


-NWA742


User currently offlineNormalSpeed From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1078 times:

Avt007,

While you are busy pontificating, would you mind telling me how the 2nd Amendment is any of your business, you being a Candadian and all?

'Speed


User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2727 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1075 times:

I will repeat what I posted on another thread to those of you happy with the prevalence of firearms in the US. You may carry on deluding yourself that everything is AOK in the USA and the rest of us will carry on being grateful we don't have to live amongst your mess.

Jessman where do you get this nonsense about the Revolutionary war being some kind of contest between inspired freemen and well trained oppressors ? Lets put a few myths to bed shall we.

Initial US military forces were militia of the type you described though I doubt the well heeled scientist and merchants bothered taking part in large numbers. Class privilage continued unfettered throughout the land of the free. Initial British forces were also mainly militia and manly Americans.

After about 10 months it became a conflict of large standing CONSCRIPT armies much as any other conflict of the time. Do you think the British soldiers were born soldiers, no they too were farmers, labourers et al as well at some time. It was not a war fought by the population of one place against the poplation of the other but rather conscripted soldiers who would all much rather have been doing something ese if political and economic circumstances had not dictated otherwise. This history as romantic fantasy stuff has to stop.



" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
User currently offlineAvt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1066 times:

Jessman, go look up militia in the dictionary. It IS part of the armed forces of a government, it is a body of citizens organized for military service, by the government. And don`t tell me the average citizen needs to protect himself against the US government. That is a very weak argument. The point of this post was to point out how the amendment was being misquoted. Laws are always being changed and updated to reflect changes in society, and I don't think the Constitution should be any different.

User currently offlineJessman From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1506 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1062 times:

Pacificjourney.
Take away where they came from and what they did and you still have ordinary citizens fighting against what they consider a tyrant government. And the British still had more money, more men, and more and better supplies. I.E. you did not change my argument  Insane

Avt007;
The US citizen does have to protect him or her self against the government. It has been said time and again; and it is true that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If you read the article I posted, you would notice from the attitudes of those who influenced the writing of the amendment that it is not being misquoted in any way. In what was to become the United States the "militia" was set up by a group that declared itself the United States. It was not set up by any formal government of the time, I'm sorry that offends you. I've experienced enough of people to know that it is unwise to trust anyone but yourself (and even that can be questionable) Every relationship is a power relationship at some level. I've learned that it's really unwise to trust those that seek high levels of power.

The patriots that brought about a new country were brave enough to do something about it when a government overstepped its bounds. I would hope that the American people of today would have the guts to do something if it were to happen again. Look at Rome; it doesn't take much to go from an elected official to a dictator.


User currently offlineSjc>sfo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1058 times:

As Charlton Heston once said, "Guns don't kill people, Apes with guns kill people."

No, the Constitution doesn't specifically provide for the right to bear arms, but I think that it's widely accepted as a right we should have and it's a convienient (though obviously wrong) way to ensure its legality.


User currently offlineAvt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1058 times:

A little more clarification; I like people to think for themselves. They should get the whole story ( or quote), and ask themselves why was it written that way. Saying that since it is in the Constitution it must be right, is a scary idea. To accept everything the government says unquestioningly is not a good idea. My own government does lots of things I don't like, and by voting and signing petitions ,etc., I try to influence them.
BTW, I am not anti-America, I realize that the founding principles of the US are admirable, and for the most part well thought out. But to insist that everything should be cast in stone is unhealthy. It reminds me of the stubbornness and inflexibility of the Catholic church, and their inability to adapt to modern realities. The same goes for the Koran and many other ideologies. Evolution and flexibility are the key to survival.


User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1051 times:

But there are times when petitions and voting is not enough, and one must take up arms for their freedom. That was the intent of the 2nd admendment, but the thing is protecting you house, is protecting your freedoms, how many times have you heard about break-in where the entire family was killed execution style, well your freedoms just got violated by that outlaw with a gun, who killed you.

Now think again, this time you have a 12 guage, things might just be a little diffrent.

Remember the old saying: "If they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."



At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently onlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29699 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1043 times:

You know it really amazes me how many people claim to know what the founding fathers where intending but have never bothered to read the Federalist Papers.

Most people try and claim that the National Guard is the militia. That arguement is defeated because of the changes in law that where needed to allow for the National Guard prior to the first world war to even legallly exist.

In one was it is pretty sad that the militia, in the classic sense has been allowed to deteriorate so much. I have no problems with the idea that it is the federal governments duty to maintain a military force comprised both of volenteer active duty and volunteer active reserve members.

But it is every American is a member of the inactive military...which is the what is should be the militia militia(commonly up until the late thirties most states had laws that on average required "membership" for all males in the state from the age of 18 to 45. They didn't have to do anything but they where considered members).

It appears to this individual at least that the introduction of the NG system has allowed the population to shirk it's responsiblity to it's own security. Instead of having a role in it, they now think it is now somebody elses job. And with the climate post-nam only now subsiding, the public, has tended to look down on those that keep them safe.




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1020 times:

"the right of the citizens to bear arms, shall not be infringed"

So that means through some miracle I get the right connections and I build myself a small yield nuclear weapon, the Constitution and the NRA will be right there defending my God given right to keep it in my house?

Think about it, kids...according to the NRA's logic, that's exactly what it means. If all these gun zombies out there spouting off that the Founders intended us to own and carry arms, then those arms must be restricted to muzzle loaders and flintlock pistols. What would the Founders say about an AR-15? Kill ten people with ten shots accurately at a range unheard of when the ink was still wet on the Constitution. I happen to think they'd look on it as we look upon owning your own atom bomb....a horrific weapon for which there is no sane reason for the general populace to possess.

Actually I'm playing devil's advocate with a whole buttload of logic. I happen to believe people should be able to own AR-15s. Being in the media, I absolutely despise it when someone stands up after some hideous social event like Columbine and says "well, it was video games! Well, tv made them do that! See, we need to regulate movies!" Bulls**t. I'll pin it on two mentally spoiled punks growing up in a plastic pre fab suburb where people live for the big screen, the big SUV and that Sunday morning visit to the superchurch for some half assed psychology from a Bible carrying egomaniac. Movies had nothing to do with it. And I can't rightly say that an inert piece of metal had anything to do with it either.

A few thousand people died all at once in Manhattan last year as the result of two very lethal weapons. So....do we ban Boeing 767s?

I support the right to own firearms. Even powerful ones. I think the NRA have their own agenda which to me is a little too far out there.....the "jackbooted thugs" comment & policy wasn't that long ago.


User currently onlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29699 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1012 times:

To be honest, I think it is the civic responsiblity of every American, not just males 18 to 45 as it has been defined in the past, to maintain in operating order and be proficent in the use of, a rifle in a caliber that is in current service with the US millitary and to keep ammunition for the same.

That means every home should have at least one .223 or .308 caliber weapon in this country and those that don't are shirking their civic responsibility.

Unfortunatly I have not lived up to that standard yet. Fourty years ago I would have been allright because I do have a 30-06, but nothing that shoots anything that has came out since NATO standards have been around.

You can not invade mainland America. There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto1941.
(




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1005 times:

I'm curious, but in which state of the Union is it legal for a 16 year old to own guns?

User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 977 times:

L, I respectfully disagree with your comments...

While you think it's every American's responsibility to own a gun, you ignore the fact that we all do own guns. Lots of them in fact.

The tax money I (and every other working American) spend the first 5 months of the year shipping to Washington DC has bought me the most lethal and advanced "security" in history.....and if the moment arrives in the future when my freedom and real estate are threatened by a superior force such that I should have to be in a position to actually, physically defend it, somebody somewhere dropped the ball big time.

Now you say what about terrorists who threaten direct attacks on the US. Again, I've paid dearly to have that threat dealt with, and the machinations of democracy allow me to at least attempt to hire managers who will do that job efficiently.

It's easy to indulge in what we could call a "Red Dawn" mentality, after the adventure movie that saw marauding Soviet hordes invading the high school football fields of Colorado....I guess we all have glorious visions of the chance to directly defend our homeland. That's part of why the actions aboard Flight 93 last year were so noble (and keep in mind that despite its' tragic outcome, that was a successful defense undertaken by citizen soldiers with little to no training. And no guns.) And I suppose we all wished we would wake up one morning last week and hear that some good, decent errant hunter with a great aim happened upon the Beltway Sniper in the woods near a minimart and turned his cranium into vapor before he could kill another child. But for better or worse, the hero was a trucker who defended his country with his Kenworth and a cell phone, and the workings of a real, tangible (sometimes infuriating) justice took over.

My point is, as much as guns aren't the cause, they aren't the solution either. Don't read that as anti-gun....I own a gun, I've trained to use that gun safely, and I NEVER want to ever have to point it at a human being. I live in a gated community with security guards, protected by a competent police force and sherrif's department. I'm not even sure what I'd do if a threat got all through that. You & I would probably agree that I'd do what needed to be done. But putting that moment in every household? Not possible, not without more grief out there than already exists, and certainly not because of any current geopolitical or value threat.



User currently onlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29699 posts, RR: 59
Reply 24, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 973 times:

Actually I do have a copy of that flick...pretty good one too.






OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
25 777236ER : Go Heavymetal is all I can say.
26 Illini_152 : Someone already touched on one point of my argument, that "militia" in the context of the US Constitution refers to the adult male population. The par
27 Avt007 : I am still amazed that anyone can seriously for a moment believe that the survival of the USA is threatened in any way. No one will ever invade the US
28 Heavymetal : No one will ever invade the US, period. It's not happening with tanks or planes or rocket-propelled grenades. But it IS happening, every day. And that
29 Tbar220 : Perhaps people should have the right to own a gun not so much the fact that owning a gun is the answer to self defense. Rather, a person would own a g
30 Heavymetal : Tbar... Good logic but its' greatest flaw is giving the criminal credit for level-headed deductive reasoning....kind of an oxymoron considering he's a
31 Avt007 : What saddens me is the shootings that happen because a weapon is close to hand. How often have you heard of an argument in a bar, the guy goes out his
32 Heavymetal : Actually I do have a copy of that flick...pretty good one too. I gotta give credit to the producers.....those Pumas made up to look like Hinds actuall
33 Jessman : am still amazed that anyone can seriously for a moment believe that the survival of the USA is threatened in any way. No one will ever invade the US,
34 SKYSERVICE_330 : “Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages."
35 747-451 : "Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages." H
36 SKYSERVICE_330 : Since when does "Force" have the same meaning of "Violence" ? That is the old concept of 2 wrongs make a right. "I am going to remove violence with vi
37 L-188 : I'll have to rewatch that movie....I thoght those "hinds" where actually Sikorsky S55's.
38 747-451 : I applied the term force and vilence in the contexts of the statement. No, two wrongs don't make a right. And then there are somethings where negotiat
39 Delta-flyer : Avt007...... Obviously you disagree with the 2nd Amendment, but why do you even care? Your country does not have such an article in its constitution,
40 Avt007 : Delta flyer; Like many others, I don't like things quoted out of context. My post was done to see how others felt about it. I do care when I see the e
41 Rai : Delta-flyer: I thought you were Canadian as well?
42 Delta-flyer : ......I thought you were Canadian as well? Well, yes, actually, I was. I was born in Hungary, immigrated to Canada at the age of 9, became a Canadian
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Come On Jay Leno, Get It Right! posted Thu Mar 22 2007 01:05:19 by Boston92
In What US States Is It Illegal To Turn Right/red? posted Sat Aug 13 2005 03:03:15 by Lnglive1011yyz
The US Economy, Is It Ever Going To Get Better? posted Sat Mar 15 2003 08:08:20 by Milemaster
Sport Fans Who Get It..... posted Thu Feb 22 2007 02:24:36 by WrenchBender
Tony Dungy: We Did It Right As Christians posted Mon Feb 5 2007 06:27:56 by S12PPL
The USA Governmeant System. I Don´t Get It... posted Tue Jan 9 2007 16:26:40 by Jessedachipo
Did I Get The Right Hat? posted Fri Aug 4 2006 07:44:14 by AislepathLight
Can I Renew My US Visa Before It Expires? posted Mon Jan 30 2006 04:57:36 by Luisde8cd
Poll: US Media-Is It Free? posted Mon Jan 23 2006 14:35:06 by CXA330300
The Closest Many Of Us Will Get To Getting A Girl! posted Mon Nov 28 2005 03:08:40 by SHUPirate1