I'd die of happiness.

is that Jontron?

Yes

a game that I cannot get to work on my computer

I like your paraphrasing of the Bill of Rights. It's that type of pseudo-intellectualism that is so mindbogglingly dangerous.

"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."

The militia is mentioned, it is a right guaranteed...to the States. The right to bear arms is a right retained by the people. The 2nd Amendment is threefold. The federal government cannot interfere with state militias. The citizens of each state are charged with the duty of defending it when capable. NO form of government (state, federal or otherwise) can deprive citizens of their right to arms. It's not a limitless right but it is a right none the less.

Also, I charge you with finding the phrase "right of the people" in the Constitution and it not refer to right only accessible in the context of government approval. I'm not advocating one way or another but merely fighting your parlous interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and its implications.

1. Militia and military is not the same thing. The military is composed of professional fighters, regularly trained and in a readied state to take actions. Militias do not maintain a regular soldiers and are called upon in a time of need, made of the general citizenry either armed by the State or using their own weapons. The militia can refer to the National Guard (which exist as a force both at the disposal of the State and Federal governments), the state defense forces (which are not federal funded and are only under State control) and finally, minutemen militias (that form in a time of emergency, generally disbanded afterwards and lack organization prior to the event). The last one hasn't been used since the Spanish American War but all are protected under State rights (and obligation).

2. That's why I said it's not a limitless right. I don't think a regular citizen requires automatic weapons or high explosives or any such war materials. But rifles, shotgun and handguns are perfectly acceptable weapons for maintaining personal defense and militia readiness. If any thing, handguns should be the least infringed of all the commercially available firearms (which is the leading category of firearm used in crimes). All I am saying is that handgun bans are unenforceable, rifle and shotgun bans make little sense and tighter restrictions don't work because most weapons used in crimes are not registered to perpetrators and are obtained illegally.

Personally, I agree with background checks and reasonable waiting periods (meaning no more than three days) but they don't prevent things like Sandy Hook. That shooter tried to obtain a rifle the day before, he passed a background check but the waiting period prevent him so he illegal took his mother's firearms. The Columbine shooters obtained all of their weapons illegally. A approach needs to be taken to gun control but not Obama's, it's a failed path a la Clinton.

What does this have to do with the post? The post is about contraception.

i read through the comments. most were about the control on guns. so i thought I'd reply mainly to those. I'm doing some research on the contraception right now.

"gif half relevant"

three words including half

Half Life 3 Confirmed!

thank god I'm not the only one

Why do you know what the guys from "Most Popular Girls in School" look like?

Because it's amusing.

Cause I watch The Most Popular Girls in School. And Jonathan, blondie here, looks like the guy in the back. Just saying.

I love you.

I love you too Spy.

fuck off, asshole

I live in LA county to. I live 17 miles from my college. I have a 7:40 am class. I have to get up at 5 in the goddamned morning to beat the traffic on the freeways, and I don't get home till 9 because my last class lets out in the middle of rush hour. I had to quit my job because I moved at it didn't make sense for me to make that same commute for a four hour morning shift.