PDA

View Full Version : The right of the People... shall not be infringed



Pale Rider
05-30-2008, 02:06 PM
Article received by email....



The right of the People... shall not be infringed



By Mark Alexander

“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.” —Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

There is no more important constitutional issue than that of defending the plain language and original intent of the Second Amendment.

Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by our Constitution’s principal author, James Madison, wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

It is no small irony that the latest assault on the Second Amendment is taking place in our nation’s capital. The Supreme Court will announce its decision in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller in June, and that decision will likely have far-reaching implications for the “interpretation” of our Constitution’s most important provision.

And make no mistake, the newly-emboldened Left, with Barack Hussein Obama leading the charge, is gunning for those rights. Obama supports the D.C. regulations because he, “...wanted to make sure that local communities were recognized as having a right to regulate firearms... The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun laws isn’t born out by our Constitution.”

Does he suggest, by extension then, that our national Constitution can be amended by judicial dictates and local ordinances?

Of course, in addition to serving on the Woods Fund board with Weather Underground terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Obama also served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which since 2000, has given more than $15 Million to radical gun control organizations and is closely linked to the Soros Open Society Institute, which advocates a worldwide ban on civilian firearm ownership.

Indeed, the Second Amendment is “the palladium of the liberties of the republic,” and those who fail to support it as such, and reject detractors like Obama, do so at great peril to themselves and the liberty of future generations of Americans.

The subject of this dispute is the Washington, DC, “Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975,” which banned handguns and mandated that all other firearms, including shotguns and rifles, be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock,” ostensibly to deter so-called “gun violence.” D.C.’s FCRA actually prohibits a person who owns a legal handgun (pre-1976 grandfathered one) from transporting the handgun from one room to another in his or her own home.

Of course, suggesting that violence is a “gun problem” ignores the real problem—that of socio-pathology and the Leftists who nurture it. (See the Congressional Testimony of Darrell Scott, father of Rachel Scott, one of the children murdered at Columbine High School in 1999.)

Will that decision comport with the Constructionist view (original intent) of our Constitution, or will it be another adulterated interpretation of the so-called “Living Constitution”, the ACLU’s perverted distortion of our Constitution by its cadre of judicial activists?

It is our hope that the Court will affirm the ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the District’s ordinance banning possession of handguns is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

Though every constitutional constructionist knows that the Second Amendment assures an individual right to keep and bear arms, militias being the people, the ACLU’s “Living Constitution” mob argues that “the people” means “the state militia,” as outlined on the ACLU’s website under “Gun Control”: “We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias. ... The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns.”

Well, they may believe that, but in the inimitable words of Founder John Adams, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

It seems the lawyers at the ACLU are always viewing the First Amendment through a wide-angle lens, while they view the Second through a pinhole. Alas, they have it backwards.

In the 1788 Massachusetts Convention debates to ratify the U.S. Constitution, Founder Samuel Adams stated: “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.”

That same year, James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers (No. 46), “The ultimate authority... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.”

Similarly, Federalist Noah Webster wrote: “Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state.”

To understand how the right to bear arms was understood in proper context as an individual right, consider some of the earliest state constitutional provisions both before and after the ratification of the Bill of Rights: Pennsylvania—That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state (1776); Vermont—[T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State (1777); Kentucky—[T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792). Tennessee—[T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796) and, Connecticut—Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818).

These are not references to state guard units as the ACLU insists.

Though the Supreme Court rarely referenced the Second Amendment in the first hundred years of our nation’s existence, because its meaning was understood, in one early reference, Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856), the Court noted, “It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union...the full liberty...to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” The implication is that the right to carry arms was considered to be universal right for U.S. citizens.

Of course, Washington, D.C. is not the only major city violating the Second Amendment. New York City has restrictive gun regulations, but consider this comment from Timothy Dwight, President of Yale College, from an 1821 commentary on American life: “In both New-England, and New-York, every man is permitted, and in some, if not all the States, is required to possess fire arms.”

Times have indeed changed, and not in the interest of liberty.

If you know some of those Chardonnay-sipping elitists who insist that guns should be banned, get them a few of these “Gun Free Household” stickers for their front and back doors.

Speaking of Chardonnay, here’s an interesting fact: Alcohol-related traffic deaths outnumber homicides with guns by a wide margin. In the latest year of record, there were 12,253 homicides with firearms (many of which involved alcohol) but 16,885 alcohol related highway fatalities. (Perhaps the ACLU should be fighting for a five-day waiting period to purchase alcohol?)

Here’s another inconvenient truth for the Leftist gun-grabbers: The U.S. ranks 41st in the world in homicides but first in the world in private gun ownership (39 percent of households). The firearm homicide rate in the United States was 4.17 per 100,000 in 2005. But Israel, which is awash in so-called “assault weapons,” has a total homicide rate of 2.62 per 100,000.

The National Institute of Justice estimates that Americans use firearms in self-defense approximately 2.73 million times per year. While firearms are used in 67 percent of illegal homicides in the United States, they are used in 99 percent of justifiable homicides. In other words, bad guys use guns sometimes, but good guys use guns almost all the time.

Put another way, smart guys protect their families with “Second Amendment Security”.

On this point, I would argue that gun ownership is not only a right, but a duty and obligation of all Patriots. After all, we are the Militia.

(For good reference pages on the Second Amendment, see Sources on the Second Amendment and Brief Amicus Curiae in DC v Heller, both by my colleague Eugene Volokh, Professor, UCLA Law School. Read Charlton Heston’s comments on the Second Amendment, 1997.)

gabosaurus
05-30-2008, 05:15 PM
A well armed citizens militia may have been needed 200 years ago, but I doubt it is necessary now.
Do feel free to keep grasping at straws, though.

Little-Acorn
05-30-2008, 05:27 PM
A well armed citizens militia may have been needed 200 years ago, but I doubt it is necessary now.

Fortunately, gabby's doubts don't change what the Constitution commands. It's still illegal for any govt in the US to restrict or take away your or my gun rights. Or even hers. :)

Noir
05-30-2008, 06:43 PM
Fortunately, gabby's doubts don't change what the Constitution commands. It's still illegal for any govt in the US to restrict or take away your or my gun rights. Or even hers. :)

:salute: And so it is still legal for idiots to get there hands on guns and commit massacres in collages....thats good init?

theHawk
05-30-2008, 07:07 PM
:salute: And so it is still legal for idiots to get there hands on guns and commit massacres in collages....thats good init?

And how far do you think an idiot trying to commit a massacre at a college would get if everyone was totting?

Do you think murderers are going to care about gun laws?

Silver
05-30-2008, 07:08 PM
A well armed citizens militia may have been needed 200 years ago, but I doubt it is necessary now.
Do feel free to keep grasping at straws, though.

And you Gabs...do feel free to pick and choose which Amendments to the Constitution you think we should adhere to and which ones we should ignore...
which are needed and which are not...

Feel free to show us you really are a brain-dead liberal Democrat...

theHawk
05-30-2008, 07:14 PM
And make no mistake, the newly-emboldened Left, with Barack Hussein Obama leading the charge, is gunning for those rights. Obama supports the D.C. regulations because he, “...wanted to make sure that local communities were recognized as having a right to regulate firearms... The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun laws isn’t born out by our Constitution.”

Does he suggest, by extension then, that our national Constitution can be amended by judicial dictates and local ordinances?

If we can pass local ordinances to take away 2nd amendment rights, I wonder if Obama would support local laws that woud make folks have to apply for a permit to excercise their 1st amendment rights. Would he support a city law allowing only white men to vote?

Noir
05-30-2008, 07:17 PM
And how far do you think an idiot trying to commit a massacre at a college would get if everyone was totting?


Wait wait, i've herd this one before...'More guns = less death'...Priceless xD

you know when the first time i herd that was? Many moons ago, when i first got my PS2 and the game GTA 3, it was what one of the pro-gun campainers said on one of the radio stations, and back when i was 11 i found that funny...little did i know that it was an actual viewpoint of millions of americans, i tell you we had groups of 10 and 11 year olds laughing at what we now understand is a serious belief for some, doesn't that tell you something?



Do you think murderers are going to care about gun laws?

They do not have to care, its harder for them to get the guns, and that tehre would be penalties if they were found with guns.

theHawk
05-30-2008, 07:19 PM
And you Gabs...do feel free to pick and choose which Amendments to the Constitution you think we should adhere to and which ones we should ignore...
which are needed and which are not...

Feel free to show us you really are a brain-dead liberal Democrat...

Liberals know whats best for you and me and the country. Trust in them to pick and choose which of those silly Amendments we really need and don't need. Its a "living document" that can be changed. Thats probably the "change" Barack is promising.

theHawk
05-30-2008, 07:25 PM
Wait wait, i've herd this one before...'More guns = less death'...Priceless xD

you know when the first time i herd that was? Many moons ago, when i first got my PS2 and the game GTA 3, it was what one of the pro-gun campainers said on one of the radio stations, and back when i was 11 i found that funny...little did i know that it was an actual viewpoint of millions of americans, i tell you we had groups of 10 and 11 year olds laughing at what we now understand is a serious belief for some, doesn't that tell you something?

Then why isn't eveyone out killing each other like n GTA?




They do not have to care, its harder for them to get the guns, and that tehre would be penalties if they were found with guns.
It may be "harder" for them to get a gun, but they'll still get one if they want one. Gun laws simply make it much harder for innocent people to protect themselves.

Can you point out one examlpe of a city where strict gun laws bring violence and crime down? DC has the strictist gun laws, and its one of the most violent and bloody cities in the country. Yet rural towns with high gun ownership rates and none of the silly gun bans are the safest and have the lowest crime rates.

Care to explain?

Noir
05-30-2008, 07:40 PM
Then why isn't eveyone out killing each other like n GTA?

The point i was tryin to make-which seems to have gone amiss- was that 10 and 11 year olds were laughing at the idea that 'more guns=less death' cus its obviously false logic.




It may be "harder" for them to get a gun, but they'll still get one if they want one. Gun laws simply make it much harder for innocent people to protect themselves.

I agree that some will be able to get them somehow, black market ect, but when they are caught with the guns they can be arrested and to simply say 'oh they'll get it anyway' is really quite a poor argument, sure people get cocaine even though its illegal..in which case it should be classed as a legal drug? At best this argument is naive, at worst it is shamelessly apathetic.


Can you point out one examlpe of a city where strict gun laws bring violence and crime down? DC has the strictist gun laws, and its one of the most violent and bloody cities in the country. Yet rural towns with high gun ownership rates and none of the silly gun bans are the safest and have the lowest crime rates.

Care to explain?

I thought you'd never ask, but i want to go a step further, and not look at 1 city, but 4 countrys, those that make up the UK. Because using a city is again niave, as you could go to a nabouring city and get guns outside of DC's gun laws.

Now lets look at gun crime since there were huge gun law restrictions place on the UK

the number of deaths per year from guns in the UK, 1994-2006

1994-341
1995-356
1996-254
1997- 198
1998- 229
1999- 207
2000- 204
2001- 193
2002- 181
2003- 187
2004-191
2005- 185
2006-210

....would you look at that...a massive 30% fall....who'da thunk it?

(i would also like to point out in another thread about gun ownership and crime i was debating with yourself and hobbit, but after i made a few points the two of ya's dissapeared :( )

midcan5
05-30-2008, 07:50 PM
You have to wonder is that all there is, is that all there is to think about. If every hand gun disappeared tomorrow, so what.


"Is that all there is, is that all there is
If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
Let's break out the booze and have a ball
If that's all there is"

82Marine89
05-30-2008, 08:32 PM
A well armed citizens militia may have been needed 200 years ago, but I doubt it is necessary now.
Do feel free to keep grasping at straws, though.

The 2nd Amendment keeps us from being oppressed by our government and they know that. Why do you think they don't want us to have guns?

Nukeman
05-30-2008, 09:18 PM
The point i was tryin to make-which seems to have gone amiss- was that 10 and 11 year olds were laughing at the idea that 'more guns=less death' cus its obviously false logic.





I agree that some will be able to get them somehow, black market ect, but when they are caught with the guns they can be arrested and to simply say 'oh they'll get it anyway' is really quite a poor argument, sure people get cocaine even though its illegal..in which case it should be classed as a legal drug? At best this argument is naive, at worst it is shamelessly apathetic.



I thought you'd never ask, but i want to go a step further, and not look at 1 city, but 4 countrys, those that make up the UK. Because using a city is again niave, as you could go to a nabouring city and get guns outside of DC's gun laws.

Now lets look at gun crime since there were huge gun law restrictions place on the UK

the number of deaths per year from guns in the UK, 1994-2006

1994-341
1995-356
1996-254
1997- 198
1998- 229
1999- 207
2000- 204
2001- 193
2002- 181
2003- 187
2004-191
2005- 185
2006-210

....would you look at that...a massive 30% fall....who'da thunk it?

(i would also like to point out in another thread about gun ownership and crime i was debating with yourself and hobbit, but after i made a few points the two of ya's dissapeared :( )

You know I like your numbers but you fail to take into account the number of total violent crimes that occur in the UK campared to how many occur in the US. Keep in mind we do have a few more people than you do, and a lot more guns to go along with that. I would expect that if there were fewer guns in the US than our violent crime rate would be on par with yours' statistically that is.

here is simple example

UK, There were 1,220,198 recorded violent crimes in 2005/06

US, There were 1,417,745 recorded violent crimes in 2005/06

Now lets look at the population shall we.

UK, the population for the year 2006 was 60,587,000

US, the population for the year 2006 was at 300,000,000

This all boil-es down to the fact that without guns the violent crime rate is MUCH higher in the UK per capita than it is in the US. As you can see you stand a 2.01% chance of being a victim of violent crime in the UK yet you only have a 0.47% chance of being a victim of violent crime in the US. So tell me WHO is safer? Oh, by the way I didn't dissapear!!!!!

Nukeman
05-30-2008, 09:37 PM
If your interested in ONLY gun deaths than you might be interested in knowing that your chances of dying by firearm in the US is 0.00004% in 2006

Your chances of dying by firearms in the UK for the same time period is 0.000003%.

When you look at it this way there is very little difference in our gun deaths per capita, and just imagine your guns are almost completely outlawed, yet you have a gun murder rate comparable to our own where we have more guns than you can shake a knife at. At least for now until your govt outlaws knives due to the increase in knife related murder and injury...

Noir
05-30-2008, 09:53 PM
You know I like your numbers but you fail to take into account the number of total violent crimes that occur in the UK campared to how many occur in the US. Keep in mind we do have a few more people than you do, and a lot more guns to go along with that. I would expect that if there were fewer guns in the US than our violent crime rate would be on par with yours' statistically that is.

here is simple example

UK, There were 1,220,198 recorded violent crimes in 2005/06

US, There were 1,417,745 recorded violent crimes in 2005/06

Now lets look at the population shall we.

UK, the population for the year 2006 was 60,587,000

US, the population for the year 2006 was at 300,000,000

This all boil-es down to the fact that without guns the violent crime rate is MUCH higher in the UK per capita than it is in the US. As you can see you stand a 2.01% chance of being a victim of violent crime in the UK yet you only have a 0.47% chance of being a victim of violent crime in the US. So tell me WHO is safer? Oh, by the way I didn't dissapear!!!!!

It is made clear that my stats are for gun deaths, and it is true that this does not relate to violent crime, but if i may also take unbridge at your stats.

In the UK we have a habbit of the lower classes stabbing each other for some reason, this leads to a huge preportion of our violent crime. Also you must consider that violent crime covers a huge range of crime, assults, agrevated thieft, murder ect. So it is able to cover up a specific problem area such as gun crime in the US.

So as this discussion is about guns let us keep it to guns rather than trying to lose it in stats.

So simple stats

UK deaths per year by guns hover around the 200-250 mark, while the US has a number closer to 11,000, even when you take into account the population differance that is still a huge and obvious difference.

Let us remove this obstical of population and compare look into the following:

Homicide rate (homicide cases per 100 000 population) trend comparison for 3 countries: US, UK and Sweden for year from 1970 to 2005.

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/5258/homicidestatbc1.jpg

http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/10/10/homicide-trend-1970-2005-for-us-uk-and-sweden/
Now...which country do you feel safer in?

Nukeman
05-30-2008, 10:06 PM
It is made clear that my stats are for gun deaths, and it is true that this does not relate to violent crime, but if i may also take unbridge at your stats.

In the UK we have a habbit of the lower classes stabbing each other for some reason, this leads to a huge preportion of our violent crime. Also you must consider that violent crime covers a huge range of crime, assults, agrevated thieft, murder ect. So it is able to cover up a specific problem area such as gun crime in the US.

So as this discussion is about guns let us keep it to guns rather than trying to lose it in stats.

So simple stats

UK deaths per year by guns hover around the 200-250 mark, while the US has a number closer to 11,000, even when you take into account the population differance that is still a huge and obvious difference.

Let us remove this obstical of population and compare look into the following:

Homicide rate (homicide cases per 100 000 population) trend comparison for 3 countries: US, UK and Sweden for year from 1970 to 2005.

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/5258/homicidestatbc1.jpg

http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/10/10/homicide-trend-1970-2005-for-us-uk-and-sweden/
Now...which country do you feel safer in?The good old US of A and I will always feel safer here than anywhere else knowing that when push comes to shove we will always stick together no matter what and we will defend ourselves with our constitutionally guaranteed right to "bare arms":salute::salute::salute:


Umm please see post number 14! As for your
habit of the lower classes stabbing each other for some reason, this leads to a huge proportion of our violent crimeI don't really give a shit if they are Lords and Ladies or if they are gutter trash it all still compiles into your official statistics. You can split hairs however you want but by your reasoning we should all be running around in the US with Kevlar vest on to protect us from gun violence.

I have never been the victim of gun violence and NO ONE I know has either. I have friends on the police force for decades and they have NEVER pulled their gun out and never had to face a gun being drawn on them. You really need to quit reading the paper from New York and Washington DC. Try looking at the country in its entirety and not just the "hot spots" of violence.

I will add that just like the UK the gun crimes are committed by disproportionate group of people. we have a group in the US that use the gun and gun violence as a way to show how tough they are. If we were to get rid of this small minority of people you would see almost NO gun violence in the US even though we have a VERY large number of guns.

One last question why would you take umbridge to my stats they came from the UK!!!!!:poke:

Joe Steel
05-31-2008, 10:49 AM
A well armed citizens militia may have been needed 200 years ago, but I doubt it is necessary now.

Do feel free to keep grasping at straws, though.

In fact, a militia is as much needed now as in the Founding Era. It always will be, as one the "checks" against abuse of power by the government. That's why the Founders made in a part of the Bill of Rights.

The problem comes from misunderstanding the nature of a militia. It's not just well-armed citizens. It's an army of properly trained and well disciplined citizens called to service by the People.

ranger
05-31-2008, 10:53 AM
A well armed citizens militia may have been needed 200 years ago, but I doubt it is necessary now.
Do feel free to keep grasping at straws, though.

Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson that said a person with a gun is a citizen and a person without a gun is a subject?

Joe Steel
05-31-2008, 11:11 AM
Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson that said a person with a gun is a citizen and a person without a gun is a subject?

Every citizen is subject to the sovereign, dumbass.

ranger
05-31-2008, 11:15 AM
Every citizen is subject to the sovereign, dumbass.

I'm a subject to a point, fucknuts. After a certain point, I say enough is enough and do my own thing. Enough people band together and do their own thing, things change. Trying googling revolutionary war for more info and quit drinking the lefty koolaid.

Joe Steel
05-31-2008, 11:32 AM
I'm a subject to a point, fucknuts. After a certain point, I say enough is enough and do my own thing. Enough people band together and do their own thing, things change. Trying googling revolutionary war for more info and quit drinking the lefty koolaid.

Try getting someone to explain it to you, slug.

You're completely and totally a subject of the sovereign, the People.

5stringJeff
05-31-2008, 12:19 PM
Every citizen is subject to the sovereign, dumbass.

Every citizen IS sovereign. Every armed citizen, that is.

ranger
05-31-2008, 01:01 PM
Try getting someone to explain it to you, slug.

You're completely and totally a subject of the sovereign, the People.

WHy don't you come over and me and my friend Glock will explain it to you. I am a subject only as long as I feel like playing along.

Silver
05-31-2008, 06:20 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvV3gr_vinE


Gun rights....for dummies...

Noir
05-31-2008, 07:15 PM
The good old US of A and I will always feel safer here than anywhere else knowing that when push comes to shove we will always stick together no matter what and we will defend ourselves with our constitutionally guaranteed right to "bare arms":salute::salute::salute:
Yeah you're able to protect yourself from people like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, but...if they hadn't of got the guns in a first place then you wouldn't have to defend yourslef....but where's the fun in that? :slap:


Umm please see post number 14! As for your I don't really give a shit if they are Lords and Ladies or if they are gutter trash it all still compiles into your official statistics. You can split hairs however you want but by your reasoning we should all be running around in the US with Kevlar vest on to protect us from gun violence.

Do you know why there are so many stabbings in the UK nowadays? cus knives are easy to get, and teenagers are carrying them so they feel safe...protected from other teenagers with knifes (so its a vicious circle) so pepole are carrying more knives and hence there is more stabbing, so we are having campains to try and reduce the number of folks carrying knives in the streets, what do you guys in america want? More guns, its rediculious. Honestly, every time i hear people takin about more guns i feel sick because it is such false logic that it will only lead to more death.

Also before you get any notions of the UK being less safe because of our stabbing rate, i would much rather have a knife problem than a gun problem, that should be quite self explanitory so i won't bother typing my reasons out, but will if requested.


I have never been the victim of gun violence and NO ONE I know has either. I have friends on the police force for decades and they have NEVER pulled their gun out and never had to face a gun being drawn on them. .


Well done, i and everyone i know have also never been involved in gun crime...that proves nothing.


You really need to quit reading the paper from New York and Washington DC. Try looking at the country in its entirety and not just the "hot spots" of violence

I don't read any american papers. Lets look at the whole country, 11,000 gun related deaths with a 350 million odd population...hmm...UK 65 million or so population with 200 odd gun deaths...hmmm...


I will add that just like the UK the gun crimes are committed by disproportionate group of people. we have a group in the US that use the gun and gun violence as a way to show how tough they are. If we were to get rid of this small minority of people you would see almost NO gun violence in the US even though we have a VERY large number of guns.

Wait a minute...lemme get this right...you want us to imagine that allot of the people that commit gun crime, don't commit gun crime...wow, thats a new one, and when you do this do you also imagine back the thousands of people murdered every year?
Lets live in reality, this people have access to the guns and so for whatever their own reasons can murder fellow citizens.


One last question why would you take umbridge to my stats they came from the UK!!!!!:poke:

I was not doubting if the stats were accurate or not, i was taking umbridge at how the magnitude of those stats could easily be draged out of context to cover-up specific problems as they did, but i ain't gonna let ya do that deary :)