An amazing case for reducing gun ownership in America

tenacious said:
I get your point. But I think we live in a Democracy that has a lot of elasticity written into our rule of law.
Moreover, self-granted rights isn't an excuse to avoid using common sense.
Click to expand...
We live in a republic, and its a republic precisely because our founders had good sense.
 
The second amendment restricts the government.
It does not grant rights, it defends them.
It is a protection against tyranny.
It is not a regulation on the citizen.
 
Ricky Fandango said:
We live in a republic, and its a republic precisely because our founders had good sense.
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah yeah. The politicians ignore the will of the people at their own political parel.
Words are cheap, but sort of like fences across open desert... say whatever you want. Just don't ask me or my tax dollars to to help pay for anymore the self-evidently stupid ideas.
 
tenacious said:
Yeah yeah yeah. The politicians ignore the will of the people at their own political parel.
Words are cheap, but sort of like fences across open desert... say whatever you want. Just don't ask me or my tax dollars to to help pay for anymore the self-evidently stupid ideas.
Click to expand...
*peril
 
tenacious said:
Yeah yeah yeah. The politicians ignore the will of the people at their own political parel.
Words are cheap, but sort of like fences across open desert... say whatever you want. Just don't ask me or my tax dollars to to help pay for anymore the self-evidently stupid ideas.
Click to expand...
So you gonna stop paying taxes?
 
espola said:
I have already given my opinions on "your" gun rights right here, directly and honestly. If everyone is like me, you have nothing to fear - unless, of course, you are in one of the categories of concern - young, criminal, crazy, and/or stupid. 'Uneducated" is not one of the categories, but I am having some thoughts about "demonstrated gullibility".
Click to expand...
You've been demonstrating gullibility for years...
 
tenacious said:
Well I don't necessary disagree. At this point I'm not sure I understand your argument because you conflating inalienable rights and rights granted under rule of the Constitution. I think the Bill of Rights lists Life (i.e. the list of "inalienable" rights), Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.

The Second Amendment is a good insight into the Founding Fathers minds on the issue of guns, and certainly that carries a lot of weight. However, The Founding Fathers also made slavery legal, so let's not pretend they were batting a 1000 on every issue.
Click to expand...
Where in the constitution is slavery mentioned? Which amendment?
 
Ricky Fandango said:
You stated earlier that rights were inalienable.
Do you believe that or not?

Do you actually believe the government grants you rights?
Click to expand...

I believe there are some rights that are inalienable. Such as Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Which plainly a state cannot give or take away except in cases like "yelling fire" in a busy theatre. (see how I did that?)

And I also believe, that at the same time there are other "rights" that are controlled by federal governments, state governments, municipalities, HOAs, etc. which govern the people who choose to live within their boundaries. These are not inalienable rights, these are closer to what I might normally call laws.
 
Last edited:
Lion Eyes said:
Where in the constitution is slavery mentioned? Which amendment?
Click to expand...

Are you asking the number of the Amendment where the Federal Government expressly bans slavery? Because until then, the law of the land was just like you might own a goat today- you could own another human being the same way.

Or to put it your way... show me where the Constitution says I can own a goat?
 
tenacious said:
I believe there are some rights that are inalienable. Such as Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Which plainly a state cannot give or take away except in cases like "yelling fire" in a busy theatre. (see how I did that?)

And I also believe, that at the same time there are other "rights" that are controlled by federal governments, state governments, municipalities, HOAs, etc. which govern the people who choose to live within their boundaries. These are not inalienable rights, these are closer to what I might normally call laws.
Click to expand...
You have listed some rights, and some other things that are not rights.
The "right" to bear arms is described accurately as a "right" per our constitution, and the bill of rights.

The second amendment is a limitation on government in regard to those rights.

Not complicated at all.

The framers were compelled to defend that right with the second amendment.
Why do you think they did that?
 
Ricky Fandango said:
You have listed some rights, and some other things that are not rights.
The "right" to bear arms is described accurately as a "right" per our constitution, and the bill of rights.

The second amendment is a limitation on government in regard to those rights.

Not complicated at all.

The framers were compelled to defend that right with the second amendment.
Why do you think they did that?
Click to expand...

Today the second amendment is the law of the land. Tomorrow congress could choose to change that.
I only bring it up, because for the first time in my life I'm starting to wonder if the "pro gun" people are going to prove so obnoxious and ham fisted, that we might see a 2/3's majority in the Congress come together to re-write that Amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top