An amazing case for reducing gun ownership in America

We live in a republic, and its a republic precisely because our founders had good sense.

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.
 
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.
*peril
 
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.
So you gonna stop paying taxes?
 
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".
You've been demonstrating gullibility for years...
 
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.
Where in the constitution is slavery mentioned? Which amendment?
 
You stated earlier that rights were inalienable.
Do you believe that or not?

Do you actually believe the government grants you rights?

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:
Where in the constitution is slavery mentioned? Which amendment?

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?
 
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.
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?
 
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?

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.
 
This is the reason for my concern.

I would still like to know why you think the framers were compelled to include second amendment protections for our right to bear arms.

Because Democracy was an unknown at the time... and they wanted to make it hard for a tyrant to take over would be my guess?

I don't disagree with their aim. However, you don't have to be clairvoyant that see that the locals are starting to get restless... which in a Democracy has real world implications. Sometimes it's simply better to bend instead of break.
 
Because Democracy was an unknown at the time... and they wanted to make it hard for a tyrant to take over would be my guess?

I don't disagree with their aim. However, you don't have to be clairvoyant that see that the locals are starting to get restless... which in a Democracy has real world implications. Sometimes it's simply better to bend instead of break.
Democracy was not unknown, and it was a matter of careful consideration and debate in the construction of our republic.
The founders also stated their own reasons for the second amendment before and after the constitution was ratified.
You seem to be guessing at things you should already know.

Its ironic that an uneducated guy like me would be pointing this out to you.

Anyhoo, enjoy the rest of the weekend, Im got yard work to do.
 
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.
And then Trump will sign it.
 
QUOTE="tenacious, post: 280850, member: 757"

Because Democracy was an unknown at the time...
and they wanted to make it hard for a
tyrant to take over would be my guess?
Tiny " T " ....your grasp on History is quite poor.....
You're another who should have studied....



I don't disagree with their aim.
However, you don't have to be clairvoyant that
see that the locals are starting to get restless...
which in a Democracy has real world implications.
Sometimes it's simply better to bend instead of break.
Who's going to be " Bending "....?


/QUOTE

" Because Democracy was an unknown at the time... "

The Greeks establish working Democracies long before
America.....Many such instances between then and the
start of the Democracy in America.
You really should do some research before regurgitating
malformed Liberal talking points....



 
Back
Top