Originally Posted by .blank cd
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
AR15 =
To me, it's completely obvious there are times where a gun is a useful tool but that isn't the end of the debate on gun control. That's only where it starts. We already put restrictions on all sorts of tools including guns. The question is what are reasonable restrictions and what aren't? Although some people think its a very simply answer, I personally think it is quite difficult to answer.
I agree the police won't always be there to save the day, too many issues not enough cops and time.
I will say though in the few times I've called the police and wanted them there pretty quickly they got there VERY quickly. You typically need to say "gun" or "dead" though for immediate response.
The US is the last free republic on the planet..... the people who do not like complete freedom and the dangers that come with it are free to move to the communist country of their choosing.
There is no such thing as complete freedom. That sort of idealistic rhetoric just obscures the realities of living in a society where compromises between conflicting rights must be made. Everyone in this country is free to speak up about what laws they think should govern the land and they are free to engage in the political process in order to influence what laws are made. If the founders didn't intend for the people to continually question and evolve the laws over time, they wouldn't have created the process by which to do so.
The meaning of the constitution is lost in translation. Democrats dissect it only looking for ways to get around it.
It doesnt say "the right to bear arms wont be infringed until politicians decide it should be infringed".....
In regards to the 2nd amendment, many of the founders stated that defense FROM government was one of the main reasons. It seems illogical to think the government can strip you of a right intended to prevent your government from stripping you of rights.
I think Sinfix's version of the country is pretty utopian to him.
To me, one of the primary differences in the left and the right....
The left focuses on what the founders DIDNT say in the constitution
The right focuses on what they DID say.
Founders - "right to bear arms shall not be infringed"
Left - "They didnt say ar15"
The government the founders were trying to protect citizens from and the government that were imposing the regulations are NOT the same.
My version of the country is freedom. Freedom should be a utopia for anyone. I dont want to tell you how to live your life.... i just want you to stop telling me how to live mine. For democrats, that is too much to ask.
says you..... government is government, they all suffer from the same tribulations.
Says every single historian that's ever lived since that point. And Im more inclined to believe them than you. Sorry. That's a part of history. You can't change it to suit your wishes.
Liberals will say anything to promote their agenda.
You will find true intelligence when you start challenging what your professors tell you rather than taking it as gospel. You're a book worm, you are not smart. Remembering what you're told is not intelligence.
So the people that wrote the 2nd amendment weren't talking about the British government, despite what every single history book, every historical document ever written on the topic says. Seems like when I challenge the professors, the answer is still the truth. I find it hard to believe the entire global university system is connected in attempting to undermine US democracy and education in spite of your truth.
Do you have evidence that the authors of the bill of rights, these wealthy land owners and slave owners intended on everyone having a gun to protect them from them? I would be more than happy to see it.
No but some things need to be modified to meet modern times.
I don't see you as someone who would challenge your professor on anything, you're too conformed to the hive mindset. You don't have a single original thought in your brain, you're just reading Al Sharpton's cliff notes.
Ok, i will submit to your point. I dont believe it, but for the sake of argument i will continue assuming that your statement is correct.
So the constitution and/or the statements made by the founders in regards to protecting us from "the government" were talking about the british government and not our own..... this is what you're saying.
Ok, so the british government still exists..... as do a variety of other nations who conflict with our standard of living. Back then they would have had to sail over on a boat to get to us........ now they can get here in planes, aircraft carriers, submarines..... did they somehow become less of a threat with modern technology?
"the beauty of the 2nd amendment is that you wont need it until they come to take it".... So this statement is only in regards to the british government? indians? who?... to me... ANYONE that tries to take it, including our own government.
"When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears its people there is liberty" i suppose this is speaking to the british government also? it's not a statement applied to government in general..... why didnt they say "when the british government fears america, there is liberty"??
Like i said..... the constitution is lost in translation. Democrats seek to diminish it's value by questioning it's translation. Obama himself said it. Liberals arent even shy anymore about their communist agenda.... they dont have to be, they have your unconditional support whether theyre communist or not.
"shall not be infringed"
What about it don't you believe? Where is the evidence suggesting the founders wanted to arm everyone to protect themselves from themselves? If you have it, show it, and I might change my mind.
Nope. But before they get to us, they have to get through the US government.So the constitution and/or the statements made by the founders in regards to protecting us from "the government" were talking about the british government and not our own..... this is what you're saying.
Ok, so the british government still exists..... as do a variety of other nations who conflict with our standard of living. Back then they would have had to sail over on a boat to get to us........ now they can get here in planes, aircraft carriers, submarines..... did they somehow become less of a threat with modern technology?
A lot of other things would have to take place in order for that to happen. If it came to that point, you'd already be fucked anyway. Not to mention, the government has a strategic advantage over you."the beauty of the 2nd amendment is that you wont need it until they come to take it".... So this statement is only in regards to the british government? indians? who?... to me... ANYONE that tries to take it, including our own government.
No one is even sure if that is a real quote or a made up one. No one can seem to find it in any print earlier than 1910"When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears its people there is liberty" i suppose this is speaking to the british government also? it's not a statement applied to government in general..... why didnt they say "when the british government fears america, there is liberty"??
Indeed I think they did intend the second amendment to be a defense against a tyrannical government. However, the fact they instituted a process for changing the constitution and it's amendments I think is conclusive evidence that the document is not intended to be set in stone. The system isn't set up to prevent government from over reaching but it is set up to ensure the citizens are the ones who get the final word (through voting) so that the government can not act tyrannically without having to answer to the people.
I think that is true to an extent but sometimes what isn't said is as important as what is said. The founders could never have imagined all the changes that have happened over the last couple centuries. To assume anyone knows perfectly what they would have thought about current society and technology is quite presumptuous. From what I know of the founders, the weren't so arrogant to believe that things couldn't or shouldn't change over time. Once again, I refer to the process they set up for changing the constitution.
So the british government didnt have an advantage over the founders? were they not "fucked anyway"...?? Why didnt the constitution say "we're out numbered by the british, you can keep your guns until they decide to take them, cause if they do, we're fucked anyway"
The odds being stacked against you is no reason to surrender. That is not the american way, we dont surrender.
blank - The Constitution and Bill of Rights were not written about the British government. You are 100% incorrect on that. NO historian worth his salt would every say that the US Constitution and the Amendments were written about the British government.
Learn your history: Constitution of the United States - A History
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
This is why some subscribe to the "well regulated militia" theory, that the 2nd amendment was intended to more or less make an army out of citizens making the US larger than the British army, at the time they were stronger and better funded than us.
Now you're putting words I didn't say in my mouth. Learn your history some more.
The chinese military out numbers us does it not?
I feel my work is done here for the day......
I will let Blank's brain marinate for a day and check to see if he's any closer to joining reality another time.
The Revolutionary War ended in September of 1783. The Bill of Rights was written in 1789. They were not fighting the British - that war had already ended.
The US did not have an army during that period - we only had militia, and the states carried more power back then.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
You have no chance at matching me in recollection of history.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I didn't say we were fighting a war, did I?
LMAO. Sorry old man. Forgot you were around back then.
What's your point? Maybe America should have a billion people between its borders?
We didn't need to "make an army out of citizens" to "make the US larger than the British army" - we already had defeated them, and already had our militias.
As for the British Army being well-funded and stronger - obviously, they were not stronger at the end of the war in the US theatre (and lost the War of 1812 to the US as well), and prior to the war starting, they were already in debt, hence the increase in the King's taxes, and the Revolutionary War. They weren't in the poor house though either.
I suggest that you download and watch the 4 part PBS special on the Constitution. They are good basic history documentaries.
Part 1 is called "A More Perfect Union"
Part 2 is called "It's A Free Country"
Part 3 is called "Created Equal"
Part 4 is called "Built To Last"
Last edited by David88vert; 06-20-2013 at 05:43 PM.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
How does that change anything I said? You're not that great at this history thing are you?
I am fine with my knowledge of history; you, however, have difficulty with thinking. Re-read your statements. Your "knowledge" of the Revolutionary War shows your lack of education.
YOUR statements - British government was the reason for the 2nd Amendment being written as it is. Either that is a false statement, or you are really stretching for a vague, indirect reference to King George III's troops being on American soil prior to the Revolutionary War. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt on it, but that is an extreme stretch to say that it had any impactful influence as their is no direct evidence of that.
The real world knows that when the US established a permanent professional army, controlled by the federal government, many of the "anti-Federalists" feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from having the legal ability to be able to disarm the state-run militias.
Last edited by David88vert; 06-20-2013 at 09:47 PM.
vintage blank cd, responding with unabashed self righteousness even when someone is proving him the fool.
I don't agree with Emily Miller's assessment of a tax on firearms and ammunition. There is nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that say that they cannot be taxed, and they currently are taxed through sales tax.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Taxed enough already.
Don't buy a gun if you don't want to be taxed on it. Problem solved.
If it is important enough to you to purchase a firearm or ammunition, you will still purchase it, with or without the tax. The question is, what do they need the additional revenue for? If it is really for a gun buy-back program, and would be earmarked specifically for that fund, I would have no issue with it.
In fact, if that was the case, then you would collect more revenue from higher end guns and ammunition, and that tax money would be used to get "Saturday night specials" and other low end guns off the street. Typically, these lower end firearms are used more in criminal interests, and are the most likely to get turned in when there is a buy-back. Legal purchasers, collectors, etc typically do not like to purchase and keep these lower end firearms, so what is the problem with this approach?
That's a simple answer, but a valid one. The same type of answer could be put towards any item, but would you still have the same answer if "air conditioner" or "organic vegetables" was substituted for "firearm"? Just food for thought - nothing more, and not "attacking" your statement or anything like that. I'm mostly agreeing with you on this one, that the tax can be avoided if you wish to.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote