Actual Armed Citizens

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by HatchetJack

You are right, times were different back then. All they had to worry about were Redsticks, rattlesnakes and redcoats.
Had they known about drugs, crips, bloods, sexual predators, child molestors, serial killers, terrorists, coyotes
wolves, rabid dogs, meth heads and all the other bad guys in this corrupt
world we now live in they would have made it a crime to even question the amendment.
It's really not worth arguing about because I'm not about to turn my weapons
over cause some hippie mf'r thinks we live in la la land with bunnies hopping
around and we should all hold hands and sing songs.
Why a political party would try and take away rights from the majority to
gain a few minority votes is beyond me. It did not work then and I doubt they
ever try it again.

I never said the world was a completely safe place. It's not. I'm not even against reasonable gun ownership. I simply ask where we draw the line. Because, I am against vigilantism, I am against yahoos getting to play judge, jury and executioner.

BTW, can anyone tell me; Has anyone at all proposed any gun control legislation lately? And by "proposed" I'm not referring to pundits or press, I'm referring to actual introduced legislation that would involve rightful gun owners having to surrender any weapons. AFAIK, the answer to that question would be "no".

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

....Will you be my PERMANENT wingman??? Funniest thing I've heard this week and that INCLUDES Colbert!

....

Thank you, thank you :bow:

Most of the seriously leftie women secretly want a lumberjack...

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Exactly. I would also add that the need to hunt in order to feed themselves and to survive on the largely lawless frontiers were also considerations as well. But, we got to see exactly what the founders really thought of the armed citizenry during the Whiskey Rebellion, didn't we? I wonder if that dumbass Palin will learn about that one when she passes through Pittsburgh? It's interesting to see what they thought about arming the citizens against a "tyrannical government" before they became the government. Seems to me, they learned that you cannot govern under those conditions. It doesn't work.

Dave

The Whiskey rebellion clearly violated the powers given the Federal Government by the Constitution.

Those men, that started our government, would NEVER have given up their guns.

Originally Posted by JonL

Frankly, I'm tired of reading all the BS about what the wonderful founders thought and wrote as if they were themselves each gods. The most important ideal the founders built into our government and constitution was that things CHANGE and the constitution must be a living document that can also change. The 2nd amendment is an AMENDMENT. It could be repealed. It could be modified. That, IMO, is no accident. Certainly the founders couldn't imagine automatic weapons, much less Blackhawk helicopters, nerve gas, or nuclear bombs. But they DID imagine that the world would be a different place in 50, 100, 200 years and built the idea that every generation has to interpret and mold the basic principles in the constitution to fit the times. Quotes about how flintlocks and muskets fit into 18th century politics when the enemy had to get across the Atlantic ocean in square-rigged SAILBOATS are fucking meaningless in today's world. Get a grip. "Strict constructionists," and all you who quote chapter and verse about a time in which a guy with the best weapon available would be lucky to give you a flesh wound from 100 feet away should grow up and look around a little bit. Sheesh.

Simple - change it! Or subvert it. Which is best for our long term freedom?

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Simple - change it! Or subvert it. Which is best for our long term freedom?

Pete

I guess before we do either, we need to have a common understanding of the 2nd Amendments twisted semantics.

[merrylander]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...ynVL_OqDt8Knpg

Here you go flack.

[piece-itpete]

Finn, I'd agree that there is a line. But many on the left say it is not an individual right, which a cursory look at the founders statements at the time shows as clearly wrong. That would be obfuscation.

Pete

PS do I get any points for big words? I'm a big boy now! Maybe a minus though for sentence structure :sad:

[BlueStreak]

"The Whiskey rebellion clearly violated the powers given the Federal Government by the Constitution.

Those men, that started our government, would NEVER have given up their guns."

Of course not. They needed them to collect taxes on the sale of an unhealthy, addictive beverage. Damned Nanny state!

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by merrylander

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...ynVL_OqDt8Knpg

Here you go flack.

"Obama fails to remove gun lobby language from budget."---An organization, PRO-gun control and bearing the name of a Reagan Republican, chastizes a Liberal Democratic President for not being tough enough on the gun lobby............And, they will still fall for the nonsense, Rob.

It's like a public school teacher voting Republican, because he wants to protect his right to assembly.

I ask once again; Any gun control legislation presented--------lately?

Dave

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

"Obama fails to remove gun lobby language from budget."---An organization, PRO-gun control and bearing the name of a Reagan Republican, chastizes a Liberal Democratic President for not being tough enough on the gun lobby............And, they will still fall for the nonsense, Rob.

It's like a public school teacher voting Republican, because he wants to protect his right to assembly.

I ask once again; Any gun control legislation presented--------lately?

Dave

As I recall, in the wake of the shooting in Arizona, legislation was introduced to limit the number of rounds that may be contained in a clip.

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

As I recall, in the wake of the shooting in Arizona, legislation was introduced to limit the number of rounds that may be contained in a clip.

Regards,

D-Ray

yep and then...

[merrylander]

Another point, that wingnut that shot Gabriel Giffords did not show up in the National database because AZ did not update it. It is a State responsibility to place known nutcases and such into the National database - states rights?