The True Meaning of the 2nd Amendment
The 2nd Amendment seems to be endlessly debated without the true meaning ever being mentioned. The Founding Fathers put it in the Bill of Rights to guarantee the citizens remained on an equal footing with any military force a foriegn or dictatorial government could field. It isn't about hunting, home defense, the National Guard, or target shooting. Unfortunately our politically correct society has forced gun owners to never say this for fear of being called "domestic terrorists" or "crazies". Muskets, the main military weapons of the colonial days, were specialized military weapons no more used for hunting than the modern full auto assualt rifles. With the modern weapon systems available to today's armies, the idea of citizens with rifles making a difference is a little outdated. But it is still our right. When I am faced with an anti-gun argument I give this opinion and the heck with being PC.
Thomas Jefferson would ask why we aren't allowed to own full auto weapons. While I am happy with my semi-auto assualt rifle, we can't allow the new political group in Washington to place more rescrictions on this precious freedom the writers of the constitution left us.
Thomas Jefferson would ask why we aren't allowed to own full auto weapons. While I am happy with my semi-auto assualt rifle, we can't allow the new political group in Washington to place more rescrictions on this precious freedom the writers of the constitution left us.
0
-
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
But I have given up on the CA's (Clueless Ass's)! Trying to have an intelligent discussion with MOST of them is total waste of time.
Well, Jim, have you ever considered that maybe it's YOU? You see, when one makes it a practice to compromise their principles, they most likely will not get along well with those who refuse to. Not a personal attack Jim, just stating the facts.
What could the common denominator to this situation of intelligent discussion and a waste of time be?[:)][:I][8)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
What could the common denominator to this situation of intelligent discussion and a waste of time be?[:)][:I][8)]
[/quote]
All I know is I want my money back! I came here specifically to debate Jim Rau.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Originally posted by lt496
What could the common denominator to this situation of intelligent discussion and a waste of time be?[:)][:I][8)]
All I know is I want my money back! I came here specifically to debate Jim Rau.
[/quote][:D]
A thumbnail sketch, if I may.
One group, the much belittled Brethren, consistently argues the easily defended position of individualism, The Constitution, its Bill of Rights and the Principals of the Republic. "The Brethren" consistently use these documents, ideals and principals as a yardstick, to measure certain government actions and certain positions espoused by various posters, this to illustrate how these gov't actions and certain posters positions "stack up".
Another loose-nit grouping, blathers about radicals, tin-foil hat wearers, armed insurrectionists, those inciting revolution etc. Those of this group dart in occasionally, similar to a small "ankle-biter" dog, to toss those barbs, slings and arrows at the first group.
Another third 'unorganized' group, of several members, consistently take up the argument of compromise, reality, reason, common sense, moderation, etc; this to attempt to lure others over to their view and outlook, which is purportedly the proper, "safer" and "more realistic" view and approach. It is pointed out frequently that we all should know that expecting and insisting that government follow the Supreme Law of The Land, is somehow, foolish and unrealistic. At least, so says the soft, comforting voices whispering in the ear of The Brethren.
A thumbnail of the 'general' camps, with a smattering of other individuals scattered throughout.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau Originally posted by Don McManus
I am certainly more capable of 'independent' thought than any of the people here who have 'closed' their mind to anyone else's believes/opinions/conclusions!
But I have given up on the CA's (Clueless Ass's)! Trying to have an intelligent discussion with MOST of them is total waste of time.
Very well, Jim. I would disagree with your assessment, as you refuse to answer the simplest of questions. The one you have refused to address is:
My position is that laws against yelling 'fire' in a theater are the same as those against shooting a pistol in theater.
Your position is that the laws against yelling 'fire' in a theater are restrictions to free speech rights similar to restrictions on the owning and carrying a firearm.
You said this comparison is silly, and refused to explain why, claiming you live in 'reality'.
I only ask that you exercise that independent thought process to show me why this position is silly. If you do not want to address the question, that is obviously fine, but 'silly' and 'reality' are certainly not answers of an independent thinker.0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Originally posted by lt496
What could the common denominator to this situation of intelligent discussion and a waste of time be?[:)][:I][8)]
All I know is I want my money back! I came here specifically to debate Jim Rau.
[:D]
A thumbnail sketch, if I may.
One group, the much belittled Brethren, consistently argues the easily defended position of individualism, The Constitution, its Bill of Rights and the Principals of the Republic. "The Brethren" consistently use these documents, ideals and principals as a yardstick, to measure certain government actions and certain positions espoused by various posters, this to illustrate how these gov't actions and certain posters positions "stack up".
Another loose-nit grouping, blathers about radicals, tin-foil hat wearers, armed insurrectionists, those inciting revolution etc. Those of this group dart in occasionally, similar to a small "ankle-biter" dog, to toss those barbs, slings and arrows at the first group.
Another third 'unorganized' group, of several members, consistently take up the argument of compromise, reality, reason, common sense, moderation, etc; this to attempt to lure others over to their view and outlook, which is purportedly the proper, "safer" and "more realistic" view and approach. It is pointed out frequently that we all should know that expecting and insisting that government follow the Supreme Law of The Land, is somehow, foolish and unrealistic. At least, so says the soft, comforting voices whispering in the ear of The Brethren.
A thumbnail of the 'general' camps, with a smattering of other individuals scattered throughout.
[/quote]
Jeff,
We WILL have that debate over some barley pop in person someday. This is on my 'bucket list'!!!
Stay safe![8D]
The same goes for Bret! He has my curiosity peaked!!![;)]0 -
quote:Jeff,
We WILL have that debate over some barley pop in person someday. This is on my 'bucket list'!!!
Stay safe!
The same goes for Bret! He has my curiosity peaked!!!Deal Jim. Sounds good to me and i'll even buy.[;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
A thumbnail sketch, if I may.
One group, the much belittled Brethren, consistently argues the easily defended position of individualism, The Constitution, its Bill of Rights and the Principals of the Republic. "The Brethren" consistently use these documents, ideals and principals as a yardstick, to measure certain government actions and certain positions espoused by various posters, this to illustrate how these gov't actions and certain posters positions "stack up".
Another loose-nit grouping, blathers about radicals, tin-foil hat wearers, armed insurrectionists, those inciting revolution etc. Those of this group dart in occasionally, similar to a small "ankle-biter" dog, to toss those barbs, slings and arrows at the first group.
Another third 'unorganized' group, of several members, consistently take up the argument of compromise, reality, reason, common sense, moderation, etc; this to attempt to lure others over to their view and outlook, which is purportedly the proper, "safer" and "more realistic" view and approach. It is pointed out frequently that we all should know that expecting and insisting that government follow the Supreme Law of The Land, is somehow, foolish and unrealistic. At least, so says the soft, comforting voices whispering in the ear of The Brethren.
A thumbnail of the 'general' camps, with a smattering of other individuals scattered throughout.
You left out a group. Unsurprisingly.0 -
quote:You left out a group. Unsurprisingly.
Please elucidate.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Little-Acorn
quote:Originally posted by lt496
A thumbnail sketch, if I may.
One group, the much belittled Brethren, consistently argues the easily defended position of individualism, The Constitution, its Bill of Rights and the Principals of the Republic. "The Brethren" consistently use these documents, ideals and principals as a yardstick, to measure certain government actions and certain positions espoused by various posters, this to illustrate how these gov't actions and certain posters positions "stack up".
Another loose-nit grouping, blathers about radicals, tin-foil hat wearers, armed insurrectionists, those inciting revolution etc. Those of this group dart in occasionally, similar to a small "ankle-biter" dog, to toss those barbs, slings and arrows at the first group.
Another third 'unorganized' group, of several members, consistently take up the argument of compromise, reality, reason, common sense, moderation, etc; this to attempt to lure others over to their view and outlook, which is purportedly the proper, "safer" and "more realistic" view and approach. It is pointed out frequently that we all should know that expecting and insisting that government follow the Supreme Law of The Land, is somehow, foolish and unrealistic. At least, so says the soft, comforting voices whispering in the ear of The Brethren.
A thumbnail of the 'general' camps, with a smattering of other individuals scattered throughout.
You left out a group. Unsurprisingly.
Hey, it's MY thumbnail, so I guess I'll sketch it how I want. That okay with you?
I never claimed it was all inclusive. It merely served my purpose at the time. Again, that okay with you?0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
69 comments