Do you support the second amendment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pnewton said:
40.png
JonNC:
Just noting that Dred Scott, Plessey and Roe along with Jim Crow were all supported and championed by the Democratic Party
Click to expand...
LOL! I am glad you notice. History does repeat itself. Inherent in democracy, of all men being created equal, is the definition of “men”. Defining this term has always been a way of appearing democratic while marginalizing, women, people of color, immigrants, or those in the womb.
Click to expand...
Yes, thank goodness that constitutional conservatives and true classical liberals have been there to fight against this marginalizing.
It is important to recognize that the use of the word men in the Dof I should always be understood as the same usage as in the Nicene Creed
 
pnewton said:
Inherent in democracy, of all men being created equal, is the definition of “men”. Defining this term has always been a way of appearing democratic while marginalizing, women, people of color, immigrants, or those in the womb.
Click to expand...
pnewton said:
Are you sure? I thought manned flight was in there somewhere. 😏
Click to expand...
did you also think flight was only for men? The word “man” is right there in “manned” so it obviously means men, and men only…right?:roll_eyes:

emphasis in the second quote is my addition.
 
If we are going to use equivalency, since there were no airports in 250 years ago, would Republicans be equally on board with a list of people prohibited to travel by other means, say foot traffic, from town to town without due process? That is more apples to apples than saying flying is not a protected right. Is travel in general something we have the right to, or can that be suspended without due process?
 
That’s the problem. People use weapons to harm others even if those weapons were made for something else. You can ban everything and killing will still happen. This is an optimization problem.
 
I was referencing the repeaters… although, now that you bring it up, why is it that all the movies depict the colonial militias as firing the same weapons as the British military (muskets)?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
godisgood77 said:
As you can see… no where in the my argument am I advocating for disarming anyone… to say so is silly, reactionary and inaccurate. There are no ‘ploys’ here… I think the motives of those advocating for more common sense in the laws and in consistent enforcement are genuine and focused on the common good… not nefarious as you seem to imply.
Click to expand...
Hear hear!

Truthful and direct. Quite a lance you wrote here.
 
godisgood77 said:
Yes, we have some laws on the books… there are huge variances in those laws from town to town, city to city, county to county, state to state. There are huge loopholes and the laws are not consistently enforced. The NRA gun lobby exerts huge influence through money and shady back room politics.
Click to expand...
I hear how powerful the NRA lobbying is, but when one looks at the dollars, they seem to be small players, not only in lobbying but also in contributions.


https://www.google.com/amp/thehill....318177-lobbyings-top-50-whos-spending-big?amp

As for “shady back room deals”, a source please.
 
ChaosGamma said:
🤦‍♂️ I knew that. I was thinking of Hamilton or somebody trying to get the President to have the same powers as the Crown during the Constitutional Assembly and mixed things up. Mea culpa.

Nevertheless, as far as practical matters go, the President of the United States did and does have more power than the Queen of Great Britain. It has similarly degenerated over the last two centuries but it’s not all gone. If Her Majesty were to try to oppose some bill (at least, so long as it’s some progressive pet) from making it through Parliament, I have little doubt things would turn out similarly to Belgium and Luxembourg when those countries’ monarchs tried to step in, with their constitutional powers, and prevent evil being done to their people.

EDIT: I do have some fondness for the Federalists and Washington, though a traitor, wasn’t a terribly bad guy. And the fact that their government, even though highly degraded and little resembling their design, has survived 230 years is a testament to their not being wholly removed from reality. At least it hasn’t yet blown up the way the First French Republic did.

Still, the Enlightenment and its descendants are a bastardization of the true heritage of the West. That lies in the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and the Catholic Reformation. It was the Throne and Altar that built the West. It is liberty, equality and democracy that are destroying it.
Click to expand...
This post, I can agree with 🙂
 
They don’t. Yu see them firing flintlocks, which is the common ignition system of the era, but they are not the same weapons. The militias used primarily rifles and shotguns.

The French did later supply the Americans with Charleville muskets, similar to the Brown Bess’s used by the British. Those were used by some Continental regulars.
 
Jamie5 said:
http://www.newsweek.com/second-amendment-las-vegas-gun-control-680384
Click to expand...
Read the article, wasn’t impressed.

The problem with the gun control debate is this: Republican politicians do a HORRIBLE job defending their position because they never mention the reason because they don’t want to give crazy people a green light.

The question about gun control is this: the Second Amendment is intended to protect us from whom? Criminals or the Govt?

Republicans currently (yes, the party was not always controlled by conservatives - Nixon was not a conservative) accepts the position of James Madison, George Mason, Alexander Hamilton, etc in that the 2nd Amendment is meant to protect the people from the govt.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 28 that “if the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense,” a right which he declared to be “paramount.”
Click to expand...
Republican politicians hurt their argument because they do not flat out state they view it as a right to protect themselves against the govt. Because the idea that you need to have guns for sport or need AR-15’s to hunt deer is insane. But the idea that you need AR-15s to protect yourself against the govt and to start an insurgency against the federal govt is legit.

But, I doubt you will hear any Republican politicians publicly say, I favor the keeping semi-automatics legal because we might need them to fight another civil war. However, that is the real reason.

Now, with that said, I do agree that private owners have a right to ban guns in the places in places of business (stores, stadiums, malls, etc) and that cities and states have the right to ban guns in state owned buildings – including schools and universities.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
They don’t. YOu see them firing flintlocks, but they are not the same weapons. The militias used primarily rifles and shotguns.

The French did later supply the Americans with Charleville muskets, similar to the Brown Bess’s used by the British. Those were used by some Continental regulars.
 
The question is what to do about evil. Passing laws is a superficial, feel good, completely ineffective means of doing that. Gun laws were tightened in 1968, placing an onerous burden only upon the law abiding. As a former federally licensed firearms dealer, I can attest to that. With the passing of each new gun law, crime increases. Ponder that. As to preventing a calculating criminal from eventually carrying out a horrific act, that is impossible.

With hundreds of millions of guns and trillions of rounds of ammunition in private US hands, if gun owners were the problem you would know it.

The criminal human heart is the problem, and there are the 10 ancient laws to cover that.
 
While criminals will always be a problem, as a reasonable man it’s not unreasonable to ban bumps or kits that can turn a semiauto into fully auto. No one should be able to kill that many people that fast with a legal firearm. Those firearms should not be legal. There HAS to be some kind of mandatory waiting period and also ways to close gun show loopholes which circumvent the waiting and paperwork process. No one should have a gun with any type of violent or domestic abuse conviction, etc.

more common sense rules:
• We must ban and criminalize the possession of automatic weapons!
• We must close loopholes such as buying a weapon at a gun show!
• We must ban the purchase of firearms and ammunition on the internet!
• We must increase the waiting period and make background checks more rigorous and effective!
• We must limit the number of firearms any individual can own!
• We must limit the number of bullets any firearm clip can hold!
• We must ban and criminalize the purchase and possession of armor piercing bullets, and also hollow-tip bullets!
• We must rethink the “logic” of permitting concealed weapons, especially in places like houses of worship, colleges, bars, restaurants, and political rallies!
• We must interface all data bases monitoring firearm ownership to assess the firearm-owning population more accurately and effectively!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top