How do you know that? Did you ask people here in the DFW area who were around these gun protests. Did you ask them if they were a little bit worried or even scared about it?
But it has been done with both right leaning and left leaning courts. That is why I’m saying, the Constitution can have a lot of ramifications and cause a lot of problems.To some extent, I agree. But I would say that our Constitution is fine, it’s the politically appointed courts that bring us the poor results (abortion decisions, etc.).
On another point, I would not say the colonists were afraid of “outsiders,” particularly the British. The colonists were also British - It was their own government that was oppressive and posed a danger.
Gun ownership is protected not just for hunting, target shooting, and protection from criminals, but for for defending against an oppressive and threatening government. Not today, but who knows what the U.S. will be like 100 years from now, The Constitution was meant to apply to any future problems that might arise.
I see that you were a History major - since we are including credentials: B.A. in Political Science, M.P.A., Juris Doctor.
No nit picking at all. No one is saying you have to agree. No one is holding a gun to your head and saying you have to agree or else.
So if (theoretically) the government said “You MUST agree with the idea of gay marriages and MUST agree with the idea of abortion or we will kill you if you don’t” you’d be OK with that?
Isn’t that what our church teaches us? To stand up to what is true? Isn’t why we are praying for the Christians in the Middle East who are being beheaded because they don’t convert to Islam. Isn’t that we give veneration to the martyr’s who were thrown to the lions because they worshipped Jesus?
And I will be right there with you.
I applaud your resoluteness, but if they come for me, I wont go quietly and I wont go alone.
Oh trust me I have never, and I do mean never. Have I gone down without a fight.
No, I didn’t say “mainly.” In colonial days guns were used for all purposes - hunting, attack by animals, robbers, or marauders, as well as defense against an oppressive government.
Slavery, was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution until the ratification of the 13th amendment abolished it. It’s unlikely that the Constitution could have been ratified if it had. It is implied in several places, especially in the 3/5 compromise, which was intended to be a limitation on slave states (the slave states wanted to count slaves as a whole person for purposes of Congressional representation, thereby increasing their numbers in the House of Representatives). This makes it more like atheism, abortion, gay marriage, rights that are created by the Supreme Court without regard for the text, or even the intent, of the Constitution. In contrast, the right to bear arms is specifically recognized by the 2nd amendment to the Constitution and it’s importance and rationale are discussed in several places by the authors of the Constitution. Mentioning the other rights in the context of the 2nd amendment is a non-sequitur.