Who Would Vote For bush Again?

Because some antiquated law is still on the books doesn't endorse that law. What good does licensing do? How about people cannot own guns, like they cannot drive cars, until they prove they know how to use them and the consequences of using them in the wrong way. We have a VP that apparantly has no concept -- there simply is no rationalization, no excuse, for his "accident." I'd also take away his car keys. There should be drunk hunting laws as well.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Because some antiquated law is still on the books doesn't endorse that law.

I doubt freedom will ever be considered antiquated in America.

I am not sure what you mean by "endorse". The law applies until it is repealed. If it were a statute, it could be overturned by a court ruling, but this is part of the Constitution.

Lightwizard wrote:

What good does licensing do? How about people cannot own guns, like they cannot drive cars, until they prove they know how to use them and the consequences of using them in the wrong way.

That sounds reasonable, but I don't see why licensing is required in order to do it.

0 Replies

If one reads the Federal Papers they will find that the Founding Fathers didn't expect to even recognize their document within one-hundred years. It took way too long a time for the administrations in power and the populace to wake up to necessary changes that spell f-r-e-e-d-o-m. Amending the constitution to ban alcolhol when nearly all the Founding Fathers were drunks was a laughable indication that our politicians have not known since those great first men who conceived this nation what the f**k they were doing.

0 Replies

Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. -Benjamin Franklin

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

Lightwizard wrote:
I don't know of anyone who wants to ban all guns any more than they would want to ban all cars, considering that cars kill more people than anything else.

However, there are plenty of people who want to ban the types of guns that we have the right to have.

Lightwizard wrote:
I wonder what the Founding Fathers would have thought of modern weaponry and if they would have imposed licensing to own guns?

Why? What good does licensing do?

Lightwizard wrote:
Their original thought was that it was a deterant to a despotic government taking over. I'm not sure that holds any water today.

It applies until the Constitution is amended to change it.

You are claiming that there is an individual right to bear arms. No such right exists within the Constitution, regardless of the myths perpetrated by the NRA.

0 Replies

Rox
Rox, the NRA's position is less about the right to bear arms under the Constitution than it is about the right to sell arms and make lots of money. The NRA is all about gun sellers.

BBB

0 Replies

Wow.

Roxxxane can't read and BBB can't shoot straight, seems more like it.

0 Replies

That shouldn't be all that surprising.

0 Replies

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

0 Replies

Funny thing, language -- the semantic interpretation of a sentence is dependent on the words like infringe which is used in this context seeming to mean encroachment. Keep and bear Arms (not guns, Arms). Arms like a nuclear weapon? Seems to be some regulation of that! One of the other meanings of infringe is obsolete. I rest my case.

0 Replies

You rest your case? What case?

0 Replies

Quote:

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

--George Washington

Quote:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

--Thomas Jefferson

0 Replies

Quote:

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

--George Washington

I like that quote. However, sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from the US government definitely includes tanks, nukes, etc. Wouldn't work, otherwise. Just have a look at Iraq.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Quote:
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

--George Washington

I like that quote. However, sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from the US government definitely includes tanks, nukes, etc. Wouldn't work, otherwise. Just have a look at Iraq.

Nonetheless, Washington clearly wanted the public well armed so that the government would think twice before really trying to suppress dissent. Even if one can't ultimately win, an armed populace is certainly more in line with his thinking than an unarmed populace of sheep, and he is clearly not talking only about militias.

0 Replies

I think Washington actually wanted the populace to ultimately win. Do you not think so?

0 Replies

It amuses me how, on the one hand, the conservatives in this thread are all for keeping the populace well-armed to defend against an all-mighty gov't, but on the other hand, roll over and wait for their tummies to be rubbed by the gov't on the issue of illegal wiretapping.

As if your puny little guns would ever do much against a strong gov't. Wake up, people!

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

You are claiming that there is an individual right to bear arms. No such right exists within the Constitution, regardless of the myths perpetrated by the NRA.

Liar.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

If one reads the Federal Papers they will find that the Founding Fathers didn't expect to even recognize their document within one-hundred years.

Do you have an example of this view in their writings?

0 Replies

Re: Rox

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Rox, the NRA's position is less about the right to bear arms under the Constitution than it is about the right to sell arms and make lots of money. The NRA is all about gun sellers.

That is incorrect. The NRA has relatively little to do with gun sellers, and is often at odds with the gun manufacturing industry.

----------------------------------------------------

My 1000th post. I should now be a "seasoned member".

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Funny thing, language -- the semantic interpretation of a sentence is dependent on the words like infringe which is used in this context seeming to mean encroachment.

The interpretation of the amendment depends of the intent of the people who wrote it, not on linguistics.

Lightwizard wrote:

Keep and bear Arms (not guns, Arms). Arms like a nuclear weapon?

No. Arms like a full-auto M16 with armor-piercing ammo.

0 Replies

Who Would Vote For bush Again?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know