100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Guns and Gustav | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Crying fire in a crowded theater. That is a well recognized term to most people.
read what I wrote again please. I agree it is a right not a privledge to own a gun. Reading my own post I will admit my error. I wrote,"Owning a gun, like voting is a privileged afford to us by the Constitution." I should have written, "Owning a gun, like voting is a right afford to us by the Constitution." Thank you Drivinmenutz for pointing that out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crying fire in a crowded theater. That is a well recognized term to most people. read what I wrote again please. I agree it is a right not a privledge to own a gun. Reading my own post I will admit my error. I wrote,"Owning a gun, like voting is a privileged afford to us by the Constitution." I should have written, "Owning a gun, like voting is a right afford to us by the Constitution." Thank you Drivinmenutz for pointing that out. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Technically, the right to bare arms is not the right to own a gun. If you look up really old court cases that understood the wording at the time. They said a man that hunted with his riffle everyday would not be said to have bore arms. It is meant that you have the right to be part of a militia.
Either way, this is kind of off topic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Technically, the right to bare arms is not the right to own a gun. If you look up really old court cases that understood the wording at the time. They said a man that hunted with his riffle everyday would not be said to have bore arms. It is meant that you have the right to be part of a militia. Either way, this is kind of off topic. That is the arguement... Although the major purpose of this right wwas for people to defend themselves against this government in the case that it becomes hazardous to their best interests. At least that is according to Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Mason, and Thomas Pain. But they probably just means it ok to form a militia that isn't government controlled. Maybe? But it still falls under the whole concept mentioned in our Declaration of Independence where it basically states that if the government at anytime becomes destructive to our personal freedoms we have the right and responsibility to "alter or abolish it" establishing a new government in it's place. So, once again, it was all meant to limit government power. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Technically, the right to bare arms is not the right to own a gun. If you look up really old court cases that understood the wording at the time. They said a man that hunted with his riffle everyday would not be said to have bore arms. It is meant that you have the right to be part of a militia. Either way, this is kind of off topic. That is the arguement... Although the major purpose of this right wwas for people to defend themselves against this government in the case that it becomes hazardous to their best interests. At least that is according to Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Mason, and Thomas Pain. But they probably just means it ok to form a militia that isn't government controlled. Maybe? But it still falls under the whole concept mentioned in our Declaration of Independence where it basically states that if the government at anytime becomes destructive to our personal freedoms we have the right and responsibility to "alter or abolish it" establishing a new government in it's place. So, once again, it was all meant to limit government power. no doubt your founding fathers are rolling in their graves,,,wait...I think I can hear them clear across over here...!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Technically, the right to bare arms is not the right to own a gun. If you look up really old court cases that understood the wording at the time. They said a man that hunted with his riffle everyday would not be said to have bore arms. It is meant that you have the right to be part of a militia. Either way, this is kind of off topic. That is the arguement... Although the major purpose of this right wwas for people to defend themselves against this government in the case that it becomes hazardous to their best interests. At least that is according to Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Mason, and Thomas Pain. But they probably just means it ok to form a militia that isn't government controlled. Maybe? But it still falls under the whole concept mentioned in our Declaration of Independence where it basically states that if the government at anytime becomes destructive to our personal freedoms we have the right and responsibility to "alter or abolish it" establishing a new government in it's place. So, once again, it was all meant to limit government power. no doubt your founding fathers are rolling in their graves,,,wait...I think I can hear them clear across over here...!!! AAAAAAAARGH!  If you weren't so damned cute! Weren't they your founding fathers in the past as well?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All I was saying is that the meanings of words change over time, and if you don't look at the meaning of the words in the time period they were written in than of course you ate going to misunderstand the writing. Not to mention, laws have to change based on technology. I mean some people think that the right to bare arms allows them the right to a nuke if they could afford it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Technically, the right to bare arms is not the right to own a gun. If you look up really old court cases that understood the wording at the time. They said a man that hunted with his riffle everyday would not be said to have bore arms. It is meant that you have the right to be part of a militia. Either way, this is kind of off topic. That is the arguement... Although the major purpose of this right wwas for people to defend themselves against this government in the case that it becomes hazardous to their best interests. At least that is according to Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Mason, and Thomas Pain. But they probably just means it ok to form a militia that isn't government controlled. Maybe? But it still falls under the whole concept mentioned in our Declaration of Independence where it basically states that if the government at anytime becomes destructive to our personal freedoms we have the right and responsibility to "alter or abolish it" establishing a new government in it's place. So, once again, it was all meant to limit government power. no doubt your founding fathers are rolling in their graves,,,wait...I think I can hear them clear across over here...!!! AAAAAAAARGH! If you weren't so damned cute! Weren't they your founding fathers in the past as well? awwwww.....  My founding fathers were from Spain, France and England..we have a bit of an identity crisis over here....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Technically, the right to bare arms is not the right to own a gun. If you look up really old court cases that understood the wording at the time. They said a man that hunted with his riffle everyday would not be said to have bore arms. It is meant that you have the right to be part of a militia. Either way, this is kind of off topic. That is the arguement... Although the major purpose of this right wwas for people to defend themselves against this government in the case that it becomes hazardous to their best interests. At least that is according to Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Mason, and Thomas Pain. But they probably just means it ok to form a militia that isn't government controlled. Maybe? But it still falls under the whole concept mentioned in our Declaration of Independence where it basically states that if the government at anytime becomes destructive to our personal freedoms we have the right and responsibility to "alter or abolish it" establishing a new government in it's place. So, once again, it was all meant to limit government power. no doubt your founding fathers are rolling in their graves,,,wait...I think I can hear them clear across over here...!!! AAAAAAAARGH! If you weren't so damned cute! Weren't they your founding fathers in the past as well? awwwww..... My founding fathers were from Spain, France and England..we have a bit of an identity crisis over here.... Yeah, their crisis is they think they own the falkland islands |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am a gun owner and strongly supporter of the right of every citizen to own a gun. Maybe several guns. Bet that surprises a few of you eh? The NRA can kiss my a$$. Owning a gun, like voting is a privileged afford to us by the Constitution. A privilege fairly recently affirmed by SCOTUS. When you muck up you lose privileges. The NRA's extremism has made many non-gun owners view every gun owner as an extremist. By consistently opposing any legislation that speaks to gun ownership they seem strident and unreasonable. They damage their own cause. So, the extremists in the NRA are so afraid of any legislation that we have no consistent standards. Honestly something is wrong when someone can, in some states walk out of a treatment center for the mentally ill, and into a gun shop to purchase guns and ammo. There's something wrong when those who legally own guns are considered violent extremist while the majority of gun related crimes are committed by people who do not own guns legally? Please, don't fall for for the politicians who profit by creating fear and dividing us on both sides of this issue. Think for a moment about reasonable compromise. I know the slippery slope arguments that the NRA pushes, "if you let the government limit right A then next thing you know it will be right B and they will take away all our guns" and honestly there may be something to those arguments. Still, I urge gun owners who are members of the NRA to think again about who is speaking for you. Oh, and please do follow the money. It's pretty funny to see those folks get rich playing on your fears absolutely
|
|
|
|
|
