Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Turtledude, Mar 10, 2023.
yes, exactly. They are words that we can change when our needs necessitate it.
LOL-it is proper to change laws-what is bogus is pretending the words in a law mean something different based on the whims of the masses
The Roman Empire was run by an autocratic emperor and senate. Neither were elected by the people and the senate had little actual say in how the emperor ruled.
Government that governed on the authority of the people was brand new when OUR Constitution implemented it.
Not so really. We inherited that tradition from the UK.
King-in-Parliament has been around in some form since the late 13th century.
We did take a step or two further, of course.
And that made all the difference.
Its called a Republic aka Representative Democracy, and we did not invent it. We'll have to agree to disagree.
"WE" took it further than it had ever been before. Instead of Oligarch Autocracy we have Government BY The PEOPLE. Never been done before.
No, but whatever makes you happy. I already said we can agree to disagree,
It made it different than it was.
It didn't make it the first.
Today it is still the only Government BY the people.
the first four types of laws you suggest were liked by the founding fathers is wrong, and the fifth, happened at the onset of the war and figured heavily in igniting the war.
. Preventing such popular disarmament by a government, was one of the rationale for the Second Amendment.… just read the writings of key founding fathers like , Jefferson, Madison, and Paine, among others and consider provisions related to guns in many of the state constitution, most particularly that of Virginia that provided a template for the Bill of Rights.
But they were in service to God. Otherwise we wouldn't have freedom and equality by virtue of our commonality in God which they clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence.
I place on value in the idea that anything comes from god. I'm fine with whatever someone chooses to believe about religion, at the same time, i don't care about their beliefs.
I was being figurative and sarcastic when i brought up Moses.
I have read them. They wanted to have a well regulated militia, which by definition calles for regulation. The template / idea came from English law (Queen Elizabeth I instituted a national militia in England). The members of the militia were to be trained and they need to swear an oath of allegiance.
The British occupiers said to be in service of God as well, - and the king of course.
Saying and being aren't the same. One is authentic, the other a counterfeit.
LOL. And you are the judge of that? Many Brits were devout Christians. Its too bad when Christians go to war against each other, but its an old European tradition, so it has happened countless times, and will again.
Yes I am...in league with out founders who were capable of making that correct distinction. They served God. The King and Church served themselves in Gods name without Gods saying. By electing themselves to officiate in Gods name, they commanded God, dispossessing him of his free agency to choose for himself who will serve him, lording themselves over mankind in the name of God but not in truth. It is iniquity. Our founders severed that presumption, made us equal in God given freedom, and extended to each of us the right to worship as we see fit, free from the straight jacket of piety.
If you’ve read the writings or the early founding fathers, you realize there was a complexity to their views that had to be crafted into language of compromise that represented provisions that they could agree in broad principle despite their differences. One of the main differences emanated from the broad competing views of two faction… the Federalists vs theAnti Federalists, but in neither faction would you find those advocating infringing on the individual sovereignty of choice, including the choice to be armed.
Before you comment, consider some observations.
1) for nearly the next 100 years, legislators of both house regularly carried weapons both openly and concealed directly anywhere including the chambers of both houses and private individuals could also visit the WhiteHouse armed.
2) private individuals could own any weapon equal to or surpassing any in any military arsenal such as cannons, cosgraves, and even the equivalent of today’s aircraft carriers fully armed, powerful enough to sail up the Potomac or A a Ostia and blown away the White House or even Capital Hill; don’t believe it? Do a bit of research.
Ever notice How every side in a conflic
ever notice how both sides if any conflict believe god is on their side? I have this picture in my mind of God and St. Michael throwing dice over mugs of Ambosia
your "needs" being a desire to harass gun owners because we tend to vote against the collectivist authoritarian lefties that you want in office?
I'm a gun owner.
Of course/ the crusade was a prime example.
I am simply sharing some historical facts, nothing else. I am a gun owner myself.
so was Howard Metzenbaum and Ted Kennedy.
Staple guns don't count...
Just kidding.....Seriously, anyone can own an old, inoperable rifle and claim to be a "gun owner".
As we've seen over and over, being a "gun owner" doesn't always mean that one is a 2nd Amendment supporter.
I've got two questions if you don't mind:
1. Do you target practice and / or hunt?
2. Do you support the 2nd Amendment?
And I have a black friend.
Separate names with a comma.