The rights of the minority are not subject to a popular vote...

Gosh, how generous.

 

To turn this thread's premise around, why do so many pro-gun rights people want to deny gays the right to marry each other? Why is it OK to bully that minority around while making a bunch of noise about the right to bear arms? Is it simply because the Holy Book of Constitutional Amendments mentions gun ownership?

 

Excellent question. Whey do so many pro gay rights want to deny gun owners the right to own guns? Why is it ok to bully gun owners while making a bunch of noise about gay marriage?

By the way, the Constitution is the law of the land, not a religious text. In some countries a religious text is the law, so I can understand your confusion.

 

I think that within 50-100 years, gun laws in America will be very different (even Constitutionally so) than what we see today. The status quo will not suffice for all time.

 

Every one is born with a god given right to pick up a weapon and protect themselves, their family, their people from oppression by others.

 

I agree the leftist loons are breeding and aborting themselves out if existence.

 

Some people treat the constitution and its amendments like a sequel to the Bible, so, yeah..

Can you answer my question?

- - - Updated - - -

That made no sense.

 

Wrong. Get real. And all the crazy people do not reside on the "Left".

 

We have a right to bear arms. There is no right to gay marriage. Until 8 years ago there was no such thing as "gay marriage" whereas Americans have been exercising their right to bear arms since the founding of our country.

Things that have never existed are not fundamental rights.

Not tax breaks and governmental entitlements for having a gay lover.

 

so then you, like dixon, are unable to support your argument.

 

In order for proper analysis we all have to use proper language. Again, there is no "right" to marriage. It has always been a privilege and will always be a privilege since at the very least someone with "powers vested" must preform the ceremony. If marriage was a "right," even if we did away with the license, or official government permission, are we going to FORCE someone to marry others to safeguard the "right" to marriage? As you can quickly see, if marriage is a "right" that means others have a "right" to a service... Any such argument is simply ridiculous yet it is made all the time. Rights can be exercised by an individual with no "permission" of any kind granted.

Liberties were not GRANTED pertaining to firearms. The Second Amendment states in part ..." the right of the people..." showing it is only acknowledging a preexisting right, and not granting any such right. Government can't create rights. They can only take them away.

 

Are you 'certain' about that?

 

Dont mistake your inability to comprehend the meaning of "Men and women" with our inability to support our argument. Text from the declaration AND UN application of that text all support our argument. While you as always are left with the thoughts bouncing around in your head to support yours.

 

The crazy people on the right have 6 kids. The crazy people on the left are so self centered that they are lucky to have 1.

 

if you could locate the word "only" you might have a point. since you can't, you don't.

 

Really?

 

Yes really. You know all those people who cling to their guns, bible and antipithy for people not like them. They have a lot of kids.

You know all those (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bags sipping coffee. Their fertility rate is below replacement level.

 

Ok. We must agree to disagree. (We'll just keep going round and round; I'm not for that.)

 

My point doesnt need the word "only" in the text. Only men and women have the right to marriage because the declaration mentions no one else with such a right. The declaration declares who has such rights and need not specify who does not.

 

men and women is all inclusive. if you could locate the word "only" you might have a point. since you can't, you don't.

 

The UN says otherwise. But for you the silly thoughts bouncing around in your head have more precedential value the UN declarations.

 

actully they don't, which is why you can't locate the word "only".

using your own quotes and pointing out your failed logic is not silly thoughts in my head. It's objective reality.

 

Its not a matter of disagreement. You need only look at the fertility rates in blue states.



And the blue states fertility rate is heavily dependent on poor minorities, the only reason they vote democrat is because you cafe liberals give them free stuff. They wouldn't know Karl Marx from Groucho Marx. When you look at the birth rate of the educated cafe liberal its worse, way worse.

 

I'm of the opinion that more babies isn't a fix for anything. I'm certainly not worried about a waning population at this point.

Even so, the POLICIES of those on the Right (if not modified in the coming years), will see their overall political power diminished significantly.