Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I usually do."You really should use the quote function in order to keep stuff from getting mixed up." St
But this site has some annoying & needless formatting anomalies.
Among them, using the quotation feature can obscure most of the quotation from view, and requires additional reader intervention; which in some cases does not take place.
When I use the bold feature instead, the quotation is displayed in full, AND is clearly distinguished from the content of my personal contribution to the post.
"The original idea for the 2nd Amendment was to make sure that the fledgling Republic could must together an army as quickly as possible, were the British to come back ..." St
a) It is absolutely true the 18th Century U.S. had issues about maintaining a "standing army", and relied on armed militiamen; Paul Revere, etc.
b) But to assume that was the only reason, or the main reason may be in error. Here's what George Will had to say about it:
In order to argue your point of view you have to say 3 things.
1st of all that only the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights does not protect individual rights, it protects the rights of the government.
2nd you have to say that George Mason widely called the father of the Bill of Rights was wrong when he said by the militia we mean the whole People.
3rd you have to say the Founders were clumsy framers of the Constitution because if they wanted to do what you say they did with the [2nd] Amendment which is say, States can have militias, all they needed to say was, Congress shall have no power to prohibit State militias period. They didn't. They talked about the rights of the People. George Will ABC-TV This Week 02/05/12
This perspective is supported by the writings of the Founders:
"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty is in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself." James Madison
"But uniform security and background checks, including psych tests, should be mandatory." St
I have very little patience for Donald Trump. Some of the blather he spews while campaigning is not merely an embarrassment to the country, but to humanity.
But on this topic, I was impressed.
The inquiry was about gun control.
And Trump's reply indicated, unless we're going to eliminate all the guns entirely, there will be maniacs that will slip through the cracks, and we'll keep having more of these massacres.
It's not a particularly pleasant message.
But I sadly acknowledge he may be right (on that narrow issue, if nothing else).
And how is gun control working for the civilians in Syria? Or Iraq, or for the Kurds, the Mexicans, and any of a number of countries with disarmed civilian populations whose governments have murdered them?
Oh....you are back to discussion tyranny again. Convenient. That's what you always do. But....in fact....your primary concern is fear of personal injury at the hands of a thug. The opposition to tyranny can be maintained with regulations on firearms. Easily.
Tell that to the Germans.....
There is no escaping the fact that our resident nutbags are misinterpreting the intent of the founders so they can soothe the fear that eats at them daily by having a weapon that can kill at a distance by their side.
This fear permits them to give vociferous support to political corruption in the form of bought and paid for politicians who do the bidding of the NRA.....as well as threats of monied opposition issued to those who would vote against the NRA. In addition.....they gladly accept the judicial activism that has led to the revision of how the 2nd is interpreted in our courts.
In time.....this too will end. This is a center left nation. We always wind up in the right place. The machine turns slowly....as it should and as it was designed to do.
yeah...and that is why more people are getting carry permits...women are now getting gun permits as are minorities.....and the polls show Americans don't believe gun control is the answer....
Instead of firearms ownership being a constitutional right, it should be a granted priviledge. Just as a concealed-carry permit is required to do that, should need one to buy the weapon in the first place.
How about "making" free speech a granted privilege as well?
Many countries such as China, Cuba and North Korea have done so quite successfully.
Don't be afraid to read this piece........it's one of the best I've found on the issue and it comes from a very knowledgeable source.
The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
Those are five reasonable words.
Reasonable?
What age limits do you feel necessary for belonging to a militia?
18-45?
any gender qualifications?
And how is gun control working for the civilians in Syria? Or Iraq, or for the Kurds, the Mexicans, and any of a number of countries with disarmed civilian populations whose governments have murdered them?
Oh....you are back to discussion tyranny again. Convenient. That's what you always do. But....in fact....your primary concern is fear of personal injury at the hands of a thug. The opposition to tyranny can be maintained with regulations on firearms. Easily.
Tell that to the Germans.....
So stuck in 1933, you are. Poor you.
There is no escaping the fact that our resident nutbags are misinterpreting the intent of the founders so they can soothe the fear that eats at them daily by having a weapon that can kill at a distance by their side.
This fear permits them to give vociferous support to political corruption in the form of bought and paid for politicians who do the bidding of the NRA.....as well as threats of monied opposition issued to those who would vote against the NRA. In addition.....they gladly accept the judicial activism that has led to the revision of how the 2nd is interpreted in our courts.
In time.....this too will end. This is a center left nation. We always wind up in the right place. The machine turns slowly....as it should and as it was designed to do.
yeah...and that is why more people are getting carry permits...women are now getting gun permits as are minorities.....and the polls show Americans don't believe gun control is the answer....
Give it time.
Should be completely repealed. Pleanty of countries get on just fine and a lot better than us without 2nd amendments.
Except when they march their citizens into death camps.....Europe murdered 12 million people that way.
And of course everyday crime increases...women are raped and people are robbed and stabbed...but that's okay...they have national healthcare..right?
And how is gun control working for the civilians in Syria? Or Iraq, or for the Kurds, the Mexicans, and any of a number of countries with disarmed civilian populations whose governments have murdered them?
Oh....you are back to discussion tyranny again. Convenient. That's what you always do. But....in fact....your primary concern is fear of personal injury at the hands of a thug. The opposition to tyranny can be maintained with regulations on firearms. Easily.
Tell that to the Germans.....
So stuck in 1933, you are. Poor you.
Actually the gun control in Germany happened before 1933...the nazis just exploited it...and the French also disarmed after WW1.....and it is called history....it happened and you guys obviously don't understand it.........
Unarmed populations are easily slaughtered when their governments turn bad...that is the lesson of history that you morons miss.....
And how is gun control working for the civilians in Syria? Or Iraq, or for the Kurds, the Mexicans, and any of a number of countries with disarmed civilian populations whose governments have murdered them?
Oh....you are back to discussion tyranny again. Convenient. That's what you always do. But....in fact....your primary concern is fear of personal injury at the hands of a thug. The opposition to tyranny can be maintained with regulations on firearms. Easily.
Tell that to the Germans.....
So stuck in 1933, you are. Poor you.
Actually the gun control in Germany happened before 1933...the nazis just exploited it...and the French also disarmed after WW1.....and it is called history....it happened and you guys obviously don't understand it.........
Unarmed populations are easily slaughtered when their governments turn bad...that is the lesson of history that you morons miss.....
Right, in 1933. 1933 is not 2015.
Are you brain dead?
And what are we going to do when, in about 60 years, people can carry portable nuclear devices on their arms like a watch? Are we will gonna say that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to carry such a weapon, or not? Does the 2nd amendment guarantee the right for a civilian to walk around with a grenade launcher? Because that is being "armed" as well. How about Napalm throwers? Does the 2nd prohibit those? They are also weapons for defense. How about EMP guns?
When and where will it stop?
Oh....you are back to discussion tyranny again. Convenient. That's what you always do. But....in fact....your primary concern is fear of personal injury at the hands of a thug. The opposition to tyranny can be maintained with regulations on firearms. Easily.
Tell that to the Germans.....
So stuck in 1933, you are. Poor you.
Actually the gun control in Germany happened before 1933...the nazis just exploited it...and the French also disarmed after WW1.....and it is called history....it happened and you guys obviously don't understand it.........
Unarmed populations are easily slaughtered when their governments turn bad...that is the lesson of history that you morons miss.....
Right, in 1933. 1933 is not 2015.
Are you brain dead?
Tell that to the Syrians, the Kurds, the Yzidis, the Mexicans.....or the residents of gun controlled Baltimore or D.C or Chicago......
Why do you guys think that what the Germans did can't happen again? What do you think the Russians are doing to the civilians in the Ukraine...do you think they are being kind and warm hearted to the civilians in their occupied areas......
and Mexico.....their government agents are working with drug cartels and murdering unarmed Mexican citizens in the thousands........
This is why you guys can't be allowed to have power.....
And what are we going to do when, in about 60 years, people can carry portable nuclear devices on their arms like a watch? Are we will gonna say that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to carry such a weapon, or not? Does the 2nd amendment guarantee the right for a civilian to walk around with a grenade launcher? Because that is being "armed" as well. How about Napalm throwers? Does the 2nd prohibit those? They are also weapons for defense. How about EMP guns?
When and where will it stop?
Puerile nonsense.
I get an increasing impression that Democrats as a group somehow stop progressing somewhere in middle school. Their arguments are becoming more petulant, shrill and less logical.
Do Righties here know how much time it took to load a musket with just one bullet?
Those were the weapons of the day that the Constitution guaranteed a civilian could have and bear.
So, why are Conservatives advocating that we stick with the old time muskets? Hmmmm?
And what are we going to do when, in about 60 years, people can carry portable nuclear devices on their arms like a watch? Are we will gonna say that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to carry such a weapon, or not? Does the 2nd amendment guarantee the right for a civilian to walk around with a grenade launcher? Because that is being "armed" as well. How about Napalm throwers? Does the 2nd prohibit those? They are also weapons for defense. How about EMP guns?
When and where will it stop?
Puerile nonsense.
I get an increasing impression that Democrats as a group somehow stop progressing somewhere in middle school. Their arguments are becoming more petulant, shrill and less logical.
You are not getting an impression of anything. You are just simply insane, like all RWNJs.
I am actually Pro-2nd amendment
And what are we going to do when, in about 60 years, people can carry portable nuclear devices on their arms like a watch? Are we will gonna say that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to carry such a weapon, or not? Does the 2nd amendment guarantee the right for a civilian to walk around with a grenade launcher? Because that is being "armed" as well. How about Napalm throwers? Does the 2nd prohibit those? They are also weapons for defense. How about EMP guns?
When and where will it stop?
Puerile nonsense.
I get an increasing impression that Democrats as a group somehow stop progressing somewhere in middle school. Their arguments are becoming more petulant, shrill and devoid of logic.
Should our Constitution's 2nd Amendment be amended to promote gun control?
Automobiles may kill more humans than guns kill in the U.S."When was the last time somebody drove a car and killed 20 children and six teachers on purpose? When was the last time someone took a syringe full of "flu" into a movie theater to wipe out 12 people on purpose?" Ud
Needed gun legislation in Politics Forum
But we already regulate them. To operate them on public roadways:
- the driver must be licensed
- the vehicle must meet legal standards
- obeying motor-vehicle & traffic laws is required
- cars are being built safer and "better" all the time. Most of a century ago, there were cars on the road with 2 wheel brakes. Today there are cars on our public roadways with:
4 wheel power disc brakes
anti-lock brakes
air bags (front & side)
crumple-zone crash-energy absorption design
collapsible steering column
and much, much more.
So since their proliferation, cars have gotten safer, and better.
In vivid contrast, since the U.S. Founding, guns have gotten vastly more lethal.
Should the United States Constitution's Second Amendment which acknowledges the People's "right to keep and bear arms" be amended to compensate for this divergent technological trend? Safer cars, and ever more deadly guns?
Should our Constitution's 2nd Amendment be amended to promote gun control?
Automobiles may kill more humans than guns kill in the U.S."When was the last time somebody drove a car and killed 20 children and six teachers on purpose? When was the last time someone took a syringe full of "flu" into a movie theater to wipe out 12 people on purpose?" Ud
Needed gun legislation in Politics Forum
But we already regulate them. To operate them on public roadways:
- the driver must be licensed
- the vehicle must meet legal standards
- obeying motor-vehicle & traffic laws is required
- cars are being built safer and "better" all the time. Most of a century ago, there were cars on the road with 2 wheel brakes. Today there are cars on our public roadways with:
4 wheel power disc brakes
anti-lock brakes
air bags (front & side)
crumple-zone crash-energy absorption design
collapsible steering column
and much, much more.
So since their proliferation, cars have gotten safer, and better.
In vivid contrast, since the U.S. Founding, guns have gotten vastly more lethal.
Should the United States Constitution's Second Amendment which acknowledges the People's "right to keep and bear arms" be amended to compensate for this divergent technological trend? Safer cars, and ever more deadly guns?
