Were the Founding Fathers ...today....to write the Bill of Rights...

[Billy_Kinetta]

The constitution was born of the art of compromise. Sadly we have forgotten how to apply that art to our politics today.

There is a point where compromise is no longer possible or desirable.

The Left seeks to destroy the Constitution by incremental compromise. That cannot and will not be permitted.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The founders laid down a good foundation, it's leftists that have perverted parts of it, every time.

And yet it is the Right that has been consistently wrong at every turn of history. Slavery, environmental exploitation, labor rib, women's rights, Gay rights, civil rights.

Whenhas the Right been right?

Depends upon whether you read history or the Left's attempted rewrites.

Most recently with the marvelous electoral stomping of Hillary Clinton and the Forces of Evil by Donald Trump, and his inexorably proceeding disassembly of Obama's legacy.

It's almost gone!

Relying on a Russian thumb on the electoral scale then rolling back protections for the children of immigrants, the environment, homosexuals and the transgendered are not accomplishments that amount to "winning".

Stop being ridiculous. The Russians did not change one vote. The rest are matters of opinion.

Do campaigns change votes? If not, what do campaigns do? They change votes by influencing the voter.

I don't vote for individuals, but for the party they drag along with them. The only thing of worth the Democrats have offered me since 2000 is legal pot. The rest of their program is European-influenced shit.

Hence, I do not vote for them, and I am obviously not alone.

 

[Nosmo King]

The constitution was born of the art of compromise. Sadly we have forgotten how to apply that art to our politics today.

The founding fathers were not clad in chalked togas. They did not descend a holy mountain bearing law. They were flawed men as all men are. It is important to realize that an 18th century man could not conceive of what the future would bring. They built means to amend and adapt the constitution to fit the times. They could not conceive of automatic weapons, thermonuclear warheads atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, sewage treatment plants, hydroelectric dams, Oregon or cotton candy.

Somewhat true but they wrote about bearing arms. And even if they didn't consider advancement of weaponry and we were still armed with those same old muskets, our firepower would still be lethal.

The amendment was written before the mass production of guns. There was not a musket above every hearth. Guns were individually crafted by hand without replaceable interchanging parts. They were expensive. Could someone living in 1789 bear a rank of cannons? A frigate?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The constitution was born of the art of compromise. Sadly we have forgotten how to apply that art to our politics today.

The founding fathers were not clad in chalked togas. They did not descend a holy mountain bearing law. They were flawed men as all men are. It is important to realize that an 18th century man could not conceive of what the future would bring. They built means to amend and adapt the constitution to fit the times. They could not conceive of automatic weapons, thermonuclear warheads atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, sewage treatment plants, hydroelectric dams, Oregon or cotton candy.

Somewhat true but they wrote about bearing arms. And even if they didn't consider advancement of weaponry and we were still armed with those same old muskets, our firepower would still be lethal.

There was not a musket above every hearth.

And you know this how?

 

[Nosmo King]

And yet it is the Right that has been consistently wrong at every turn of history. Slavery, environmental exploitation, labor rib, women's rights, Gay rights, civil rights.

Whenhas the Right been right?

Depends upon whether you read history or the Left's attempted rewrites.

Most recently with the marvelous electoral stomping of Hillary Clinton and the Forces of Evil by Donald Trump, and his inexorably proceeding disassembly of Obama's legacy.

It's almost gone!

Relying on a Russian thumb on the electoral scale then rolling back protections for the children of immigrants, the environment, homosexuals and the transgendered are not accomplishments that amount to "winning".

Stop being ridiculous. The Russians did not change one vote. The rest are matters of opinion.

Do campaigns change votes? If not, what do campaigns do? They change votes by influencing the voter.

I don't vote for individuals, but for the party they drag along with them. The only thing of worth the Democrats have offered me since 2000 is legal pot. The rest of their program is European-influenced shit.

Hence, I do not vote for them, and I am obviously not alone.

So you do not use a discriminating outlook when voting. You rather use partisan blinders.

 

[Likkmee]

....and if a bunch of yard apes and beaners show up( with a Joo Liar) we machine gun them into oblivion.

 

[Anathema]

The amendment was written before the mass production of guns. There was not a musket above every hearth. Guns were individually crafted by hand without replaceable interchanging parts. They were expensive. Could someone living in 1789 bear a rank of cannons? A frigate?[/QUOTE]

YES. In fact most of the initial artillery at Bunker Hill was privately owned. The Brita had tried to seize some of it from a barn in Salem, MA less thsn a month before Lexington and Concord. Colonial Cavalry troops had to supply theur own horses. Most of the U.S. Navy during the Revolution were Privateers.

Want to try again.

 

[OldLady]

What's 'puzzling', is you focusing on the word militia, and ignoring the rest of the Amendment.

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," do you not understand?

Well, fuck head.....can you explain WHY the FF didn't just state "everyone" should own a gun rather than including that pesky term "militia"???

Personally, I think the FF wrote it fuzzy because there was as much heated debate about it then as there is today. They kicked that can down the road, as well.

nothing 'fuzzy' about it.

Right. That's why we've been arguing about its meaning for decades.

and yet, they can't seem to get it removed, even figuratively, in court.

Tell the Left, or a Liberal, what it means, and you get...

I heard the other day that the first time the Court considered it was a decade ago. It was the interpretation of the sitting judges at the time. That interpretation can change, you know. It changed Dredd Scott.

 

[Hossfly]

The constitution was born of the art of compromise. Sadly we have forgotten how to apply that art to our politics today.

The founding fathers were not clad in chalked togas. They did not descend a holy mountain bearing law. They were flawed men as all men are. It is important to realize that an 18th century man could not conceive of what the future would bring. They built means to amend and adapt the constitution to fit the times. They could not conceive of automatic weapons, thermonuclear warheads atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, sewage treatment plants, hydroelectric dams, Oregon or cotton candy.

Somewhat true but they wrote about bearing arms. And even if they didn't consider advancement of weaponry and we were still armed with those same old muskets, our firepower would still be lethal.

There was not a musket above every hearth.

And you know this how?

Nosmo probably doesn't think Paul Revere said, "To arms, to arms..........!, but said, "To clubs, to pitchforks! The British are coming!"

 

[Nosmo King]

The constitution was born of the art of compromise. Sadly we have forgotten how to apply that art to our politics today.

The founding fathers were not clad in chalked togas. They did not descend a holy mountain bearing law. They were flawed men as all men are. It is important to realize that an 18th century man could not conceive of what the future would bring. They built means to amend and adapt the constitution to fit the times. They could not conceive of automatic weapons, thermonuclear warheads atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, sewage treatment plants, hydroelectric dams, Oregon or cotton candy.

Somewhat true but they wrote about bearing arms. And even if they didn't consider advancement of weaponry and we were still armed with those same old muskets, our firepower would still be lethal.

There was not a musket above every hearth.

And you know this how?

History. The fact that muskets were expensive and out of the economic reach of every citizen.

 

[OldLady]

The founders laid down a good foundation, it's leftists that have perverted parts of it, every time.

And yet it is the Right that has been consistently wrong at every turn of history. Slavery, environmental exploitation, labor rib, women's rights, Gay rights, civil rights.

Whenhas the Right been right?

Depends upon whether you read history or the Left's attempted rewrites.

Most recently with the marvelous electoral stomping of Hillary Clinton and the Forces of Evil by Donald Trump, and his inexorably proceeding disassembly of Obama's legacy.

It's almost gone!

Relying on a Russian thumb on the electoral scale then rolling back protections for the children of immigrants, the environment, homosexuals and the transgendered are not accomplishments that amount to "winning".

Stop being ridiculous. The Russians did not change one vote. The rest are matters of opinion.

The Russians have influenced many opinions with their campaign of divisiveness and their fake news. Opinions lead to choices when we vote. There is nothing ridiculous about that, is there?

 

[westwall]

It was written incredibly clearly, and were you better educated you would understand that fact. It was so well written that despite decades of effort to undermine it, and claim it means other than what it truly does, it is still here preventing progressives from turning this country into yet another charnel house.

Well, moron, it is a bit puzzling why the FF chose to use the word "militia" in that 2A instead of simply and openly stating every American.......of course, there was that bothersome factor of all those black slaves.....LOL

Because, were you not a complete ignorant fool, you would KNOW that the "militia" was EVERYONE. That's the problem that you have. You are completely ignorant of history, and you choose to not educate yourself on the subject.

Here's a start for you. Read and learn.

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[Nosmo King]

The constitution was born of the art of compromise. Sadly we have forgotten how to apply that art to our politics today.

The founding fathers were not clad in chalked togas. They did not descend a holy mountain bearing law. They were flawed men as all men are. It is important to realize that an 18th century man could not conceive of what the future would bring. They built means to amend and adapt the constitution to fit the times. They could not conceive of automatic weapons, thermonuclear warheads atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, sewage treatment plants, hydroelectric dams, Oregon or cotton candy.

Somewhat true but they wrote about bearing arms. And even if they didn't consider advancement of weaponry and we were still armed with those same old muskets, our firepower would still be lethal.

There was not a musket above every hearth.

And you know this how?

Nosmo probably doesn't think Paul Revere said, "To arms, to arms..........!, but said, "To clubs, to pitchforks! The British are coming!"

And there was not a 100% turnout by the citizens.

 

[Auld Phart]

Well, fuck head.....can you explain WHY the FF didn't just state "everyone" should own a gun rather than including that pesky term "militia"???

Personally, I think the FF wrote it fuzzy because there was as much heated debate about it then as there is today. They kicked that can down the road, as well.

nothing 'fuzzy' about it.

Right. That's why we've been arguing about its meaning for decades.

and yet, they can't seem to get it removed, even figuratively, in court.

Tell the Left, or a Liberal, what it means, and you get...

I heard the other day that the first time the Court considered it was a decade ago. It was the interpretation of the sitting judges at the time. That interpretation can change, you know. It changed Dredd Scott.

You might want to figure out how automatic weapons made after 1986 became illegal, or how sawed off shotguns were banned, 1939.

The 'right' of the people' to keep and bear arms has been steadily eroding.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Depends upon whether you read history or the Left's attempted rewrites.

Most recently with the marvelous electoral stomping of Hillary Clinton and the Forces of Evil by Donald Trump, and his inexorably proceeding disassembly of Obama's legacy.

It's almost gone!

Relying on a Russian thumb on the electoral scale then rolling back protections for the children of immigrants, the environment, homosexuals and the transgendered are not accomplishments that amount to "winning".

Stop being ridiculous. The Russians did not change one vote. The rest are matters of opinion.

Do campaigns change votes? If not, what do campaigns do? They change votes by influencing the voter.

I don't vote for individuals, but for the party they drag along with them. The only thing of worth the Democrats have offered me since 2000 is legal pot. The rest of their program is European-influenced shit.

Hence, I do not vote for them, and I am obviously not alone.

So you do not use a discriminating outlook when voting. You rather use partisan blinders.

Au contraire, I discriminate mightily, without prejudice. If the Democrats ever return to America, I will reconsider them. Not before.

 

[OldLady]

Actually it was well written and and the FF had just finished fighting a tooth and nail war against the most powerful nation on earth that had tried to take away their guns at Lexington and Concord. I think they knew exactly what they were talking about.

The guns at Lexington and Concord were stolen from the British, you know. They were stolen to start that war. The FF were also very aware of that.

 

[OldLady]

Personally, I think the FF wrote it fuzzy because there was as much heated debate about it then as there is today. They kicked that can down the road, as well.

nothing 'fuzzy' about it.

Right. That's why we've been arguing about its meaning for decades.

and yet, they can't seem to get it removed, even figuratively, in court.

Tell the Left, or a Liberal, what it means, and you get...

I heard the other day that the first time the Court considered it was a decade ago. It was the interpretation of the sitting judges at the time. That interpretation can change, you know. It changed Dredd Scott.

You might want to figure out how automatic weapons made after 1986 became illegal, or how sawed off shotguns were banned, 1939.

The 'right' of the people' to keep and bear arms has been steadily eroding.

That was legislation, wasn't it? Were those laws reviewed by the Supreme Court and found Constitutional? Maybe the information I heard was incorrect.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The constitution was born of the art of compromise. Sadly we have forgotten how to apply that art to our politics today.

The founding fathers were not clad in chalked togas. They did not descend a holy mountain bearing law. They were flawed men as all men are. It is important to realize that an 18th century man could not conceive of what the future would bring. They built means to amend and adapt the constitution to fit the times. They could not conceive of automatic weapons, thermonuclear warheads atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, sewage treatment plants, hydroelectric dams, Oregon or cotton candy.

Somewhat true but they wrote about bearing arms. And even if they didn't consider advancement of weaponry and we were still armed with those same old muskets, our firepower would still be lethal.

There was not a musket above every hearth.

And you know this how?

History. The fact that muskets were expensive and out of the economic reach of every citizen.

Your source of history, please. Remember, there were no Safeways or Piggly Wigglys.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The founders laid down a good foundation, it's leftists that have perverted parts of it, every time.

And yet it is the Right that has been consistently wrong at every turn of history. Slavery, environmental exploitation, labor rib, women's rights, Gay rights, civil rights.

Whenhas the Right been right?

Depends upon whether you read history or the Left's attempted rewrites.

Most recently with the marvelous electoral stomping of Hillary Clinton and the Forces of Evil by Donald Trump, and his inexorably proceeding disassembly of Obama's legacy.

It's almost gone!

Relying on a Russian thumb on the electoral scale then rolling back protections for the children of immigrants, the environment, homosexuals and the transgendered are not accomplishments that amount to "winning".

Stop being ridiculous. The Russians did not change one vote. The rest are matters of opinion.

The Russians have influenced many opinions with their campaign of divisiveness and their fake news. Opinions lead to choices when we vote. There is nothing ridiculous about that, is there?

I believe that all but a minuscule percentage of those who actually voted in 2016 made their choice the month the candidates were nominated. The mythical "undecided vote" was as fictional as the polls that showed Hillary ascending her rightful throne by huge margins. It served to keep her in the game.

 

[Auld Phart]

nothing 'fuzzy' about it.

Right. That's why we've been arguing about its meaning for decades.

and yet, they can't seem to get it removed, even figuratively, in court.

Tell the Left, or a Liberal, what it means, and you get...

I heard the other day that the first time the Court considered it was a decade ago. It was the interpretation of the sitting judges at the time. That interpretation can change, you know. It changed Dredd Scott.

You might want to figure out how automatic weapons made after 1986 became illegal, or how sawed off shotguns were banned, 1939.

The 'right' of the people' to keep and bear arms has been steadily eroding.

That was legislation, wasn't it? Were those laws reviewed by the Supreme Court and found Constitutional? Maybe the information I heard was incorrect.

Supreme court ruling, united states v Miller