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.
Seems like Patrick Henry was more of the mind that all people should own guns without the governemnt telling them they can'tJames Madison was arguing for the right of the various states to establish a 'national guard'. He was also more in favor of a standing army than were some of the other founders.
Almost all of the Founders agreed with Patrick Henry on this issue:
Patrick Henry: “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.
Patrick Henry: “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
I give up. I have never in my entire life said that the right of the people to bear arms should be infringed. But since you aren't following the argument well, I'll just wish you a pleasant afternoon and let it go at that.Seems like Patrick Henry was more of the mind that all people should own guns without the governemnt telling them they can't
I guess that's where the "shall not be infringed" idea came from. You know the idea you want to ignore
If you want to require licensing and fees in order to exercise a right then you are infringing on that right.I give up. I have never in my entire life said that the right of the people to bear arms should be infringed. But since you aren't following the argument well, I'll just wish you a pleasant afternoon and let it go at that.
Again since you seem to be unable to follow my argument, I will wish you a pleasant afternoon.If you want to require licensing and fees in order to exercise a right then you are infringing on that right.
The problem is that the Liberals that do the licensing are not reasonable. We see that in Democrat controlled states and cities. DC even said that you could not have a firearm in your own home. It took the Supreme Court to tell states like New York, Illinois and California to stop being restrictive.I do not mind licensing for concealed carry so long as it is reasonably and equitably applied. I
A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free stateYou said: "a 'well regulated militia' suggested that some laws/regulation in how those firearms would and could be used could be appropriate."
That means the militia should have organization. It does NOT mean they are subservient to an official authority.
Actually Bob Blaylock developed the concept.I can't believe I'm agreeing with you but there is a reasonableness to this. I have long thought that if we required a high school diploma or GED with real academic proficiency required in various subjects before a person could register to vote or get a marriage license or have an unrestricted driver's license or legally buy or possess a gun, etc. at least until say age 25, high school drop outs would largely cease to exist. And the threat of being suspended or expelled from school would be taken much more seriously by the students.
At least it's worth a thought.
Ummm... IT WAS A DIRECT QUOTE.You're lying, putting words in my mouth that I did not say, and do not agree with.
But then , lying is what you do. It is what defines you. It is what you are.
I absolutely do not agree with denying anyone any of his Constitutional rights, for not having graduated from high school; and nothing that I have said states nor implies that I do.
I merely suggested a policy that, in most cases, with destroy an excuse that might otherwise illegally be used to deny someone's rights. I never claimed nor implied that this policy was perfect, and would work in every case.
In other words a militia of the people in working order as to be expect for the security of freedom the right of the people to own and carry firearms shall not be taken away.A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state
Makes it clear they intended the militia to provide for our security and answerable to the states
I agree while at the same time I think the responsible thing is to require some kind of safety training. So we need to be smarter than them and make such training uniform and universal so they cannot discriminate against those they oppose politically. I've thrown some ideas out there but there are no doubt better ones.The problem is that the Liberals that do the licensing are not reasonable. We see that in Democrat controlled states and cities. DC even said that you could not have a firearm in your own home. It took the Supreme Court to tell states like New York, Illinois and California to stop being restrictive.
Never trust a Liberal with your individual liberties. They don't believe in individual liberties, only collectivism.
To me it is reasonable to not have any laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms whatsoever. The crime should never be the possession of the arm but what crime is committed with the arm.
We could deviate from that slightly by restricting criminally insane people but even that is also subject to abuse.
I hear you. I'm just saying that if certain safety courses and a HS diploma or GED were necessary to do a lot of things with potential to be dangerous to others, at least until age 21 or 25 or whatever, a whole lot more kids would graduate and would take care not to get suspended or expelled. Just a little incentive there.Actually Bob Blaylock developed the concept.
At first it seems a good idea, hit 'em early, hit 'em hard.
But some people don't get the opportunity to graduate for a variety of reasons.
I think the stuff highlighted would be worthwhile to teach at the high school level but that might require getting rid of other courses needed for higher academics.
and
Let's be honest, not all HS educations are equal.
What I suggest isn't onerous.
Want a Glock? To take a Glock safety course. Maybe 4 hours. No tests, just situational awareness as it were. Loading, unloading, clearing, cleaning, storage.
Want a shotgun? Different course because shotgun safety is different from handgun safety.
To me the concept isn't pro or anti gun. It's just common sense.
When the guy handling the gun is safer, we're all safer.
Actually @Bob Blaylock developed the concept.
Ummm... IT WAS A DIRECT QUOTE.
When you say you didn't say it you're the one lying, LIAR
There was a time when solving the problem was more important than blaming the other side.I agree while at the same time I think the responsible thing is to require some kind of safety training. So we need to be smarter than them and make such training uniform and universal so they cannot discriminate against those they oppose politically. I've thrown some ideas out there but there are no doubt better ones.
I had thorough safety training in the use of firearms by the time I was 10. But that was a different world in which most citizens shared common values of right and wrong.
I hear you. I'm just saying that if certain safety courses and a HS diploma or GED were necessary to do a lot of things with potential to be dangerous to others, at least until age 21 or 25 or whatever, a whole lot more kids would graduate and would take care not to get suspended or expelled. Just a little incentive there.
It would be up to the schools how good those safety courses were but I think all HS students should know how a bank account works, how to balance a check book, the basics of compound interest, credit ratings, etc. etc. etc. and some reasonable safety instructions sure couldn't hurt. But I also know that if a kid couldn't work a gun safety course into his/her schedule, taking it after hours with the NRA or other accredited group and have it credited to their school record would suffice. The NRA course is a brilliantly designed course and also includes training as well as knowledge. I'm not at all saying everybody should have to take the NRA course but it could be an option. And they are the gold standard.
But all of this is kicking around ideas of how we respect and adhere to the 2nd Amendment and still maintain the constitutional requirement to promote the general welfare without making things harder than they have to be.
And there are those politically motivated or wrong headed on BOTH sides of the debate who don't want to be part of any discussion to find workable solutions but rather want to dictate to the other how it is going to be.
It was a direct quote and a direct reference to your own post.Do not attribute to me your lying mockeries that are loosely based on distortions of what I have said.
I have never argued for, and never will, denying anyone's essential Constitutional rights on the basis of having failed to complete high school.
You do not speak for me, ever, and when you presume to do so, you only show us all what a lying piece of shit you truly are.
It could be responsible if everybody had the same agenda for public safety.I agree while at the same time I think the responsible thing is to require some kind of safety training.
In other words a militia of the people in working order as to be expect for the security of freedom the right of the people to own and carry firearms shall not be taken away.
No argument from me there.There was a time when solving the problem was more important than blaming the other side.
Elected officials no longer seem to want to solve problems, rather, they'd rather blame the other side than fix it.
It is sad to see and if we can't begin to work together to solve problems rather than fight over who's to blame this democracy will end sooner rather than later.
They are not answerable to the federal government, dumbass! Their ability to own weapons are not dictated by the federal government.A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state
Makes it clear they intended the militia to provide for our security and answerable to the states
They are not answerable to the federal government, dumbass! Their weapons are not dictated by the federal government.
