Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Why are so many military leaders held up as great who were defeated?
Because they were so feared or villified?
Patrick, I totally agree. But it's still fun to come from the Left to get their attention (“oh yes, slavery is bad”) then hit them with the facts.
We need to play their game and come up with some of our own Postmodern Racial Deconstructionist theories.
I even found that paper offered for sale on a cheating site once. they took it down after I asserted copyright and threatened to sue. 😀
You made it to the bigtime now!
So Ski, am I correct in asserting that you deny an inherent right of the individual to own arms based on a rationale that it could help him defend against State tyranny? In other words, the right of the individual to bear arms is not based on the right of the individual to protect himself against a state governor who acts as a tyrant to the people in his own state? I do not disagree with what you have said thus far; rather, I am questioning if that is all there is to the philosophical underpinnings of the Amendment.
If I understand you correctly, no I am not saying that. It is about Natural and legal rights as is most of the Constitution.The individual right to bear arms is an unalienable right to protect one's self. The 2nd states that as obvious. The amendment also legally allows for a militia that is the responsibility of the people.
It is a personal right even if the states regulate it. The individual right to bear arms is a given, but the State can know who has them just in case they need to gather them as a militia against a federal or foreign army.
I have no issue with the States keeping records of firearms. The powers not divested to the Federal Government are reserved for the States. To be honest, I trust my State government far more than I trust the imbeciles in Washington.
I always thought that was the original intent. The States regulate their own militias to fight against a foreign invasion or domestic standing army.
This is why this debate is difficult to agree on. I believe in the 2nd and that we should be able to own guns, but I think it should be regulated just as much as, if not more than, driving an automobile. It won't solve the problem, but it would help. I don't think banning a certain type of firearm will solve anything. On the other hand, I don't see a practical need for a full-auto AK47. Anyone who hunts that way is deranged. I don't think every elementary school teacher should carry, but I do think there should be an armed person within the school. A principle, counselor, or some other school employee should have access to a gun(s). No need to pay all this extra to hire cops or armed guards.
You do realize you are doing the same thing you occasionally accuse liberals of? That is, changing the terms of a debate mid stream.
No I didn't. We have touched on the subject of mental illness a few times in this thread.
3 massacres killing less than 50 people in 1 year in a nation of 300 million people do not make a wave.
So all the other murders don't count?
Probably have could prevented those nutcases from AZ or the Batman movie. If there was a background check, they likely would have found a history of mental illness.
