Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Second Amendment
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 444561" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>Jagger,</p><p> </p><p>You of all people have disqualified The Federalist Paper's in using this to understand what was meant in the Constitution. In post #32 above, you stated the following:</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Are you bi-sexual? I ask because they too always want it both ways! <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></p><p> </p><p>There are many different ways, rational honest ways too, that you can argue for gun control but when you start twisting and monkeying with the Constitution to do it, you open up a pandora's box of trouble. As a nation of laws, although Illinois and many other examples seem to challenge that thinking as more myth these days, but as a nation of law, the most sure and positive way of doing something about gun control without adversely effecting other areas is to go through the process of amending the Constitution and changing the 2nd amendment. If the Congress and the States as mandated by Constitutional process change the Constitution properly, then the argument is over and nothing said by who or whenever matters as the case is closed and we can move on. </p><p> </p><p>But the fact is, this doesn't happen because deep down inside, deep within our national DNA, we still truly don't trust gov't in the end. You know it will never pass so you resort to hook or crook and use some nefarious backdoor to erode this ideal. Be very careful because like all efforts to intervene on behalf or political ideals, there is always those unintended consequences. </p><p> </p><p>Fact is, you've taken the term, "the people" in the 2nd amendment and attempted to twist it's meaning is such a way as to prove your own agenda of gun control. However, in so doing you also upset the balance of freedom and liberty in other amendments that protect citizens from gov't abuse that in such way it's hoped they never need those guns as they did in 1776'. </p><p> </p><p>Max Boot, IMO one of these most vile beings on the planet is a true diehard Neo-Conservative and recently he extolled elegant of the virtues of Obama's admistration appointments. In so doing he also stated what some have already known as obvious but it showed for all to see that what cast itself as 2 different seperate contrasting ideals, i.e. republican party and democrat party or so-called conservative and so-called liberal are really in fact one and the same. He openly and proudly boasted that neo-cons and neo-libs are literally the same thing. Bush and Company used their heavy hand to erode liberty in this country and now I guess it's the so-called other side of which it apears you are a part of will now just add more on top of the damage done by both democrat and republicans, liberals and conservatives over the last century and now we enter a new one. </p><p> </p><p>The problem with guns are not guns, the problem in our society is a complete lack of morals and lack of respect for other people as to their person and to their liberty. You can take up all the guns you want, place police 24/7 on everyone's door step but if the heart and mind is still corrupt, other means will be found to circumvent and then you'll have to deal with the same problem all over again. </p><p> </p><p>Why don't you take the time to research the Non-Agression principle (here's something for starters) </p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle" target="_blank"><span style="color: red"><strong>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle</strong></span></a> </p><p> </p><p>A moral, respectful people, not heavy handed gov't is the answer.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 444561, member: 2189"] Jagger, You of all people have disqualified The Federalist Paper's in using this to understand what was meant in the Constitution. In post #32 above, you stated the following: Are you bi-sexual? I ask because they too always want it both ways! :wink2: There are many different ways, rational honest ways too, that you can argue for gun control but when you start twisting and monkeying with the Constitution to do it, you open up a pandora's box of trouble. As a nation of laws, although Illinois and many other examples seem to challenge that thinking as more myth these days, but as a nation of law, the most sure and positive way of doing something about gun control without adversely effecting other areas is to go through the process of amending the Constitution and changing the 2nd amendment. If the Congress and the States as mandated by Constitutional process change the Constitution properly, then the argument is over and nothing said by who or whenever matters as the case is closed and we can move on. But the fact is, this doesn't happen because deep down inside, deep within our national DNA, we still truly don't trust gov't in the end. You know it will never pass so you resort to hook or crook and use some nefarious backdoor to erode this ideal. Be very careful because like all efforts to intervene on behalf or political ideals, there is always those unintended consequences. Fact is, you've taken the term, "the people" in the 2nd amendment and attempted to twist it's meaning is such a way as to prove your own agenda of gun control. However, in so doing you also upset the balance of freedom and liberty in other amendments that protect citizens from gov't abuse that in such way it's hoped they never need those guns as they did in 1776'. Max Boot, IMO one of these most vile beings on the planet is a true diehard Neo-Conservative and recently he extolled elegant of the virtues of Obama's admistration appointments. In so doing he also stated what some have already known as obvious but it showed for all to see that what cast itself as 2 different seperate contrasting ideals, i.e. republican party and democrat party or so-called conservative and so-called liberal are really in fact one and the same. He openly and proudly boasted that neo-cons and neo-libs are literally the same thing. Bush and Company used their heavy hand to erode liberty in this country and now I guess it's the so-called other side of which it apears you are a part of will now just add more on top of the damage done by both democrat and republicans, liberals and conservatives over the last century and now we enter a new one. The problem with guns are not guns, the problem in our society is a complete lack of morals and lack of respect for other people as to their person and to their liberty. You can take up all the guns you want, place police 24/7 on everyone's door step but if the heart and mind is still corrupt, other means will be found to circumvent and then you'll have to deal with the same problem all over again. Why don't you take the time to research the Non-Agression principle (here's something for starters) [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle"][COLOR=red][B]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle[/B][/COLOR][/URL] A moral, respectful people, not heavy handed gov't is the answer. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Second Amendment
Top