Yup, you know me so well. I've stated many times that I am a Christian Conservative, which means I get my guidance from God and the bible, not the deity Obama. It's funny how my ten commandments are closely synced to the laws of his great land. It's called a moral code, and most people have it... far more than politicians the vast majority of the time too. I love the United States of America, but it is down on my priority list. JC, my family, my friends, my dogs and then a toss-up between Texas and the United States. I've stated CLEARLY on THE PREVIOUS PAGE that I am fine with gay marriage and for drug decriminalization for America. Great work on accusing me of something and then not even looking on the previous page as to what I was responding to. You're post is #140 of this topic, see post #119... You take lazy to a whole other level, congrats. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=7537274&postcount=119 Feel the burn. Spoiler
If, using svpernaut's refusals in this thread as evidence, the "right" simply will not define their views because they want to avoid the debate at all costs, it is difficult to refrain from defining those views for them. I agree that Colbert and SamFisher take this to an extreme but, especially in the gun debate, people on the right are just as prone to hyperbole. Most people I have seen (for example, Alex Jones) are frothing at the mouth regarding a complete gun ban, something for which NOBODY on the "left" (none that I am aware of, anyway) is arguing. It is the same thing in the debt ceiling/fiscal cliff debates. The GOP steps up to microphones and asks "where are the spending cuts," but when asked what they would cut, all they come back with are pittances like NPR and NEA.
No. I am suggesting your interpretation of the founding fathers is wrong. Not That I know the right interpretation. NO. This would be the Federalist Papers as interpreted by you.
So you really have nothing to offer to a debate then as you position is purely negative. You do know why the Federalist Papers where written?
If circumstances should at anytime oblige the government to form a army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in dicipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. - Alexander Hamilton, 1788
TO what debate? What the founding fathers intended when they wrote the 2nd amendment? yes. Spare me your silly condescending comments.
What is interesting is that Alexander Hamilton was actually instrumental in forming a standing army less than 10 years after that. Also as I have noted repeatedly the Founders were fine with crushing citizen militias very early in this country's history.
Of course what do you think we have been talking about. Frankly if you brought some evidence and reasoning to the discussion instead of just saying "I don't know but I think you are wrong" then maybe it wouldn't be so condescending.
In a way yes. It was meant to sell the populace on the Constitution it represents the best commentary on what the Founders actually thought about when they created the Constitution.
Given that the guns and discipline of the people are far inferior to that of the US military, that boat seems to have sailed a long, long time ago.
You interpretation is that the 2nd amendment permits any/all guns to be outlawed. Your argument is that the Federalist Papers back this. I contend this can't be right as this is not how the 2nd amendment was executed. Here are some quotes from founding fathers about the 2nd amendment that suggest you are wrong (since this is what you use as evidence):
They probably didn't have any of their six-year-old children have their mouths shot off after being hit with 11 bullets in several seconds.
Here's the full George Mason quote: After that, he went on to say this: Mason clearly sees the militia as, you know, a militia that is funded and supported by the government and wants to guard against the possibility of rich people buying their way out of service so that only parts of society are represented in the militia. That's a little different in meaning than the snippet you produced. I suspect there are similar problems with your other quotes but I don't have time to look them up now.
the founding fathers believing something doesn't make it morally correct. IT does tell you the intention of the 2nd amendment though. if militia = the people, then no there isn't
yup. They also thought freedom of speech, religon and protest was a right. The founders were so terrible!
Let's say going to a rockets game, do you feel more safe knowing everyone there doesn't have a gun? Or would you rather bring your own gun incase some unfit gun owner has brought their own?
