Liberal Senator Kerry (Dem) pushes for more gun control

ib1yysguy said:
Are you suggesting that our elected officials don't run amok because they're afraid of our guns? Really?
Click to expand...

Sort of a silly argument since they do "run amok" (violate our Constitution), but removing our guns certainly wouldn't make them respect it any more.

Particularly since they would have to ignore the Constitution to remove our guns in the first place.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
what is usually never taken in to account is the numerous publishings in the news media of the time, a thorough explanation of the constitution and bill of rights explained to each and every citizen in laymans terms so that they could readily understand just what it was that they were voting to ratify. Every single article and quote during those debates and votes that defined the 2nd Amendment as one that 'shall not be infringed' by congress or anyone else was NEVER denied or challenged by any other member of the public or framers of the constitution. Not a single one of them.

If there were ANY opposition to the unregulated ownership of arms, it was never recorded.
Click to expand...


The issue is what it is that shall not be infringed.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."
Click to expand...

How the hell are you sure that the individuals who rise up suit the people better? Were the communists better suited to russia? It's absurd to think that every revolution makes a libertarian dream state. In fact, very few of them do. It's more likely the revolutionaries will be freedom hating libertarian fascists than freedom loving liberals.
 
Watermarx said:
How the hell are you sure that the individuals who rise up suit the people better? Were the communists better suited to russia? It's absurd to think that every revolution makes a libertarian dream state. In fact, very few of them do. It's more likely the revolutionaries will be freedom hating libertarian fascists than freedom loving liberals.
Click to expand...

the beauty of our constitution and Second Amendment is that it doesn't give us the right to CHANGE our GOVERNMENT, but to CHANGE the PEOPLE running it, forcibly if necessary.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the beauty of our constitution and Second Amendment is that it doesn't give us the right to CHANGE our GOVERNMENT, but to CHANGE the PEOPLE running it, forcibly if necessary.
Click to expand...

You think that's the right course of action? Do you advocate violent overthrow of our government?
 
meme said:
you would prefer we not have that opportunity and just live under tyranny?
Click to expand...

One does not answer a question with another question unless they're avoiding something. I'm asking if violent overthrow of the CURRENT government is appropriate in his eyes. How about your eyes? Are we living under tyranny?
 
meme said:
you would prefer we not have that opportunity and just live under tyranny?
Click to expand...

I'd be curious what your interpretation of "tyranny" is. If a gov't is popularly elected (like some current examples I can think of), that term doesn't really apply.
 
ib1yysguy said:
You think that's the right course of action? Do you advocate violent overthrow of our government?
Click to expand...

only when all legal methods have failed and the governing body refuses to listen anymore. violent action is, and should be, a last resort.

ib1yysguy said:
I'm asking if violent overthrow of the CURRENT government is appropriate in his eyes. How about your eyes? Are we living under tyranny?
Click to expand...

That is not what you asked me the first time. To answer your second post, the answer is no. The CURRENT government has not shut down or removed all of our legal options at this point.
 
Onceler said:
I'd be curious what your interpretation of "tyranny" is. If a gov't is popularly elected (like some current examples I can think of), that term doesn't really apply.
Click to expand...

sure it does. A body politic can be voted in with 90% of the popular vote and still be tyrannical against the other 10%. Part of what the constitution is supposed to do is protect that 10% from majority oppression.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top