Is there anyone here that believes the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment so that America would be the shooting gallery it is today?

[rahl]

Interesting.

Strawmen are never interesting. They are desperate attempts to deflect from you being wrong.

Unless those rights change.

They won’t be changing.

 

[BabaVoss]

Strawmen are never interesting.

I found your comment interesting.

They are desperate attempts to deflect from you being wrong.

Uh huh.

They won’t be changing.

Time will tell.

 

[rahl]

I found your comment interesting.

Good for you.

Uh huh.


Time will tell.

Time has already told you. The 2nd amendment is not going anywhere. You do not have remotely close to the support you need to repeal it.

 

[BabaVoss]

Good for you.

Time has already told you. The 2nd amendment is not going anywhere. You do not have remotely close to the support you need to repeal it.

Uh huh.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I don't follow your reasoning in that rant. What is your point?

ROFL

It's your reasoning - or rather the reasoning of the gun grabber site you used.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That is a good summary of the pro-gun arguments as it really comes down to "I want it".

Which is enough for any but slaves.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why do you dismiss the entire spectrum of firearm violence?

Again, the anti-liberty side claims that since a small percent of firearms are actually used in defense (in fact it's hundreds of times more prevalent than the left acknowledges) that defense is not relevant.

It is the gun grabber "logic." If this illogic is valid, then that means that since the instance of violence with weapons is minuscule compared to defense, the instance of violence is likewise not relevant.

You want a double standard, I am denying it to you.

Why do you think that 40,000+ deaths from firearms is acceptable?

Why do you think 520,000 lives saved each year through defensive use of firearms is unacceptable?

BTW, 17,000 is not 40,000

Recommendation: learn about the firearm violence in similar countries (Canada, Australia, UK, NZ. Ireland)

Recommendation: Stop lying about firearms in your zeal to strip others of civil rights.

 

[Nickyjo]

The Founding Fathers acknowledged that everyone has a natural right to defend themselves and that's why they insisted that "the right to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed".

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams

Clearly, they meant for ALL peaceable citizens to have arms - not only Militia.

Then why do they infringe my right to bear arms on airplanes, or into the Senate?

 

[mrjurrs]

And once again, the authoritarian nature of the gun control proponents is revealed.

Answer the question.

 

[mrjurrs]

I don't think the Founding Fathers ever envisioned that US society would turn into the cesspool of morality that it has become.

Answer the question.

 

[mrjurrs]

They wrote the amendment so that power would be in the citizen's hands. They understood freedom was dangerous if you want to live in the safety move to North Korea.

Answer the question.

 

[mrjurrs]

Contemporaneous arguments for the second amendment are readily available so you can essentially ask them. I think they make even more sense today. This is one ai summary:

What were the contemporaneous arguments for the Second Amendment?

In the late 18th century, contemporaneous arguments for the Second Amendment focused on the vital role of a well-regulated militia for the security of a free state. This view was heavily influenced by historical precedent and concerns about potential government overreach.
Key Arguments:

• Check on federal power: Many in the founding generation feared that a strong federal government, with a standing army, could become tyrannical. A well-armed militia, composed of citizens, was seen as a way to counterbalance this potential threat.
• Providing for common defense: Citizen militias were considered essential for responding to invasions, insurrections, and other emergencies, especially in times of war when a standing army might not be readily available.
• Preventing the need for a large standing army: Arguments were made, like those by Alexander Hamilton, that a well-regulated militia could help eliminate the need for a large, potentially dangerous, professional army.
• Historical precedent: The experience with the English Crown disarming its subjects to consolidate power influenced the framers' understanding of the importance of an armed citizenry. The English Bill of Rights in 1689 had codified the right of Protestants to have arms for their defense, prefiguring the American experience.
• Self-preservation and resistance to oppression: The right to keep and bear arms was connected to the broader natural right of resistance and self-preservation, allowing citizens to defend themselves against oppression.
• Codifying existing rights: The Second Amendment was viewed as codifying an individual right to firearm possession that was believed to preexist the Constitution, reflecting a "natural right of resistance and self-preservation".

And can you define 'well-regulated militia' using the same late 18th century dictionary?

Originalism you know...

 

[mrjurrs]

So should it be repealed? Or amended? What are your ideas?

Answer the question.

 

[mrjurrs]

When you start off with a falsehood, you know the rest of your OP is in trouble.

It’s basic English composition and grammar. Every single court starting in 1858 has told you this.

Answer the question.

 

[mrjurrs]

I suspect today's left wingers worry a whole lot more about the placement of a comma than the founders ever did.

Answer the question.

 

[stealthycat]

the REAL question is

Is there anyone here that believes the founders wrote the CONSTITUTION so that Americans would FREEDOM​

see, that's the entire Constitution - freedoms. Speech, religion, voting, owning guns, ...... there is a big responsibility that comes with that

 

[Bodi]

One mass shooter massacring dozens = somehow negates the need for gun rights

State oppressor massacring people = shrug my shoulders, doesn't matter, not a justification for gun rights

That is a Straw Man. I am arguing about Mass Shootings.

 

[mrjurrs]

What do you mean by "shooting gallery"?

Are you referring to the 100 million American gun owners who use their guns peacefully every year?

Or the .006% of Americans murdered by someone using a gun every year? Often, those murderers aren't even gun owners.

What do I mean? This.

 

[mrjurrs]

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with the level of violence in America.

Since gun control is not even about trying to save lives, blocking gun control does nothing that costs any lives.



What is there to do?



There is no such meaning to understand.



In other words it is critical to keep voting for Republicans. The Democrats mean to abolish our freedom and violate our civil liberties.

Answer the question.

 

[CLAX1911]

What do I mean? This.
View attachment 67575443

What does income level have to do with violence?

 

[rahl]

Answer the question.
View attachment 67575441

Your thread question is based on a falsehood. America is not the most violent nation.

 

[mrjurrs]

America is not a shooting gallery. Not even close.

And the comma argument is idiotic.

Really? Describe this...

 

[rahl]

What do I mean? This.
View attachment 67575443

Now put all the countries back on your graph that you excluded.

 

[mrjurrs]

Every gunfetisher heard the call of this thread. Prepare to be gished.

Thus far I have answered 9 posts. Only one answered the question (look for the chickens).

 

[mrjurrs]

As long as the 2nd remains, democrats will never gain the absolute power they lust after.

Answer the question.