guns
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
You are constantly bringing race into almost every thread. You pick and choose what historical facts might support your current argument while ignoring other pertinent facts. If you approach things a little more open minded, your viewpoint might change. When I read your posts I try to consider if the point you make is valid, rather than dismissing it without first considering it. I know that I don't know it all and try to learn from others experiences and knowledge in areas that I am not an expert in. There has been a lot of injustice throughout history, most of it occurring to people who wee at the mercy of more powerful groups. So your argument to disarm people and deny them the ability to protect themselves will only lead to more of the same kind of treatment. We need to preserve as many personal rights as possible, or we will all end up enslaved, only the powers that be will use a different term.
Sent using BrownCafe App
moreluck
golden ticket member
"These arguments that gun owners make about a time in history that nobody here has experienced or obviously read about shows in the ridiculous statements that are made about the time....." (tos)
I never saw Daniel Boone with a cell phone and texting someone.......but I know he didn't have one !!
I never saw Daniel Boone with a cell phone and texting someone.......but I know he didn't have one !!
You keep talking about bringing up race, and yet, I quote the militia act of 1792 that SPECIFICALLY describes WHO could be in the militias and you still want to make it a racial thing.
Listen, why are you arguing with me on this issue? The ACT is clear, only WHITE men could be in the militia, only WHITE men between ages 18 and 45 could be in the militia.
These are called facts.
You may not like them, and it destroys the arguments that EVERYONE at the time could be in a militia, but they are the FACTS.
One poster said that blacks were armed at the time, yet, at the time, they were slaves. How does this reconcile?
If blacks were armed, why were they hanged when they were discovered with guns?
You all are so confused with Historical Rhetoric, fed to you by lobby groups like the NRA it has taken your ability to understand history away from you.
If the founders wanted EVERYONE to be armed, the second amendment would say so. If the founders wanted citizens to be unregulated with "ARMS", then it would not have included the PREAMBLE "a well regulated militia", then followed that up with a separate act to define it.
One poster attempted to point out that "simple english" would help people to understand the meaning of the second amendment, and I agree, but, not the way the poster points out.
You see, if we applied "simple english", You all would understand the use of the COMMA and a PREAMBLE.
This is something that GUN owners want to ignore, yet, still believe they got it all figured out.
On one hand, the gun owner points to the second amendment and thinks, believes and see's a sentence that says ...
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"...
Whats a fact is, THAT SENTENCE DOES NOT EXIST in the second amendment.
And this is the problem with the interpretation of the second amendment. What is does say is:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What gun owners want to do is to ADD two segments of this entire sentence as a stand alone sentence, yet separate them from the first two components of the sentence.
In the sentence gun owners believe is in the second amendment, there is NO COMMA in between the right of the people to keep and bear arms AND shall not be infringed.
Gun owners want to CONNECT the last two components as applying to each other as a sentence but the first two components they want to ignore.
If the two sentences are suppose to be connected even though separated by a comma, why do the first two components of the sentence not apply to the second two components of the sentence?
A comma is defined as:
com·ma
/ˈkɒm
The second amendment contains a preamble "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA", and everything after that comma is the order that it applies to that MILITIA.
This would be "simple english".
The supreme court recently has ruled that gun owners could possess handguns in the home and that the second amendment doesnt give precendent to militias, but this has been an argument for decades.
The original text of the second amendment read like this...
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
We can argue all day long, but at the end of the day, the current supreme court ruled in a 5 to 4 ruling that gun owners can keep their guns.
Someday, the majority may go the other way and that could just as easily change.
TOS.
You were there, nobody would know better than you.
Thanks for the first hand account.
TOS.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
1BROWNWRENCH
Amatuer Malthusian
....and harsh language.
TOS, no matter what tangent you go off on, the heart of the argument is that you want to disarm everyone except for the government. If this happens, only the government and lawbreakers will be armed. In this case, both white and people of color who are law abiding citizens will be at the mercy of others groups who will victimize them. Haven't we had enough of disenfranchised groups being victimized, as you have very aptly pointed out in your posts? Instead of railing at the injustices that people of color have been forced to endure, why not help support the freedoms that might help them avoid future attracts on freedom, safety, and dignity? This thread is not meant to be a showcase for who can argue most effectively. It is an affirmation that none of us will permit future victimization without a fight. I'd you trust the government to protect you, then I applaud your faith in your fellow man. I personally don't have that faith. I trust very few people fully, certainly not any politicians or government officials, dem or pub. The government, as with any other organization, once founded has as it's highest priority as self preservation. It is in the greatest interest of the government to increase power and that has to come at the expense of personal liberty and personal safety of the individual, on order to be able to exercise the greatest amount of control over the populace. History has too many examples of abuses of this kind of power and control.
Sent using BrownCafe App
Sent using BrownCafe App
YOU keep saying that I want to disarm people. I have said many times on this board before and I will say it again for you...
I dont want to disarm everyone. I believe the constitution needs to be "amended" to construct an actual right to possess arms which includes a process thats tough enough to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldnt have them. If you live in the country/rural areas, you may need a gun for defense. If you live in the hills or mountains, you may need a gun. But if you live in a metropolis city, then a gun is most likely NOT a need. And please, spare me the "im a hunter" excuse. I hear that from so many yahoos I cant even count them anymore.
If you live in the city, and you go to the desolate areas of the state to shoot innocent rabbits , squirrels and birds, you are not a hunter, youre a yahoo.
Like Israel, who has the toughest gun laws in the world, I would mimick the laws of Israel as a model for US Gun ownership.
The USA is a violent country, well beyond the gangs and criminals. Guns are always at the center of killings in this country and the majority of those killings are wives, kids, neighbors and Co Workers.
Those killings would be eliminated if we followed the Israeli model for gun ownership.
Hopefully you have a full understanding of my position. Not everyone should qualify to own a gun.
TOS.
But who decides who is and isn't qualified? You place too much power In the hands of people who can't be trusted and take away freedoms from law abiding citizens.
Sent using BrownCafe App
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
The government can ban all guns and you would be able to buy one on any street corner in America a week later. We can't stop illegal drugs from being sold, what makes you think that the U.S. can stop the sale of guns. Criminals will always have them.
That is another reason I am such supporter of gun ownership by the people. Guns save lives.
Don't believe me,
Again, this is the problem with gun owners, they fear the government.
Why are there no mass shootings in israel? Why are there no assault rifles in the homes of Israeli citizens? Why dont they have a rash of gun owners shooting wives, children , neighbors and co workers?
Ill tell you why.
They screen everyone who wants a gun. They hold them accountable for every gun they buy. They limit the gun owner to 50 rounds a year and the owner has to account for every empty shell casing in order to get more ammo.
Nobody on prescription drugs for a mental issue is allowed to have a gun, that would take guns out of the hands of a ton of gun owners in this country.
Every three years, a gun owner in Israel has to go through the screening process all over again.
Here, the excuse is always, fear the government.
Anarchy? Is that what you want? You want to return to the old wild west style of living where guns settled all issues.
That world has come and gone bro.
TOS.
How is your theory working in Somalia? Iraq? Afghanistan? Libya? Syria?
Plenty of guns there and no peace, just death.
You want to bring that to America?
TOS.
oldngray
nowhere special
A total wealth of misinformation. Israeli soldiers carry their weapons all the time and store in their own home even when inactive. And since military service is a requirement in Israel almost everyone is still in reserves and required to keep their own weapon ready at home in case they get called back into active service.
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/119408/why-israel-has-no-newtowns
Last edited:
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
There are no mass shootings in Israel because most the citizens are armed. They have a mandatory service obligation over there for both men and women I believe. And after they serve their tour of duty, they are in reserves with up to 30 days of mandatory service a year, up until their early 40's.
Any person wanting to shoot up a mall would be taken down immediately.
But I like where you are going with this. More guns, more safety.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Let me see if I have my dates correct here:
Constitution ratified: 1787
Bill of Rights introduced: 1789
Bill of Rights ratified: 1791
Militia Act passed: 1792
How can you use the Militia Act of 1792 which was created to assist the government in putting down riots and demonstrations, to define what was ratified a year earlier in the Bill of Rights (2nd Amendment)?
Similar threads
