stop bringing up the founding fathers in gun arguments

[EvilMallet]

Originally Posted by Happyfeet [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Who the fuck is going to save us from criminals with guns? You think we should disarm every citizen? GTFO.
Hello 911, there's someone in my house with a gun. BRT in 6 minutes! Oh, too late.

I'm not advocating the ban of small handguns. Just assault weapons. You don't need an M16 to fight off a criminal

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by philbertpk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You must be reading some lib-tard BS man.

True, the founding fathers were land owning-slave owning white guys who re-wrote John Locke's Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Land to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness because they obviously wanted to keep the class structure intact which would be viewed as oligarchical today.

But ill be dammed if they didn't write the ability for the people to revolt if ever needed into the Constitution. The right to bare arms is based on the thought that a well armed populace was the best way to deter the government from stepping on the rights on citizens not so that as many people as possible could keep guns to kill redcoats. You under informed Marxist. Go back to commy land Pinky.

Im not saying we should hold those men up on a pedestal and call them Gods, but damn. Im a damn moderate but I Know better than this BS your spewing. Go get an education.

So you think some redneck with a ar-15 is going to take on an Abrams tank? The real power of revolt is our volunteer military not our firearms.

The founding fathers imaginings have no place in modern society. Its time to be our own people.

[patriot1776]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So you think some redneck with a ar-15 is going to take on an Abrams tank? The real power of revolt is our volunteer military not our firearms.

The founding fathers imaginings have no place in modern society. Its time to be our own people.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Lyra]

Originally Posted by philbertpk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But ill be dammed if they didn't write the ability for the people to revolt if ever needed into the Constitution. The right to bare arms is based on the thought that a well armed populace was the best way to deter the government from stepping on the rights on citizens not so that as many people as possible could keep guns to kill redcoats. You under informed Marxist. Go back to commy land Pinky.

You be dammed and damned too.

I cannot speak to constitutional law, but I can speak to grammar and sentence structure which anyone should acknowledge was probably more intimately studied and practiced in the 18th century than it is today.

The document which we call The Constitution was constructed on sets of conditional clauses, reasons and explanations.

The preamble, the thesis statement if you will, the sentence that sets the grounds for everything that follows: We the People of the United States , (the who part of the statement), in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, (the why part of the statement), do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America (the what part of the statement). That would mean that everything that follows MUST support the WHY part of the statement – Union, Justice, Tranquility, Defense, Welfare, and Liberty.

Then skipping to the second amendment which so many like to flaunt and debate. First, it must support the original statement: Union, Justice, Tranquility, Defense, Welfare, and Liberty. Secondly, in reading it, it in itself is another conditional statement: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (the why part of the statement), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (the what part of the statement). The second part of the statement cannot stand without the first and the first does not state, in order to ensure personal safety, in order to hunt or in order to shoot 20 defenseless first graders.

We as individuals, as a community and as a nation need to reexamine if our obsession with our supposed personal right to bear arms is in the spirit and language of the constitution both in the second amendment but maybe more importantly, in the preamble: to promote Union, Justice, Tranquility, Defense, Welfare, and Liberty.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Hitchens]

Hook, line and sinker.

[EvilMallet]

Originally Posted by Hitchens [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Hook, line and sinker.

[patriot1776]

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

[patriot1776]

"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home."
- James Madison

[Strifer]

Guys for real if Jesus had guns he wouldn't have died, or at least that is what southern evangelicals want you to believe....hmmmm

[Itap]

Originally Posted by Strifer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Guys for real if Jesus had guns he wouldn't have died, or at least that is what southern evangelicals want you to believe....hmmmm

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]