stop bringing up the founding fathers in gun arguments

[Lexical]

As one pug to another.

[Breeziyo]

lexical ur pug has a p cool hat

[Lexical]

thanks homie. He tries to look dapper for the ladies.

[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.]

[OforOppression]

"smoke weed EVERY day" - barack obama

[patriot1776]

GOD BLESS AMERICA WHERE AT LEAST I KNOW IM FREE

[Humerox]

Nice post, Lyra.

They're not used to people they think of as sheep standing up and telling them they're full of crap. But that's what's happening...and they're going to be surprised when they see that the people that want more gun legislation and/or gun control ARE the majority, and that Congress starts to listen when the majority speaks.

America is changing. They can love it or leave it.

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

[Faron]

Everyone has their opinion on it, but actually only a small percentage of people even actively give a shit about gun control according to recent Gallup polls. The hype around it is completely manufactured by Pres and crew and foaming-at-the-mouth drones on internet forums.

[Lyra]

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

manufactured by Pres and crew and foaming-at-the-mouth drones on internet forums.

And the NRA - aka gun manufacturers / profiteers

[Vellatri]

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

Secondly, in reading it, it in itself is another conditional statement:

Minor but important correction: this is not a conditional statement. It's a prefatory clause.

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

The second part of the statement cannot stand without the first

Actually, it can, because the first is only a preface and not operational. They included it, as you said, simply to state the "why" of 2A. It places no restriction on the "what."

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

the first does not state, in order to ensure personal safety, in order to hunt or in order to shoot 20 defenseless first graders.

Agreed. It's there in order to keep government in check. (To secure a free state.) That's why I've said in the past that even if guns unquestionably increased crime across the land, there would still be justificaiton for keeping them.

Liked your pics at the end, Lyra. Some reasons why this gun nut can't stand the NRA or the GOP. The black resistance to gun control in the 60s makes for some great reading.