Glory Days wrote: yeah but some people do think its perfect. they think that no matter what it should never ever be changed or amended and should be followed to the word. yet this right was written by the same people who thought blacks and women were not equal and that only men who owned land could vote.

i guess i pose this question, had the 2nd amendment not been written in the bill of rights, would we still feel the same way and eventually have wrote it in? i really dont know if we can get an unbiased answer to that question since we have been believing in that right now for 200 years.

The 2nd amendment would have never been left out. They got their freedom from that very idea, a gun in every household to overthrow a tyrannical government. They actually lived it and know of the importance. They know far more on the subject than many of us today.

And you're representation of the Founding Fathers is reprehensible. They needed a government in place for the new country and need 9 of the 13 colonies to ratify it. In order for that to happen, they had to make compromises, and unfortunately one was slavery. No way they get the Constitution ratified if they outlawed slavery right away. But it's a good thing the Founding Fathers were so smart. They left an amendment process in the Constitution so things could be changed with time, like slavery and voting rights have been.

We take for granted our technology today. These men drafted a document that was well thought-out and stands the test of time without the luxuries we have today (phones, internet, cars, computers). They lived through an oppressive government and knew what it could do, and structured a contract between the people and the government so that the people would never have to experience an oppressive government again. Unfortunately, the government doesn't abide by that contract anymore.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arm."
-Thomas Jefferson

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as prosperity."
-Thomas Paine

"That the people have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe Defence of a free state."
-George Mason

For it.

All guns registered? I have to think about that one.

eersandbeers wrote:
You are also going out on a limb by suggesting all the Founders thought slavery was alright. There was far more that went into that decision.

bigmanbt wrote: And you're representation of the Founding Fathers is reprehensible. They needed a government in place for the new country and need 9 of the 13 colonies to ratify it. In order for that to happen, they had to make compromises, and unfortunately one was slavery. No way they get the Constitution ratified if they outlawed slavery right away. But it's a good thing the Founding Fathers were so smart. They left an amendment process in the Constitution so things could be changed with time, like slavery and voting rights have been.

how am i going out on a limb when they personally owned slaves? it wasnt until a few years later did they start to give freedom to their own personal slaves. its not like they didnt own slaves, but made concessions to a few southern states to still allow it to happen in order to get the constitution signed.

eersandbeers wrote: It is a nice cliche but hardly true. Try defending yourself with a pen.

Ideas are extremely important to inspire people to take up arms, but weapons are needed when it comes time to fight.

The Iranian riots showed what happens to a disarmed populace. How do you think that would have turned out if the people had the ability to fight off the government?

Even Gandhi recognized the importance of owning weapons. There is a reason every dictator has disarmed the population.

many of the early events in the revolution didnt involve weapons at all on the part of the united states.

and had Great Britain actually been located in present day canada, we would still be under British rule...or atleast for a little bit longer. fortunately for us they could not overcome the distance of the atlantic ocean.

bigmanbt wrote: We take for granted our technology today. These men drafted a document that was well thought-out and stands the test of time without the luxuries we have today (phones, internet, cars, computers). They lived through an oppressive government and knew what it could do, and structured a contract between the people and the government so that the people would never have to experience an oppressive government again. Unfortunately, the government doesn't abide by that contract anymore.

I wonder what they would have thought now knowing how far weapons have come along, they had muskets and primitive rifles when they wrote the amendment.

Glory Days wrote: how am i going out on a limb when they personally owned slaves? it wasnt until a few years later did they start to give freedom to their own personal slaves. its not like they didnt own slaves, but made concessions to a few southern states to still allow it to happen in order to get the constitution signed.

These are just a few. Jefferson also worked to abolish slavery in Virginia. Like I said, it isn't as cut and dry as you are making it. As with every single issue, there are political forces. Lincoln didn't start the war to end slavery either, and if he didn't win the Maryland Campaign it is likely the Emancipation Proclamation wouldn't have been issued until a much later date, if at all.

“I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].”
-George Washington

"[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known... [N]ever in my life did I own a slave."
-John Adams

"[W]hy keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil." -Charles Carroll

"As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they ...[c]urse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage [slavery]." -John Dickinson,

"That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent as well as unjust and perhaps impious part." -John Jay

"Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity... It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men." -Benjamin Rush

Glory Days wrote: many of the early events in the revolution didnt involve weapons at all on the part of the united states.

Correct. The Revolution wasn't the battle.

"But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution." - John Adams

Glory Days wrote: and had Great Britain actually been located in present day canada, we would still be under British rule...or atleast for a little bit longer. fortunately for us they could not overcome the distance of the atlantic ocean.

Well that is probably correct as it is far easier to maintain a colony when you are based outside that country. However, that does not mean they would have won since we still had French support.

Glory Days wrote: I wonder what they would have thought now knowing how far weapons have come along, they had muskets and primitive rifles when they wrote the amendment.

That's why they put a method of proposing Amendments to the Constitution.

Ok, so who is trying to take your guns?

derek bomar wrote: Ok, so who is trying to take your guns?

Who is trying to or who would like to?

I guess if you completely dismiss every statement and proposal by Obama, Holder, and Emanuel before he became President then nobody.

eersandbeers wrote:

derek bomar wrote: Ok, so who is trying to take your guns?

Who is trying to or who would like to?

I guess if you completely dismiss every statement and proposal by Obama, Holder, and Emanuel before he became President then nobody.

Where did Obama say he plans on taking your guns?

derek bomar wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:

derek bomar wrote: Ok, so who is trying to take your guns?

Who is trying to or who would like to?

I guess if you completely dismiss every statement and proposal by Obama, Holder, and Emanuel before he became President then nobody.

Where did Obama say he plans on taking your guns?

Did he support the Illinois gun ban? Did he support the "assault" weapon ban? Did he oppose concealed carry? Did he support a ban on semi-automatic weapons (which means banning handguns)? Did he vote no to prohibit gun manufacturers from being sued? Has there been proposals of more taxes on guns, ammo, and even more stringent registration requirements which would raise the prices?

eersandbeers wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:

derek bomar wrote: Ok, so who is trying to take your guns?

Who is trying to or who would like to?

I guess if you completely dismiss every statement and proposal by Obama, Holder, and Emanuel before he became President then nobody.

Where did Obama say he plans on taking your guns?

Did he support the Illinois gun ban? Did he support the "assault" weapon ban? Did he oppose concealed carry? Did he support a ban on semi-automatic weapons (which means banning handguns)? Did he vote no to prohibit gun manufacturers from being sued? Has there been proposals of more taxes on guns, ammo, and even more stringent registration requirements which would raise the prices?

I don't know, you tell me...I thought we were supposed to cite things instead of making claims on here...

derek bomar wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:

derek bomar wrote: Ok, so who is trying to take your guns?

Who is trying to or who would like to?

I guess if you completely dismiss every statement and proposal by Obama, Holder, and Emanuel before he became President then nobody.

Where did Obama say he plans on taking your guns?

Did he support the Illinois gun ban? Did he support the "assault" weapon ban? Did he oppose concealed carry? Did he support a ban on semi-automatic weapons (which means banning handguns)? Did he vote no to prohibit gun manufacturers from being sued? Has there been proposals of more taxes on guns, ammo, and even more stringent registration requirements which would raise the prices?

I don't know, you tell me...I thought we were supposed to cite things instead of making claims on here...

I was obviously being rhetorical since I made direct references to those statements.

Google is a good tool. One I do not feel like using.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

on the hand gun ban - he says he didn't do it (his staffer did...)...bad excuse I know, but he claims he doesn't support the ban...
he also states that individual states and cities have the right to determine the gun laws (see: zoning laws and private property) but believes the constitution provides us the right to bear arms...

I don't see him knocking on your door and demanding you give him your guns, nor do I foresee him attempting this, nor do I see the congress or senate doing either as well.

It'd be political suicide for anyone to try and take people's guns in a large scale manner. I just don't see this as an issue...

At one time, it was also considered "political suicide" to push the idea to force Americans to pay for other peoples' comforts.

Glory Days,

I'm not sure I'm understanding your opinion about bearing arms.
Are you for it or against it? I don't think you ever really say...

CenterBHSFan wrote: Glory Days,

I'm not sure I'm understanding your opinion about bearing arms.
Are you for it or against it? I don't think you ever really say...

I didnt state it. I just like to present the other side of the debate. Although guns have been a large part of my career, at this time i personally do not own a gun.

derek bomar wrote:I don't know, you tell me...I thought we were supposed to cite things instead of making claims on here...

I like how, when people play your same game, you can't present any facts AGAINST it. You just keep asking questions... "show me facts that people are" while you are not showing facts that people are NOT.

Forget my last statement, Bomar... I just read your second post after that.

Glory Days wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote: Glory Days,

I'm not sure I'm understanding your opinion about bearing arms.
Are you for it or against it? I don't think you ever really say...

I didnt state it. I just like to present the other side of the debate. Although guns have been a large part of my career, at this time i personally do not own a gun.

Do you care to share your side of the argument, where you stand?

ernest_t_bass wrote:

derek bomar wrote:I don't know, you tell me...I thought we were supposed to cite things instead of making claims on here...

I like how, when people play your same game, you can't present any facts AGAINST it. You just keep asking questions... "show me facts that people are" while you are not showing facts that people are NOT.

How can you show facts for something that has never happened?

If they are not saying that they will take your guns away, how am i supposed to cite that when they've never said that they will take your guns away?

How am i supposed to cite something that doesn't exist?

Cbus... you obviously didn't read my next post after that.

Just read it, sorry.

ernest_t_bass wrote: Do you care to share your side of the argument, where you stand?

no problem with allowing people to own guns, but i dont think that even though criminals can get guns, that we should just make it easy for them. i also acknowledge the fact that a gun isnt going to be the answer to your problems. i think there are situations where you should pull your gun and defend yourself, and i think there are situations where it might be in your best interest to give up your wallet and walk away with your life.

Glory Days wrote:
no problem with allowing people to own guns, but i dont think that even though criminals can get guns, that we should just make it easy for them. i also acknowledge the fact that a gun isnt going to be the answer to your problems. i think there are situations where you should pull your gun and defend yourself, and i think there are situations where it might be in your best interest to give up your wallet and walk away with your life.

I just think that the fact that criminals can already get guns is one of the main reasons guns should be easy to get. If we restrict access to guns, 1 side of the equation will be armed and the other unarmed. It's easy to see that in this situation it would encourage more criminals as they can get what they want with less threat of their life. When you threaten the life of a criminal, they will think twice before entering a house. They want to live just as much as you do.

I agree though that there are just times when you shouldn't use your gun, but imo those times are only when someone has the drop on you and you can't get a shot off first. In this situation though I think that not every shot should be fired with the intent to kill. A good pre-emptive warning shot can most of the time do the trick.

bigmanbt wrote:
I just think that the fact that criminals can already get guns is one of the main reasons guns should be easy to get. If we restrict access to guns, 1 side of the equation will be armed and the other unarmed. It's easy to see that in this situation it would encourage more criminals as they can get what they want with less threat of their life. When you threaten the life of a criminal, they will think twice before entering a house. They want to live just as much as you do.

i guess i just dont see why criminals care if you have a gun. they have no problem shooting it out with each other and the police, why stop at the average citizen? yeah you get the dumb criminal who probably forgot to load his gun and is using it just to scare you. but if a criminal thought you were putting his life in danger, why wouldnt he just shoot you and get away? i think the number of people who own guns is around 50% right now, so criminals probably already know they have a 50/50 chance of robbing someone with a gun. and plus i never said people shouldnt have guns. but i dont think an extra day or so getting a background check is going to be the difference in someone being killed in a robbery. an extra check at a gun show to make sure some guy hasnt been paid by a felon to go get a gun shouldnt be much of a hassle to get a gun.

Glory Days wrote:

ernest_t_bass wrote: Do you care to share your side of the argument, where you stand?

no problem with allowing people to own guns, but i dont think that even though criminals can get guns, that we should just make it easy for them. i also acknowledge the fact that a gun isnt going to be the answer to your problems. i think there are situations where you should pull your gun and defend yourself, and i think there are situations where it might be in your best interest to give up your wallet and walk away with your life.

Calling someone a criminal is implying they have broke the law in some way. So logic would dictate that regardless of how many laws you put in place, the criminals will still obtain guns.

Laws only hurt law abiding citizens who jump through hoops to legally register and carry a weapon.

You are correct that some situations are not worth pulling your gun. However, a gun ensures you have that option in case something goes worse.