• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Just what is this 'right to bear arms?'

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
The whole "question" comes right down to this:

But the stakes are much higher, since making the right determination about who should - and should not - carry a gun is a potential matter of life and death to a degree unmatched by rules about who gets to slide behind the wheel of a vehicle.

Dave asks the right questions about which death is more worthy of concern - someone killed by a gunshot or someone killed by a car crash? That the behavior that caused the death by either means was illegal or not does not matter. One death is no more or more less important because of the instrument responsible for the death.

But the fact that there are far fewer deaths caused by guns than by cars does not seem to matter. Nor does the fact that there are probably as many guns as there are cars in the country. What matters is that GUNZ ARE EVVVILLLLL!!!!!11eleventy!:uhoh:

So the answer is to restrict the right and relax the rules regarding the privilege?:shocker: There are times when I truely wonder if there are folks out there whose smarts leaked out of their heads.

stay safe.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
"...illegitimate son in the Bill of Rights..." hmmm?
Let's try a little thought experiment---

Make a list about things most important to you, or a list about 'stuff I gotta Get Done', or even a list of the things you need at the grocery store.

What item did you put down first, and second? What items did you throw together at the bottom of the list?
Now.... what things on those lists were most important to you, the things at the top of the list, or the things at the bottom?
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
"...illegitimate son in the Bill of Rights..." hmmm?
Let's try a little thought experiment---

Make a list about things most important to you, or a list about 'stuff I gotta Get Done', or even a list of the things you need at the grocery store.

What item did you put down first, and second? What items did you throw together at the bottom of the list?
Now.... what things on those lists were most important to you, the things at the top of the list, or the things at the bottom?

Go look up the history of the Bill of Rights. There were more than 10 amendments proposed - what we have and call the Bill of Rights are merely the suggestions that survived. The order they are in has nothing to do with the "importance" of one amendment over those that come before or afterwards.

Suggesting otherwise would be to tell those who oppose our form of government that we are willing to sacrifice one right over another and that all they need to do is start with the "least important" right and work their way up from there. [After I typed that sentence I remembered that in fact that's what has already happened, and that we did it to ourselves. That's why we need to stop thinking that way.]

stay safe.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Washington State’s own Tri-City Herald today published an editorial that speaks about the Second Amendment and how many liberals cling to the notion that it is the illegitimate son in the Bill of Rights...

Did speak about how many liberals are the illegitimate children of the republic for which or nation's flag stands? U.S. Constitution, Artile 4, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
Go look up the history of the Bill of Rights. There were more than 10 amendments proposed - what we have and call the Bill of Rights are merely the suggestions that survived. The order they are in has nothing to do with the "importance" of one amendment over those that come before or afterwards.

Suggesting otherwise would be to tell those who oppose our form of government that we are willing to sacrifice one right over another and that all they need to do is start with the "least important" right and work their way up from there. [After I typed that sentence I remembered that in fact that's what has already happened, and that we did it to ourselves. That's why we need to stop thinking that way.]

stay safe.
This. Especially when my question to the answer is "I list things in order of remembrance and not order of importance. Bacon may be close to the bottom of my grocery list, but it's by far the most important item." ;)
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Why is electing senators a bad thing?

It eliminates one of the distinctions between the House and the Senate. The House was intended to represent the People. The Senate was designed to represent the States, which were sovereign entities at the time of the founding. They have lost a lot of that sovereignty, in part due to the change in the way we choose senators.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
It eliminates one of the distinctions between the House and the Senate. The House was intended to represent the People. The Senate was designed to represent the States, which were sovereign entities at the time of the founding. They have lost a lot of that sovereignty, in part due to the change in the way we choose senators.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Ahhhh, now I understand that part. So why the switch to elect senators?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Ahhhh, now I understand that part. So why the switch to elect senators?

It was more "democratic."

We never were a democracy, and (IMO) each of these little moves toward to democracy amount to a little cut, thousands of which will result in the death of our Republic. We are rapidly becoming a nation of men and not of laws.
 

Contrarian

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
259
Location
Seattle,WA, , USA
vote tally

"The vote tally shows 229 Republicans voted for the measure and seven against. On the other side of the aisle, 147 Democrats opposed the bill and 43 voted for it."


So - there are 43 more Dems that get it and seven Cons who don't? Looks like education might be a good thing.

Now to fix those remaining 147.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
It was more "democratic."

We never were a democracy, and (IMO) each of these little moves toward to democracy amount to a little cut, thousands of which will result in the death of our Republic. We are rapidly becoming a nation of men and not of laws.

So senators were appointed by governors, elected by the state houses, how were they put into office before?
 

09jisaac

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
1,692
Location
Louisa, Kentucky
State legislatures selected them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

If you notice all the higher forms of government was kept out of the hands of the average citizen. Senate was elected by the states, as was the president through the electoral collage. And the justices of the supreme court was appointed by the president and approved by the senate. The only thing that the average citizen had control of was state governments and the house.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
If you notice all the higher forms of government was kept out of the hands of the average citizen. Senate was elected by the states, as was the president through the electoral collage. And the justices of the supreme court was appointed by the president and approved by the senate. The only thing that the average citizen had control of was state governments and the house.

That was the intentional (and, as history has shown, correct) design. The States were the sovereign nations, with the federal government being a creation of them, with the sole purpose of taking over only the functions best performed centrally. The People's House was a concession to the sentiment that the people should control the creation of the States.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 
Top