The 2nd Amendment

[Durango 95]

Come on CBW what's the matter did I say something that hit too close to home? You don't like it when someone points out that you have more blood on your hands than Adam Lanza and James Holmes combined.  What were you saying about causation?

[Durango 95]

Less unmanned drones via Obama supporters equal less dead children!

[Lord Freesus]

Less unmanned drones via Obama supporters equal less dead children!

Obama supporters (and most Americans) generally don't support the war and want us to leave the middle east alone.

However this is about the second amendment.

[Chief Joseph]

Yeah, there's plenty of other threads talking about how Obama hoodwinked you.

[dalbuc]

In the 1700s, "arms" were muskets that fired 3 inaccurate rounds a minute.

I doubt the founding fathers ever imagined we'd have machines capable of so much destruction.

Never the less the Founders specifically allowed the most lethal weapons of the age to be used.

In the end, the reason for the amendment is not to allow hunting and sport. It is to allow a citizenry to have recourse against an oppressive government.  The logic of the amendment pretty much demands citizens access to the most dangerous weapons.   

[CBWx2]

Come on CBW what's the matter did I say something that hit too close to home? You don't like it when someone points out that you have more blood on your hands than Adam Lanza and James Holmes combined.  What were you saying about causation?

So do you. I'd gladly put up for comparison the number of people killed by drone attacks against the number of people killed by firearms in our country alone since 2008.

[CBWx2]

In the 1700s, "arms" were muskets that fired 3 inaccurate rounds a minute.

I doubt the founding fathers ever imagined we'd have machines capable of so much destruction.

Never the less the Founders specifically allowed the most lethal weapons of the age to be used.

In the end, the reason for the amendment is not to allow hunting and sport. It is to allow a citizenry to have recourse against an oppressive government.  The logic of the amendment pretty much demands citizens access to the most dangerous weapons.

I can directly quote the US Constitution to support my assertion that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to provide for a means of addressing national security. Can you directly quote the US Constitution to support your assertion that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow a citizenry to have recourse against an oppressive government?

[Durango 95]

Come on CBW what's the matter did I say something that hit too close to home? You don't like it when someone points out that you have more blood on your hands than Adam Lanza and James Holmes combined.  What were you saying about causation?

So do you. I'd gladly put up for comparison the number of people killed by drone attacks against the number of people killed by firearms in our country alone since 2008.

I've never voted for Obama nor do I support murder......But you on the other hand....most certainly do.

That is fact you can't run from.

[CBWx2]

Come on CBW what's the matter did I say something that hit too close to home? You don't like it when someone points out that you have more blood on your hands than Adam Lanza and James Holmes combined.  What were you saying about causation?

So do you. I'd gladly put up for comparison the number of people killed by drone attacks against the number of people killed by firearms in our country alone since 2008.

I've never voted for Obama nor do I support murder......But you on the other hand....most certainly do.

That is fact you can't run from.

You may have never voted for Obama, but you absolutely support murder. At least, by your assertion of indirect culpability, you do. You see, it is your position that allows for individuals like James Holmes and Adam Lanza to be able to acquire the firearms that they use to commit their acts. It is your position that allows for 80% of all the handguns used in violent crimes to end up in the hands of the perpetrators. So you have far more blood on your hands than I do, and that is a fact that you can't run from.

[CBWx2]

Oh, BTW Durango, I am not ignoring your challenge to present you with a comprehensive gun control plan. What I find interesting about the challenge, however, is that you are calling for first Vince, and now myself to present you with a comprehensive solution to support our stance when you haven't even attempted to present one for your own stance. The furthest you've gotten was "look into causation", which is not a comprehensive plan. It barely even qualifies as a position. In fact, one might accurately describe it as nothing more than a talking point.

When I have more time, I will not only present you with what I would consider a solution to ending, or at least sharply decreasing gun violence, and do you one better. I will also address your position of looking into causation. You know, the position that you have taken a vague and non-committal stance on while simultaneously attacking others for doing the same in your opinion?

[Dolorous Jason]

Dead children are a lot less important when their deaths don't support your political cause.

You mean like the left dismembering unborn babies with clothes hangers and then calling it "women's health care"  ?  But make no mistake , CBW loves the little childrens.

[Dolorous Jason]

I can directly quote the US Constitution to support my assertion that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to provide for a means of addressing national security. Can you directly quote the US Constitution to support your assertion that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow a citizenry to have recourse against an oppressive government?

From the Declaration of Independence:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."


Hmmmm....whatever could that mean ....

[Chief Joseph]

 A "long train of abuses and usurpations"? I thought we were supposed to rebel at first inconvenience? CBW tells me so.

[CBWx2]

Dead children are a lot less important when their deaths don't support your political cause.

You mean like the left dismembering unborn babies with clothes hangers and then calling it "women's health care"  ?  But make no mistake , CBW loves the little childrens.

LOL, go ahead Illuminator and Durango. Back up your new best bud on this one. 

[Chief Joseph]

 "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed "

And in the end, it is not firearms that maintain the right of the governed to withhold their consent, but their courage and willingness to use them when necessity dictates. Still, history teaches us that such courage and sense of duty are nearly futile without the firearms to support them. As clearly stated, maintaining the ability to overthrow your government is not the right of a free populace, but their duty.