Just a Comment

[Old Crazy]

You conveniently leave out the advance of technology, and those good gentlemen were unable to forecast the type of future weapons that would be available and in the hands of people who not only might want to control the government (against the wishes of the majority)--they might even want to control you.

That works both ways, Bob. The Founding Fathers also couldn't have forecast the future weapons that would be available to an invading army or a domestic government that seeks to oppress the American people. Most people who share your viewpoint on guns consider the constitution to be a living, evolving document. If you hold that view, then you cannot, with credibility, say the First Amendment has evolved to restrict prayer in school and prayer at graduations, but my liberty under the Second Amendment has never evolved beyond an 18th century musket.

 

[Old Crazy]

Awww, shucks. I'm sure I could be like Old Crazy and scour the internet for comments and cobble them into something coherent on the subject.

You can find lots of quotes on the internet from Founding Fathers who support gun control. Unfortunately, those Founding Fathers come from Nazi Germany, Red China, The Soviet Union and North Korea.

 

[bobpbx]

You can find lots of quotes on the internet from Founding Fathers who support gun control. Unfortunately, those Founding Fathers come from Nazi Germany, Red China, The Soviet Union and North Korea.

Blah, blah, blah....ya, ya...Nazis and Red China and the Russies. Oy vey!

The Constitution can be changed by the people, and it has always been interpreted by the Judicial Branch as cases come up. In that regard, you can say it could have evolved from the original intent in some situations.

Your point about restricting prayer in the situations you mention escapes me. I have always thought that restricting prayer in those situations is the correct thing to do.

 

[this_is_nascar]

My interpretation of the 2nd amendment is plain and simple. It's there to allow the citizens to arm and defend themselves against their own government if ever needed. That means the ability to equally match their capabilities of weapons.

This is probably the most comprehensible explanation I've been able to find.

 

[bobpbx]

That means the ability to equally match their capabilities of weapons.

Matching the capability of the US Military eh? How is that working out for you--are you there yet?

 

[this_is_nascar]

Matching the capability of the US Military eh? How is that working out for you--are you there yet?

I'm not trying to, but appreciate the right to do so. That's the point that many are missing when this debate comes up.

 

[Ben Ruset]

Let's all try to keep calm, ok?

 

[Old Crazy]

Blah, blah, blah....ya, ya...Nazis and Red China and the Russies. Oy vey!

The Nazi's banned gun ownership, then set up death camps for 8 million of their own defenseless people. The Soviets banned gun ownership, then Stalin killed 20 million Soviet citizens. MAO banned gun ownership, then killed 20 million Chinese. Blah-blah?

By the way, when do you want to get together for dinner and a few laughs? lmao

 

[bobpbx]

By the way, when do you want to get together for dinner and a few laughs? lmao

I'd have a ball with you, you old coot!

 

[dogg57]

Not funny. Needlessly provacative at best.

The Word according to Bob. Thanks Bob

 

[Boyd]

The Nazi's banned gun ownership, then set up death camps for 8 million of their own defenseless people.

That seems like a good signal that this thread belongs in the slag heap...

 

[Teegate]

That seems like a good signal that this thread belongs in the slag heap...

Nobody wins in these discussions and I can tell you for a fact we loose members because of it.

 

[Ben Ruset]

That seems like a good signal that this thread belongs in the slag heap...

Good idea.