Assault Weapons - Historical and Now
- Thread starter scion_xb
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: javacontour
What is amazing is that many of the folks wanting to ban "assault weapons" don't see the killing of 3500 unborn in the US each day for the murder it is.
If they really want to demonstrate they care for life, they can start by seeking protection for the innocent unborn.
^^^Amen^^^. I for one would like to thank the moderators for NOT locking this down. I too would have thought it would have been locked a long time ago considering the topic alone.
What is amazing is that many of the folks wanting to ban "assault weapons" don't see the killing of 3500 unborn in the US each day for the murder it is.
If they really want to demonstrate they care for life, they can start by seeking protection for the innocent unborn.
^^^Amen^^^. I for one would like to thank the moderators for NOT locking this down. I too would have thought it would have been locked a long time ago considering the topic alone.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Oh no.
I left my fire-arm in a home with a pit bull, trans-fats, and a 2 liter bottle of Coca Cola.
I'm lucky I didn't kill us all.
OMG, not a FULL 2 LITER BOTTLE!!!!!!!!! Good thing your not in NY City in the EMPIRE OF NY!!!!
Oh no.
I left my fire-arm in a home with a pit bull, trans-fats, and a 2 liter bottle of Coca Cola.
I'm lucky I didn't kill us all.
OMG, not a FULL 2 LITER BOTTLE!!!!!!!!! Good thing your not in NY City in the EMPIRE OF NY!!!!
One thing that really bothers me....people calling firearms "weapons". I collect firearms and have quite a number of them.....none of them are considered weapons UNTIL I decide to use it as such, other than that rare moment, they are firearms - nothing more, nothing less.
I do own many weapons though; the bricks on my patio, my grandsons baseball bats, kitchen knives, my automobiles, my 50 gallon gasoline supply, and my landscaping rocks......among a million other things that I COULD use as a weapon if I chose to go that route.
Even pro-gun advocates use the wrong terms and it gives OUR side a black eye when using the wrong term. Firearms are NOT weapons until used as such!
For the sheeple that appear every time a tragedy like Sandy Hook incident occurs, think about how the outcome may have been different if just ONE teacher or administrator had been armed. I am a strong advocate of an armed police presense in public schools (and many other public places as well). We have school nurses don't we? Are the nurses needed everyday? Nope, but when needed they are there to administer aspirin or prescription meds to children (that still boggles my mind!) or maybe apply an occasional band-aid....kids are a lot more responsible than most people realize but misguided sheeple think they know better and TRY to prevent kids from hurting themselves....shoot, when I was a kid I ran with scissors, rode bikes without helmets, played with matches, petted stray animals, talked to strangers, learned to shoot firearms, and a host of other "things" that the sheeple think are bad.....it's only bad if you make it so.
I am a life member of the NRA (and have been since birth) and firearms collecting, target shooting, and hand loading are my hobby.....one I have pursued since very young. You and the rest of the sheeple that want to limit what I own ( and paid for with MY money and paid taxes on) or worse, confiscate them.....then you have crossed the line and MAY pay the price when you come knocking. I feel taking MY firearms is no different than stealing my car or breaking into my house.....you have no "right" to do either and will either suffer a butt-whippin with fists or a baseball bat or, depending on the circumstances, may suffer from a lethal response.
My family is chock full of career military and police but I'm smart enough to realize they cannot and will not be everywhere at once thus the reason I have provisions to protect myself and my family (remember the evil bricks I mentioned!).
The sheeple should keep in mind; WHEN SECONDS COUNT, HELP IS ONLY MINUTES AWAY!
I do own many weapons though; the bricks on my patio, my grandsons baseball bats, kitchen knives, my automobiles, my 50 gallon gasoline supply, and my landscaping rocks......among a million other things that I COULD use as a weapon if I chose to go that route.
Even pro-gun advocates use the wrong terms and it gives OUR side a black eye when using the wrong term. Firearms are NOT weapons until used as such!
For the sheeple that appear every time a tragedy like Sandy Hook incident occurs, think about how the outcome may have been different if just ONE teacher or administrator had been armed. I am a strong advocate of an armed police presense in public schools (and many other public places as well). We have school nurses don't we? Are the nurses needed everyday? Nope, but when needed they are there to administer aspirin or prescription meds to children (that still boggles my mind!) or maybe apply an occasional band-aid....kids are a lot more responsible than most people realize but misguided sheeple think they know better and TRY to prevent kids from hurting themselves....shoot, when I was a kid I ran with scissors, rode bikes without helmets, played with matches, petted stray animals, talked to strangers, learned to shoot firearms, and a host of other "things" that the sheeple think are bad.....it's only bad if you make it so.
I am a life member of the NRA (and have been since birth) and firearms collecting, target shooting, and hand loading are my hobby.....one I have pursued since very young. You and the rest of the sheeple that want to limit what I own ( and paid for with MY money and paid taxes on) or worse, confiscate them.....then you have crossed the line and MAY pay the price when you come knocking. I feel taking MY firearms is no different than stealing my car or breaking into my house.....you have no "right" to do either and will either suffer a butt-whippin with fists or a baseball bat or, depending on the circumstances, may suffer from a lethal response.
My family is chock full of career military and police but I'm smart enough to realize they cannot and will not be everywhere at once thus the reason I have provisions to protect myself and my family (remember the evil bricks I mentioned!).
The sheeple should keep in mind; WHEN SECONDS COUNT, HELP IS ONLY MINUTES AWAY!
Military habit, my rifle and side arm was a weapon.
unfortunately, the issue of gun control or not will never be resolved. I would imagine the vast majority of american citizens will comply with the governments wishes and will turn in whatever is required of them to turn in.
Confiscation of firearms, revealing firearm owners in several states/cities, increased ammunition taxes will only harm innocent civilians but those are only my opinions.....I'm sure the criminals will adhere to the "laws" too and probably won't be able to afford ammunition either so yep, it will "probably" work......just like cash-for-clunkers, Obamacare, and whatever foolish [censored] our current "administration" decides is "right" for us. After all, our top "leader" (and I use that term sarcastically) is one of a few that can take a nice $4M dollar vacation at the tax payers expense. How about eliminating THEIR security force and see what their opinion of gun control is then.
Diane Feinstein (sp?) is a curse to the United States of America but I know I feel better learning that she PERSONALLY looked at pictures of firearms....apprently she is now considered an authority on the subject. My feelings? Declare them communists (Feinstein, Toomey, Obama, Biden, and all the others) because they are and imprison them like they should be. They are attempting to re-write the Constitution to serve their own purposes and agenda.....THEIR AGENDA IS NOT IN THE CITIZENS BEST INTEREST.
However, the sheeple will speak and be heard and what will happen is going to happen....my main worries, with the current administration, is many innocent public and military servants will be the ones to feel the pain while their "bosses" wring their hands in despair. I know I will make my stand if and when necessary!
Confiscation of firearms, revealing firearm owners in several states/cities, increased ammunition taxes will only harm innocent civilians but those are only my opinions.....I'm sure the criminals will adhere to the "laws" too and probably won't be able to afford ammunition either so yep, it will "probably" work......just like cash-for-clunkers, Obamacare, and whatever foolish [censored] our current "administration" decides is "right" for us. After all, our top "leader" (and I use that term sarcastically) is one of a few that can take a nice $4M dollar vacation at the tax payers expense. How about eliminating THEIR security force and see what their opinion of gun control is then.
Diane Feinstein (sp?) is a curse to the United States of America but I know I feel better learning that she PERSONALLY looked at pictures of firearms....apprently she is now considered an authority on the subject. My feelings? Declare them communists (Feinstein, Toomey, Obama, Biden, and all the others) because they are and imprison them like they should be. They are attempting to re-write the Constitution to serve their own purposes and agenda.....THEIR AGENDA IS NOT IN THE CITIZENS BEST INTEREST.
However, the sheeple will speak and be heard and what will happen is going to happen....my main worries, with the current administration, is many innocent public and military servants will be the ones to feel the pain while their "bosses" wring their hands in despair. I know I will make my stand if and when necessary!
Originally Posted By: Trajan
The first 10 Amendments were not even part of the Constitution when it went into effect on March 4th 1789. They did not become law until Dec 5th 1791.
Been a while, but my recollection was that the constitution was passed because those admendments were planned. They were not tacked on as an afterthought. Some were going to not vote for the constitution on the basis of the lack which the bill of rights corrected.
Also, I've too read that the founding fathers abhorred a democracy; I believe they had the thought it was something of a mob rule. Hence the checks and balances were put into place to prevent a majority from unfairly ruling over a minority: a number of representatives, based upon population, per each state, which allowed for a popular vote. Which in turned elected two senators per state*, which was to be something of a ruling class, if you will (upper crust-like). And then a president elected by popular vote to somehow preside over it all. [*Original setup, but it changed to a popular vote for senators at some point.]
Public opinion always factors in, but the government is supposed to look at all factors. Or, how many of us would vote to do away with taxes? Yet our taxes very much pay for a number of things. Government's job is to do the unpopular thing, which often conflicts with what the majority want (or say they want).
The first 10 Amendments were not even part of the Constitution when it went into effect on March 4th 1789. They did not become law until Dec 5th 1791.
Been a while, but my recollection was that the constitution was passed because those admendments were planned. They were not tacked on as an afterthought. Some were going to not vote for the constitution on the basis of the lack which the bill of rights corrected.
Also, I've too read that the founding fathers abhorred a democracy; I believe they had the thought it was something of a mob rule. Hence the checks and balances were put into place to prevent a majority from unfairly ruling over a minority: a number of representatives, based upon population, per each state, which allowed for a popular vote. Which in turned elected two senators per state*, which was to be something of a ruling class, if you will (upper crust-like). And then a president elected by popular vote to somehow preside over it all. [*Original setup, but it changed to a popular vote for senators at some point.]
Public opinion always factors in, but the government is supposed to look at all factors. Or, how many of us would vote to do away with taxes? Yet our taxes very much pay for a number of things. Government's job is to do the unpopular thing, which often conflicts with what the majority want (or say they want).
Quote:
Secondly, yes the second amendment gives you rights, rights are not absolute nor are they perpetual. If your democracy decides to amend or dissolve those rights then what will be will be. Given recent events, these rights are under scrutiny by average citizens, politicians and the media. Frankly any democracy that doesn’t reflect the will of a majority of it's citizens isn’t worth having.
It amazes that some still don't understand the difference between a right and privilege. Yes, rights are absolute and perpetual otherwise it isn't a right; it's a privilege. Having rights that can constantly be changed, or taken away defeats the entire purpose of having rights in the first place. The Constitution/Bill of Rights doesn't "grant" rights either. The entire purpose was to list rights that the "founders" believed everyone is born with. They cannot be granted and cannot be taken. Hence the term "inalienable rights". This is the biggest problem anti-gunners face and why many attempt to redefine the meanings and the purpose in order to support their views that the 2nd amendment is somehow no longer valid. Funny how the idea that the U.S. Constitution is a "living" document that can and should be changed is only ever argued when discussing the 2nd amendment.
Second, what you're referring to in this case isn't Democracy; its tyranny of the majority. Which is exactly what happens when a majority attempts to trample on or deny individual rights (in this case the 2nd amendment).
Secondly, yes the second amendment gives you rights, rights are not absolute nor are they perpetual. If your democracy decides to amend or dissolve those rights then what will be will be. Given recent events, these rights are under scrutiny by average citizens, politicians and the media. Frankly any democracy that doesn’t reflect the will of a majority of it's citizens isn’t worth having.
It amazes that some still don't understand the difference between a right and privilege. Yes, rights are absolute and perpetual otherwise it isn't a right; it's a privilege. Having rights that can constantly be changed, or taken away defeats the entire purpose of having rights in the first place. The Constitution/Bill of Rights doesn't "grant" rights either. The entire purpose was to list rights that the "founders" believed everyone is born with. They cannot be granted and cannot be taken. Hence the term "inalienable rights". This is the biggest problem anti-gunners face and why many attempt to redefine the meanings and the purpose in order to support their views that the 2nd amendment is somehow no longer valid. Funny how the idea that the U.S. Constitution is a "living" document that can and should be changed is only ever argued when discussing the 2nd amendment.
Second, what you're referring to in this case isn't Democracy; its tyranny of the majority. Which is exactly what happens when a majority attempts to trample on or deny individual rights (in this case the 2nd amendment).
I believe the military and police carry weapons....they are the tools of their trade and if/when used, will be used as weapons.
Yeah, it might be a play on words but do not classify all firearms as weapons.....am I going to use my. 17HMR as a weapon? Very unlikely (although it wouls be pretty effective).
My carry firearm will be called upon to be a weapon if and when necessary but until that time is merely a loaded firearm that cannot possibly hurt anyone while in my possession. Don't start on accidental discharges....there isn't any such animal. However, there are many negligent discharges due to careless owners and/or irresponsible owners. Have I ever had a negligent discharge? You bet! However, the only thing that was "hurt" was a target because I follow the #1 rule....finger OFF of the trigger until you intend to fire at what you have intended to fire at.
I also do not believe Lanzi's mother "did all she could".....she left firearms within this dirtballs grasp and she is every bit as guilty as the one that pulled the trigger: It's a shame she did not live to face the consequences of what she FAILED to do.
When the sheeple (and you KNOW who you are) are standing in line hoping for a larger piece of bread to feed your family than the other hundreds of people in line, thank your "government" for that....it's where we're heading.
First they take away all of your money, then they finance the big corporations to make themselves more money via taxes, and one day you wake up and realize you are a peasant serving your "peers" (in their eyes not ours).
Wake up sheeple.....the final chapter of this fiasco is coming!
Yeah, it might be a play on words but do not classify all firearms as weapons.....am I going to use my. 17HMR as a weapon? Very unlikely (although it wouls be pretty effective).
My carry firearm will be called upon to be a weapon if and when necessary but until that time is merely a loaded firearm that cannot possibly hurt anyone while in my possession. Don't start on accidental discharges....there isn't any such animal. However, there are many negligent discharges due to careless owners and/or irresponsible owners. Have I ever had a negligent discharge? You bet! However, the only thing that was "hurt" was a target because I follow the #1 rule....finger OFF of the trigger until you intend to fire at what you have intended to fire at.
I also do not believe Lanzi's mother "did all she could".....she left firearms within this dirtballs grasp and she is every bit as guilty as the one that pulled the trigger: It's a shame she did not live to face the consequences of what she FAILED to do.
When the sheeple (and you KNOW who you are) are standing in line hoping for a larger piece of bread to feed your family than the other hundreds of people in line, thank your "government" for that....it's where we're heading.
First they take away all of your money, then they finance the big corporations to make themselves more money via taxes, and one day you wake up and realize you are a peasant serving your "peers" (in their eyes not ours).
Wake up sheeple.....the final chapter of this fiasco is coming!
"I also do not believe Lanzi's mother "did all she could".....she left firearms within this dirtballs grasp and she is every bit as guilty as the one that pulled the trigger: It's a shame she did not live to face the consequences of what she FAILED to do."
Really? Do you think for a moment if she thought her ill son would snap like this she would just "leave them in his grasp"? You don't know what the situation was as to how he came into possession of them! He could have killed her and stolen the key/found the combo to the safe. And to call this mentally ill person a "dirtball"? Is that your view of all sick people?
Really? Do you think for a moment if she thought her ill son would snap like this she would just "leave them in his grasp"? You don't know what the situation was as to how he came into possession of them! He could have killed her and stolen the key/found the combo to the safe. And to call this mentally ill person a "dirtball"? Is that your view of all sick people?
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Also its not a democracy, the founders abhorred democracy by in-large. That is why we have a representative republic, not a democracy.
I couldn’t disagree more with that statement (less founding father comment) and its not worth my time to pursue it either as it is off topic. I am sure there will be others who will pile on that one though.
You don't attack it cause you cannot. Google around and you will find out there re tons of founding father quotes and discussions on how the idea of a democracy is a terrible thing. I know these things cause I teach American history for a living. The debates are even in the textbook I use, not cause I decide to discuss them on my own.
The USA is a representative republic.
And the U.S. Constitution was only ratified because the Bill of Rights were going to be included. Otherwise it would have never passed and we would have still had the Articles of Confederation.
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Also its not a democracy, the founders abhorred democracy by in-large. That is why we have a representative republic, not a democracy.
I couldn’t disagree more with that statement (less founding father comment) and its not worth my time to pursue it either as it is off topic. I am sure there will be others who will pile on that one though.
You don't attack it cause you cannot. Google around and you will find out there re tons of founding father quotes and discussions on how the idea of a democracy is a terrible thing. I know these things cause I teach American history for a living. The debates are even in the textbook I use, not cause I decide to discuss them on my own.
The USA is a representative republic.
And the U.S. Constitution was only ratified because the Bill of Rights were going to be included. Otherwise it would have never passed and we would have still had the Articles of Confederation.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Also its not a democracy, the founders abhorred democracy by in-large. That is why we have a representative republic, not a democracy.
I couldn’t disagree more with that statement (less founding father comment) and its not worth my time to pursue it either as it is off topic. I am sure there will be others who will pile on that one though.
You don't attack it cause you cannot. Google around and you will find out there re tons of founding father quotes and discussions on how the idea of a democracy is a terrible thing. I know these things cause I teach American history for a living. The debates are even in the textbook I use, not cause I decide to discuss them on my own.
The USA is a representative republic.
And the U.S. Constitution was only ratified because the Bill of Rights were going to be included. Otherwise it would have never passed and we would have still had the Articles of Confederation.
The founding fathers may have authored the constitution but that does not make them experts on the use of the English language. Just because the USA does not practice Direct Democracy does not mean that it is not in fact a Democracy. I live in a Constitutional Monarchy, but it is very much a Democracy outside of the electing the head of state. A Representative Republic is also a democracy. Open a dictionary or encyclopedia either in paper or the internet, implying a Representative Republic is not a democracy is just splitting hairs, the concept of Democracy is larger than the narrow view held by the founding fathers.
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Also its not a democracy, the founders abhorred democracy by in-large. That is why we have a representative republic, not a democracy.
I couldn’t disagree more with that statement (less founding father comment) and its not worth my time to pursue it either as it is off topic. I am sure there will be others who will pile on that one though.
You don't attack it cause you cannot. Google around and you will find out there re tons of founding father quotes and discussions on how the idea of a democracy is a terrible thing. I know these things cause I teach American history for a living. The debates are even in the textbook I use, not cause I decide to discuss them on my own.
The USA is a representative republic.
And the U.S. Constitution was only ratified because the Bill of Rights were going to be included. Otherwise it would have never passed and we would have still had the Articles of Confederation.
The founding fathers may have authored the constitution but that does not make them experts on the use of the English language. Just because the USA does not practice Direct Democracy does not mean that it is not in fact a Democracy. I live in a Constitutional Monarchy, but it is very much a Democracy outside of the electing the head of state. A Representative Republic is also a democracy. Open a dictionary or encyclopedia either in paper or the internet, implying a Representative Republic is not a democracy is just splitting hairs, the concept of Democracy is larger than the narrow view held by the founding fathers.
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
The founding fathers may have authored the constitution but that does not make them experts on the use of the English language. Just because the USA does not practice Direct Democracy does not mean that it is not in fact a Democracy. I live in a Constitutional Monarchy, but it is very much a Democracy outside of the electing the head of state. A Representative Republic is also a democracy. Open a dictionary or encyclopedia either in paper or the internet, implying a Representative Republic is not a democracy is just splitting hairs, the concept of Democracy is larger than the narrow view held by the founding fathers.
To add to my last post, I don’t necessarily think that a Representative Republic has to be democratic, but its very clear that the USA is.
The founding fathers may have authored the constitution but that does not make them experts on the use of the English language. Just because the USA does not practice Direct Democracy does not mean that it is not in fact a Democracy. I live in a Constitutional Monarchy, but it is very much a Democracy outside of the electing the head of state. A Representative Republic is also a democracy. Open a dictionary or encyclopedia either in paper or the internet, implying a Representative Republic is not a democracy is just splitting hairs, the concept of Democracy is larger than the narrow view held by the founding fathers.
To add to my last post, I don’t necessarily think that a Representative Republic has to be democratic, but its very clear that the USA is.
@ Toy4x4 - you need a dose of reality and several large cups of ****.
I did not say I thought all metally ill people were dirtballs but this one was. There are ALWAYS signs.....look at the typical family dog that has the misfortune to contract rabies....the pet owner notices a change in behavior and a conscientious owner will observe the pet more closely until such time that action is needed, i.e. a vet visit. Lanzi should have been treated as a rabid dog long, LONG before this happened......PUT DOWN or PUT AWAY!!!!!!! There is NO way she did not notice peculiar actions, words, or ideas. To make excuses for her or him is inexcusable.
Do not EVER put words in my mouth. Yes, she was aware he was different and according to police reports did not keep her firearms in a safe where they belonged.
Your are, however, exactly correct, I do not know how he came into possession of them but more than likely he reached under the bed where it was discovered she kept her firearm collection. As far as I'm concerned, she pulled the trigger on her self because of her idiotic ideas of what constitutes a "safe" place to "hide" her firearms. I'm sure she probably did forbid Lanzi from entering her bedroom because firearms were in there.
I did not say I thought all metally ill people were dirtballs but this one was. There are ALWAYS signs.....look at the typical family dog that has the misfortune to contract rabies....the pet owner notices a change in behavior and a conscientious owner will observe the pet more closely until such time that action is needed, i.e. a vet visit. Lanzi should have been treated as a rabid dog long, LONG before this happened......PUT DOWN or PUT AWAY!!!!!!! There is NO way she did not notice peculiar actions, words, or ideas. To make excuses for her or him is inexcusable.
Do not EVER put words in my mouth. Yes, she was aware he was different and according to police reports did not keep her firearms in a safe where they belonged.
Your are, however, exactly correct, I do not know how he came into possession of them but more than likely he reached under the bed where it was discovered she kept her firearm collection. As far as I'm concerned, she pulled the trigger on her self because of her idiotic ideas of what constitutes a "safe" place to "hide" her firearms. I'm sure she probably did forbid Lanzi from entering her bedroom because firearms were in there.
Originally Posted By: Darren270
Quote:
Secondly, yes the second amendment gives you rights, rights are not absolute nor are they perpetual. If your democracy decides to amend or dissolve those rights then what will be will be. Given recent events, these rights are under scrutiny by average citizens, politicians and the media. Frankly any democracy that doesn’t reflect the will of a majority of it's citizens isn’t worth having.
It amazes that some still don't understand the difference between a right and privilege. Yes, rights are absolute and perpetual otherwise it isn't a right; it's a privilege. Having rights that can constantly be changed, or taken away defeats the entire purpose of having rights in the first place. The Constitution/Bill of Rights doesn't "grant" rights either. The entire purpose was to list rights that the "founders" believed everyone is born with. They cannot be granted and cannot be taken. Hence the term "inalienable rights". This is the biggest problem anti-gunners face and why many attempt to redefine the meanings and the purpose in order to support their views that the 2nd amendment is somehow no longer valid. Funny how the idea that the U.S. Constitution is a "living" document that can and should be changed is only ever argued when discussing the 2nd amendment.
Second, what you're referring to in this case isn't Democracy; its tyranny of the majority. Which is exactly what happens when a majority attempts to trample on or deny individual rights (in this case the 2nd amendment).
Bravo! Very well said.
Quote:
Secondly, yes the second amendment gives you rights, rights are not absolute nor are they perpetual. If your democracy decides to amend or dissolve those rights then what will be will be. Given recent events, these rights are under scrutiny by average citizens, politicians and the media. Frankly any democracy that doesn’t reflect the will of a majority of it's citizens isn’t worth having.
It amazes that some still don't understand the difference between a right and privilege. Yes, rights are absolute and perpetual otherwise it isn't a right; it's a privilege. Having rights that can constantly be changed, or taken away defeats the entire purpose of having rights in the first place. The Constitution/Bill of Rights doesn't "grant" rights either. The entire purpose was to list rights that the "founders" believed everyone is born with. They cannot be granted and cannot be taken. Hence the term "inalienable rights". This is the biggest problem anti-gunners face and why many attempt to redefine the meanings and the purpose in order to support their views that the 2nd amendment is somehow no longer valid. Funny how the idea that the U.S. Constitution is a "living" document that can and should be changed is only ever argued when discussing the 2nd amendment.
Second, what you're referring to in this case isn't Democracy; its tyranny of the majority. Which is exactly what happens when a majority attempts to trample on or deny individual rights (in this case the 2nd amendment).
Bravo! Very well said.
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
The founding fathers may have authored the constitution but that does not make them experts on the use of the English language. Just because the USA does not practice Direct Democracy does not mean that it is not in fact a Democracy. I live in a Constitutional Monarchy, but it is very much a Democracy outside of the electing the head of state. A Representative Republic is also a democracy. Open a dictionary or encyclopedia either in paper or the internet, implying a Representative Republic is not a democracy is just splitting hairs, the concept of Democracy is larger than the narrow view held by the founding fathers.
To add to my last post, I don’t necessarily think that a Representative Republic has to be democratic, but its very clear that the USA is.
It has democratic processes, but it is not a democracy my friend. That is the important difference. And the US Bill of Rights were put in to guarantee that the federal govt would never have the power to strip those rights. A reading of the Federalist and Anti Federalist papers reveals that those drafting and ratifying the constitution and Bill of Rights were always aware that there could be a tyranny of the majority, or that Americans could very well be duped into letting their rights bet taken away with false promises of security and safety. We have already infringed enough on the Second Amendment with the the laws already on the books. And every-time it was supposed to be a cure for the problem of gun violence....and every time it failed to do what it was supposed to.
And I am sure that the well educated founding fathers could write circles around the majority of modern people. They knew what they meant and chose their words carefully. The problem is that people today try to read it with modern eyes. If you just take the time to immerse yourself in their world, it becomes much much clearer.
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
The founding fathers may have authored the constitution but that does not make them experts on the use of the English language. Just because the USA does not practice Direct Democracy does not mean that it is not in fact a Democracy. I live in a Constitutional Monarchy, but it is very much a Democracy outside of the electing the head of state. A Representative Republic is also a democracy. Open a dictionary or encyclopedia either in paper or the internet, implying a Representative Republic is not a democracy is just splitting hairs, the concept of Democracy is larger than the narrow view held by the founding fathers.
To add to my last post, I don’t necessarily think that a Representative Republic has to be democratic, but its very clear that the USA is.
It has democratic processes, but it is not a democracy my friend. That is the important difference. And the US Bill of Rights were put in to guarantee that the federal govt would never have the power to strip those rights. A reading of the Federalist and Anti Federalist papers reveals that those drafting and ratifying the constitution and Bill of Rights were always aware that there could be a tyranny of the majority, or that Americans could very well be duped into letting their rights bet taken away with false promises of security and safety. We have already infringed enough on the Second Amendment with the the laws already on the books. And every-time it was supposed to be a cure for the problem of gun violence....and every time it failed to do what it was supposed to.
And I am sure that the well educated founding fathers could write circles around the majority of modern people. They knew what they meant and chose their words carefully. The problem is that people today try to read it with modern eyes. If you just take the time to immerse yourself in their world, it becomes much much clearer.
Originally Posted By: scion_xb
To the 2 authors in this topic who have accused me of "cut and paste", "regurgitate" and 'plagurize snit", I will publically say I WROTE the original artice they seemingly cited. The article is in Daily Kos and is a lot longer.
Then I am sure you can demonstrate clear evidence that shows your 6 round magazine limit and seizure of private property will result in the undefined results that you intend?
What other private property would you like to have seized so as to bring about a "safer" society?
To the 2 authors in this topic who have accused me of "cut and paste", "regurgitate" and 'plagurize snit", I will publically say I WROTE the original artice they seemingly cited. The article is in Daily Kos and is a lot longer.
Then I am sure you can demonstrate clear evidence that shows your 6 round magazine limit and seizure of private property will result in the undefined results that you intend?
What other private property would you like to have seized so as to bring about a "safer" society?
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: scion_xb
To the 2 authors in this topic who have accused me of "cut and paste", "regurgitate" and 'plagurize snit", I will publically say I WROTE the original artice they seemingly cited. The article is in Daily Kos and is a lot longer.
Then I am sure you can demonstrate clear evidence that shows your 6 round magazine limit and seizure of private property will result in the undefined results that you intend?
What other private property would you like to have seized so as to bring about a "safer" society?
Easy now, he may go for your kitchen knives, cars, baseball bats lol.
Good post man.
Originally Posted By: scion_xb
To the 2 authors in this topic who have accused me of "cut and paste", "regurgitate" and 'plagurize snit", I will publically say I WROTE the original artice they seemingly cited. The article is in Daily Kos and is a lot longer.
Then I am sure you can demonstrate clear evidence that shows your 6 round magazine limit and seizure of private property will result in the undefined results that you intend?
What other private property would you like to have seized so as to bring about a "safer" society?
Easy now, he may go for your kitchen knives, cars, baseball bats lol.
Good post man.
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
The founding fathers may have authored the constitution but that does not make them experts on the use of the English language. Just because the USA does not practice Direct Democracy does not mean that it is not in fact a Democracy. I live in a Constitutional Monarchy, but it is very much a Democracy outside of the electing the head of state. A Representative Republic is also a democracy. Open a dictionary or encyclopedia either in paper or the internet, implying a Representative Republic is not a democracy is just splitting hairs, the concept of Democracy is larger than the narrow view held by the founding fathers.
To add to my last post, I don’t necessarily think that a Representative Republic has to be democratic, but its very clear that the USA is.
It has democratic processes, but it is not a democracy my friend. That is the important difference. And the US Bill of Rights were put in to guarantee that the federal govt would never have the power to strip those rights. A reading of the Federalist and Anti Federalist papers reveals that those drafting and ratifying the constitution and Bill of Rights were always aware that there could be a tyranny of the majority, or that Americans could very well be duped into letting their rights bet taken away with false promises of security and safety. We have already infringed enough on the Second Amendment with the the laws already on the books. And every-time it was supposed to be a cure for the problem of gun violence....and every time it failed to do what it was supposed to.
And I am sure that the well educated founding fathers could write circles around the majority of modern people. They knew what they meant and chose their words carefully. The problem is that people today try to read it with modern eyes. If you just take the time to immerse yourself in their world, it becomes much much clearer.
Some good reading...
http://www.sobran.com/articles/tyranny.shtml
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
The founding fathers may have authored the constitution but that does not make them experts on the use of the English language. Just because the USA does not practice Direct Democracy does not mean that it is not in fact a Democracy. I live in a Constitutional Monarchy, but it is very much a Democracy outside of the electing the head of state. A Representative Republic is also a democracy. Open a dictionary or encyclopedia either in paper or the internet, implying a Representative Republic is not a democracy is just splitting hairs, the concept of Democracy is larger than the narrow view held by the founding fathers.
To add to my last post, I don’t necessarily think that a Representative Republic has to be democratic, but its very clear that the USA is.
It has democratic processes, but it is not a democracy my friend. That is the important difference. And the US Bill of Rights were put in to guarantee that the federal govt would never have the power to strip those rights. A reading of the Federalist and Anti Federalist papers reveals that those drafting and ratifying the constitution and Bill of Rights were always aware that there could be a tyranny of the majority, or that Americans could very well be duped into letting their rights bet taken away with false promises of security and safety. We have already infringed enough on the Second Amendment with the the laws already on the books. And every-time it was supposed to be a cure for the problem of gun violence....and every time it failed to do what it was supposed to.
And I am sure that the well educated founding fathers could write circles around the majority of modern people. They knew what they meant and chose their words carefully. The problem is that people today try to read it with modern eyes. If you just take the time to immerse yourself in their world, it becomes much much clearer.
Some good reading...
http://www.sobran.com/articles/tyranny.shtml
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
