Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Homes on the gun-owner map broken into


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#51 SZ James (banned)

SZ James (banned)

  • Joined: 24-April 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 8,436
  • Reputation: 3,529
HUDDLER

Posted 18 January 2013 - 03:52 PM

jesus

#52 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 24,872
  • Reputation: 5,779
Moderators

Posted 18 January 2013 - 04:14 PM

Responsible gun owner....


WEEEZ NEED TWO GUNZ IN EVERYSCHOOL JUST FOR THIS REAZON

#53 vanilla B

vanilla B

    Junior Member

  • Joined: 27-October 10
  • posts: 62
  • Reputation: 3
SUPPORTER

Posted 21 January 2013 - 10:44 PM

Since when is the right to bear arms only about defending oneself from intruders? The 2nd amendment was established to prevent a tyrannical government from taking hold. It also prevents any law from being passed that infringes upon the citizens' right to keep and bear arms in any way whatsoever. If you don't like guns, you have the freedom to make the choice not to own one or enter someone's house that owns one or be friends with a gun owner. That is your right as an American citizen to have the freedom of choice.

#54 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,529
  • Reputation: 1,266
HUDDLER

Posted 21 January 2013 - 10:51 PM

how do you intend to "prevent a tyrannical government from taking hold" with guns? idk if you're aware of the capabilities of the US military but uh...you're gonna have to bring more than that

also jw was everyone really guaranteed a right to guns by the 2nd amendment because i'm p sure that wasn't actually the case since the "founding fathers" also thought that the vast majority of people shouldn't even be allowed to vote

e: they also thought that some people aren't actually people

#55 SZ James (banned)

SZ James (banned)

  • Joined: 24-April 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 8,436
  • Reputation: 3,529
HUDDLER

Posted 21 January 2013 - 11:04 PM

you probably realize this cantrell but these drive-by patriot posts are pretty common as of late and there's no point in expecting a direct response

#56 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • Joined: 09-November 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,380
  • Reputation: 2,008
  • LocationAlaska
HUDDLER

Posted 21 January 2013 - 11:17 PM

also jw was everyone really guaranteed a right to guns by the 2nd amendment because i'm p sure that wasn't actually the case since the "founding fathers" also thought that the vast majority of people shouldn't even be allowed to vote

At the time of the first Presidential election in 1789, only 6 percent of the population–white, male property owners–was eligible to vote. http://www.archives....freedom_13.html
There may be a reason for the very low percentage of voters. The quote from Alexander Hamilton below sums up how many of the wealthy felt about the majority of the people.

"All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and the well-born; the other the mass of the people ... turbulent and changing, they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class [the wealthy] a distinct, permanent share in the Government ... Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence [lack of wisdom] of democracy." http://mrkash.com/vote.html

Seriously doubt our Founding Fathers intended our "imprudent" masses, "turbulent and changing", "seldom judge or determine right" unfettered access to firearms. Hmmm, doesn't sound like our Founding Fathers had much faith in the unwashed masses after all. It appears that there might be more meaning to "a well regulated militia" than we have been led to believe.











0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users