CDZ Is the issue not that the U.S Forefathers didn't see the technology, but didn't imagine the crazies?

[shockedcanadian]

I hear many of the same arguments, for and against weapons. One very popular one is that the U.S Forefathers didn't imagine such high powered technology. I have to think that if they were smart enough to design such an impressive Constitution, that surely they could foresee vast advanced in technology, well beyond their current capabilities.

Is the question then, not about the technology, but about the vast change in the number of crazies? Who could imagine some nutjob grabbing a automatic rifle and attacking thousands of people for which he has no prior connection or personal debt owed? This obviously was not the intention of one bearing arms.

Even 20 years ago not many could imagine the scope of global terrorism, certainly such unbalanced individuals in society committing such a heinous crime couldn't be anticipated by many, certainly not by civilisation hundreds of years removed.

Thoughts?

 

[Vastator]

I hear many of the same arguments, for and against weapons. One very popular one is that the U.S Forefathers didn't imagine such high powered technology. I have to think that if they were smart enough to design such an impressive Constitution, that surely they could foresee vast advanced in technology, well beyond their current capabilities.

Is the question then, not about the technology, but about the vast change in the number of crazies? Who could imagine some nutjob grabbing a automatic rifle and attacking thousands of people for which he has no prior connection or personal debt owed? This obviously was not the intention of one bearing arms.

Even 20 years ago not many could imagine the scope of global terrorism, certainly such unbalanced individuals in society committing such a heinous crime couldn't be anticipated by many, certainly not by civilisation hundreds of years removed.

Thoughts?

There have always been crazy people...

 

[shockedcanadian]

I hear many of the same arguments, for and against weapons. One very popular one is that the U.S Forefathers didn't imagine such high powered technology. I have to think that if they were smart enough to design such an impressive Constitution, that surely they could foresee vast advanced in technology, well beyond their current capabilities.

Is the question then, not about the technology, but about the vast change in the number of crazies? Who could imagine some nutjob grabbing a automatic rifle and attacking thousands of people for which he has no prior connection or personal debt owed? This obviously was not the intention of one bearing arms.

Even 20 years ago not many could imagine the scope of global terrorism, certainly such unbalanced individuals in society committing such a heinous crime couldn't be anticipated by many, certainly not by civilisation hundreds of years removed.

Thoughts?

There have always been crazy people...

Of course, but the level of crazies now is unmatched. Without political motivation or personal connection to the victims, any rational mind becomes scrambled trying to understand this.

 

[Vastator]

I hear many of the same arguments, for and against weapons. One very popular one is that the U.S Forefathers didn't imagine such high powered technology. I have to think that if they were smart enough to design such an impressive Constitution, that surely they could foresee vast advanced in technology, well beyond their current capabilities.

Is the question then, not about the technology, but about the vast change in the number of crazies? Who could imagine some nutjob grabbing a automatic rifle and attacking thousands of people for which he has no prior connection or personal debt owed? This obviously was not the intention of one bearing arms.

Even 20 years ago not many could imagine the scope of global terrorism, certainly such unbalanced individuals in society committing such a heinous crime couldn't be anticipated by many, certainly not by civilisation hundreds of years removed.

Thoughts?

There have always been crazy people...

Of course, but the level of crazies now is unmatched. Without political motivation or personal connection to the victims, any rational mind becomes scrambled trying to understand this.

Just because they aren't releasing the "motivation" doesn't mean that there isn't one.

 

[Moonglow]

I hear many of the same arguments, for and against weapons. One very popular one is that the U.S Forefathers didn't imagine such high powered technology. I have to think that if they were smart enough to design such an impressive Constitution, that surely they could foresee vast advanced in technology, well beyond their current capabilities.

Is the question then, not about the technology, but about the vast change in the number of crazies? Who could imagine some nutjob grabbing a automatic rifle and attacking thousands of people for which he has no prior connection or personal debt owed? This obviously was not the intention of one bearing arms.

Even 20 years ago not many could imagine the scope of global terrorism, certainly such unbalanced individuals in society committing such a heinous crime couldn't be anticipated by many, certainly not by civilisation hundreds of years removed.

Thoughts?

The British referred to the Founders and others as the "lunatic fringe"....

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I hear many of the same arguments, for and against weapons. One very popular one is that the U.S Forefathers didn't imagine such high powered technology. I have to think that if they were smart enough to design such an impressive Constitution, that surely they could foresee vast advanced in technology, well beyond their current capabilities.

Is the question then, not about the technology, but about the vast change in the number of crazies? Who could imagine some nutjob grabbing a automatic rifle and attacking thousands of people for which he has no prior connection or personal debt owed? This obviously was not the intention of one bearing arms.

Even 20 years ago not many could imagine the scope of global terrorism, certainly such unbalanced individuals in society committing such a heinous crime couldn't be anticipated by many, certainly not by civilisation hundreds of years removed.

Thoughts?

There have always been crazy people...

Of course, but the level of crazies now is unmatched. Without political motivation or personal connection to the victims, any rational mind becomes scrambled trying to understand this.

No, no, the crazies happened about 70 years ago, and it took real men to put those crazies in their places(6 feet under). Shame that the crazies have taken over the government for the past 40 years making it very hard to put those crazies back into the asylums.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I hear many of the same arguments, for and against weapons. One very popular one is that the U.S Forefathers didn't imagine such high powered technology. I have to think that if they were smart enough to design such an impressive Constitution, that surely they could foresee vast advanced in technology, well beyond their current capabilities.

Is the question then, not about the technology, but about the vast change in the number of crazies? Who could imagine some nutjob grabbing a automatic rifle and attacking thousands of people for which he has no prior connection or personal debt owed? This obviously was not the intention of one bearing arms.

Even 20 years ago not many could imagine the scope of global terrorism, certainly such unbalanced individuals in society committing such a heinous crime couldn't be anticipated by many, certainly not by civilisation hundreds of years removed.

Thoughts?

The overriding question when it comes to any right is "should law abiding citizens be penalized", by curtailing their right...gun control advocates claim most of America is behind them on certain issues and they break out charts and cite what this like minded professor or that like minded psychologist says to bolster their claim but go back over the last 40 or 50 years of U.S. elections to see what American voters think of gun control advocates...you won't find many who won national office on gun control

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I hear many of the same arguments, for and against weapons. One very popular one is that the U.S Forefathers didn't imagine such high powered technology. I have to think that if they were smart enough to design such an impressive Constitution, that surely they could foresee vast advanced in technology, well beyond their current capabilities.

Is the question then, not about the technology, but about the vast change in the number of crazies? Who could imagine some nutjob grabbing a automatic rifle and attacking thousands of people for which he has no prior connection or personal debt owed? This obviously was not the intention of one bearing arms.

Even 20 years ago not many could imagine the scope of global terrorism, certainly such unbalanced individuals in society committing such a heinous crime couldn't be anticipated by many, certainly not by civilisation hundreds of years removed.

Thoughts?

The British referred to the Founders and others as the "lunatic fringe"....

Today, you liberals call them the "lunatic fringe" that were racists and slave owners. You really hate anyone who doesn't bow down to liberalism.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I hear many of the same arguments, for and against weapons. One very popular one is that the U.S Forefathers didn't imagine such high powered technology. I have to think that if they were smart enough to design such an impressive Constitution, that surely they could foresee vast advanced in technology, well beyond their current capabilities.

Is the question then, not about the technology, but about the vast change in the number of crazies? Who could imagine some nutjob grabbing a automatic rifle and attacking thousands of people for which he has no prior connection or personal debt owed? This obviously was not the intention of one bearing arms.

Even 20 years ago not many could imagine the scope of global terrorism, certainly such unbalanced individuals in society committing such a heinous crime couldn't be anticipated by many, certainly not by civilisation hundreds of years removed.

Thoughts?

The British referred to the Founders and others as the "lunatic fringe"....

Today, you liberals call them the "lunatic fringe" that were racists and slave owners. You really hate anyone who doesn't bow down to liberalism.

they do not differ in any way from communists

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I hear many of the same arguments, for and against weapons. One very popular one is that the U.S Forefathers didn't imagine such high powered technology. I have to think that if they were smart enough to design such an impressive Constitution, that surely they could foresee vast advanced in technology, well beyond their current capabilities.

Is the question then, not about the technology, but about the vast change in the number of crazies? Who could imagine some nutjob grabbing a automatic rifle and attacking thousands of people for which he has no prior connection or personal debt owed? This obviously was not the intention of one bearing arms.

Even 20 years ago not many could imagine the scope of global terrorism, certainly such unbalanced individuals in society committing such a heinous crime couldn't be anticipated by many, certainly not by civilisation hundreds of years removed.

Thoughts?

The British referred to the Founders and others as the "lunatic fringe"....

Today, you liberals call them the "lunatic fringe" that were racists and slave owners. You really hate anyone who doesn't bow down to liberalism.

they do not differ in any way from communists

The patriots of the founding of this country weren't even close to communists, because even though slavery was happening, there were many opposed to slavery and were fighting to free them. Communists don't allow anyone to be free except the liberal elites who "supposedly" know better than the rest of the sheep masses. Did you get your GED from a public school?

 

[OldLady]

I hear many of the same arguments, for and against weapons. One very popular one is that the U.S Forefathers didn't imagine such high powered technology. I have to think that if they were smart enough to design such an impressive Constitution, that surely they could foresee vast advanced in technology, well beyond their current capabilities.

Is the question then, not about the technology, but about the vast change in the number of crazies? Who could imagine some nutjob grabbing a automatic rifle and attacking thousands of people for which he has no prior connection or personal debt owed? This obviously was not the intention of one bearing arms.

Even 20 years ago not many could imagine the scope of global terrorism, certainly such unbalanced individuals in society committing such a heinous crime couldn't be anticipated by many, certainly not by civilisation hundreds of years removed.

Thoughts?

The Constitution allows for those kind of changes with amendments. It's probably the only way sane gun laws will ever take effect in this country.

 

[Zander]

They didn't foresee DRUGS.

Legal, prescribed, psychotropic, mind altering, addictive drugs.

 

[Compost]

I'm pretty sure killing people was against the law during the time of our Founding Fathers. The problem isn't guns or knives or trucks or planes or new technology. It's a human thing. This thing isn't all that different now than then. The problem still is people harming others while breaking the law. Our Founding Fathers understood that you don't stop people doing crime with guns (or anything else) by taking guns (or anything else) away from the people who are not committing crimes.

We don't need a new amendment. We need to deal with crazy people. Remember when someone could be committed because they were a threat to themselves or others? How about we return to something along those lines? In other words, deal with the problem.

 

[oldsoul]

I hear many of the same arguments, for and against weapons. One very popular one is that the U.S Forefathers didn't imagine such high powered technology. I have to think that if they were smart enough to design such an impressive Constitution, that surely they could foresee vast advanced in technology, well beyond their current capabilities.

Is the question then, not about the technology, but about the vast change in the number of crazies? Who could imagine some nutjob grabbing a automatic rifle and attacking thousands of people for which he has no prior connection or personal debt owed? This obviously was not the intention of one bearing arms.

Even 20 years ago not many could imagine the scope of global terrorism, certainly such unbalanced individuals in society committing such a heinous crime couldn't be anticipated by many, certainly not by civilisation hundreds of years removed.

Thoughts?

There is a fundamental flaw in most arguments both for, and against "gun control." That flaw is that the founders did not intent for the 2nd to be about hunting, defense from criminals, or anything else short of a deterrent to, and means of effective resistance against, an oppressive government. Look at the way the Native Americans were treated throughout our history until the mid-20th century, and even today to a lesser extend. Imagine if Geronimo, Sitting Bull, Tecumseh, and others had similar tactics, firepower, and manpower as the U.S. government did. I believe that things like the "Trail of Tears", "Wounded Knee" and countless other events would have never happened, had the Natives had similar capacity to defend themselves. Hence, the 2nd amendment.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Is the issue not that the U.S Forefathers didn't ... imagine the crazies?

Though I think they didn't "imagine the crazies," it's more that the crazies have found succor by dint of not entirely crazy people being more concerned about their own selfish ends than about the general welfare of the citizenry. I'm sure the founders never imagined that happening or even being possible. After all, they were the elite of their day and never expected anyone but genuinely elite individuals -- very well well educated, very well informed, of curious mind, and well traveled -- would ever have any material share of control of the country's political organs.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I hear many of the same arguments, for and against weapons. One very popular one is that the U.S Forefathers didn't imagine such high powered technology. I have to think that if they were smart enough to design such an impressive Constitution, that surely they could foresee vast advanced in technology, well beyond their current capabilities.

Is the question then, not about the technology, but about the vast change in the number of crazies? Who could imagine some nutjob grabbing a automatic rifle and attacking thousands of people for which he has no prior connection or personal debt owed? This obviously was not the intention of one bearing arms.

Even 20 years ago not many could imagine the scope of global terrorism, certainly such unbalanced individuals in society committing such a heinous crime couldn't be anticipated by many, certainly not by civilisation hundreds of years removed.

Thoughts?

There is a fundamental flaw in most arguments both for, and against "gun control." That flaw is that the founders did not intent for the 2nd to be about hunting, defense from criminals, or anything else short of a deterrent to, and means of effective resistance against, an oppressive government. Look at the way the Native Americans were treated throughout our history until the mid-20th century, and even today to a lesser extend. Imagine if Geronimo, Sitting Bull, Tecumseh, and others had similar tactics, firepower, and manpower as the U.S. government did. I believe that things like the "Trail of Tears", "Wounded Knee" and countless other events would have never happened, had the Natives had similar capacity to defend themselves. Hence, the 2nd amendment.

the founders did not intent for the 2nd to be about hunting, defense from criminals, or anything else short of a deterrent to, and means of effective resistance against, an oppressive government.

^ This ^

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I hear many of the same arguments, for and against weapons. One very popular one is that the U.S Forefathers didn't imagine such high powered technology. I have to think that if they were smart enough to design such an impressive Constitution, that surely they could foresee vast advanced in technology, well beyond their current capabilities.

Is the question then, not about the technology, but about the vast change in the number of crazies? Who could imagine some nutjob grabbing a automatic rifle and attacking thousands of people for which he has no prior connection or personal debt owed? This obviously was not the intention of one bearing arms.

Even 20 years ago not many could imagine the scope of global terrorism, certainly such unbalanced individuals in society committing such a heinous crime couldn't be anticipated by many, certainly not by civilisation hundreds of years removed.

Thoughts?

There have always been crazy people...

Of course, but the level of crazies now is unmatched. Without political motivation or personal connection to the victims, any rational mind becomes scrambled trying to understand this.

No, no, the crazies happened about 70 years ago, and it took real men to put those crazies in their places(6 feet under). Shame that the crazies have taken over the government for the past 40 years making it very hard to put those crazies back into the asylums.

View attachment 152827

Ah yes, let's pine for the days of global war. Excuse me while I try to unthink that idiotic meme.

 

[2aguy]

I hear many of the same arguments, for and against weapons. One very popular one is that the U.S Forefathers didn't imagine such high powered technology. I have to think that if they were smart enough to design such an impressive Constitution, that surely they could foresee vast advanced in technology, well beyond their current capabilities.

Is the question then, not about the technology, but about the vast change in the number of crazies? Who could imagine some nutjob grabbing a automatic rifle and attacking thousands of people for which he has no prior connection or personal debt owed? This obviously was not the intention of one bearing arms.

Even 20 years ago not many could imagine the scope of global terrorism, certainly such unbalanced individuals in society committing such a heinous crime couldn't be anticipated by many, certainly not by civilisation hundreds of years removed.

Thoughts?

The Constitution allows for those kind of changes with amendments. It's probably the only way sane gun laws will ever take effect in this country.

We already have sane gun laws....

1) You can't use a gun to commit a crime....that means any gun, for any crime. Covers all crimes committed with guns.

2) You can't be a felon and buy, own or carry a gun....if you are a felon caught with a gun, you can and will be arrested.

So....which activity do these laws fail to address?