Wild Bill Kelsoe
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2021
- 10,070
- 9,229
- 2,138
Should assisted suicide be legal?
An anti-gun leftist sees the truth, and understands the vital importance of the 2nd Amendment to our freedom and safety....
- Thread starter 2aguy
- Start date
Wild Bill Kelsoe
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2021
- 10,070
- 9,229
- 2,138
Criminals will find a weapon to inflict harm.
Wild Bill Kelsoe
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2021
- 10,070
- 9,229
- 2,138
That's exactly what they want. Under Communism, there's no private property.
Wild Bill Kelsoe
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2021
- 10,070
- 9,229
- 2,138
God made man. Sam Colt made men equal.
Elton
Gold Member
- Sep 27, 2018
- 377
- 430
- 195
I disagree. I was pretty firmly anti gun till I researched the Norway and Paris shootings. Those countries have very strong gun laws. Yet both suffered horrible mass shootings. Shootings, that would not happen here in the USA except for places where guns are outlawed. Only lawful people follow gun laws. Criminals don't.
I am a LYFT driver, I don't like the fact that LYFT doesn't allow me to carry a gun to defend myself. There are some customers who are very unpleasant. So far I have had no problems, but I fear that the day is coming when i will wish I had a gun.
Wild Bill Kelsoe
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2021
- 10,070
- 9,229
- 2,138
I'd carry anyway.
Man of Ethics
Gold Member
- Feb 28, 2021
- 4,682
- 2,136
- 248
France and Norway have much lower murder rate then USA.
Man of Ethics
Gold Member
- Feb 28, 2021
- 4,682
- 2,136
- 248
Absolutely not. It is a great sin.
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
This fails as a hasty generalization fallacy.Brett Weinstein is still an anti-gunner......he thinks guns are more harm than good......
He is wrong...but that isn't the point of this post....
Even though he still sees guns as more harmful than good.....he sees them as more good than harmful in the long run.......
As a young man I regarded the second amendment as the founders’ biggest blunder. As we head into 2022, my position has flipped — I now believe history may well come to regard it as the most far-sighted thing the founders did, not in spite of its vagueness, but because of it. It’s like a mysterious passage from a sacred text that forces living people to interpret it in a modern context. The founders believed the people needed to be able to defend their free state — with deadly force — whether that refers to a geographical state, or a state of being, or both.
=======
Most of those stocking up on guns and ammo belong to a culture, and like every other culture, it has its beliefs, suppositions and fears. That culture believes that tyranny may descend on us, even here in the freedom-loving United States of America, and that privately held guns are the key to fending it off.
I’m not a member of this culture, but I believe they may well be right about this.
In a country where politicians are increasingly prone to withdraw or stand-down the police to curry favour with confused constituents, it is easy to see how things can quickly escalate as they did in Kenosha, Wisconsin the night Kyle Rittenhouse shot three men in self-defence at a riot. To be clear, I do not believe Rittenhouse, then 17-years-old, should have been there with his AR-15.
But I also don’t believe the streets of American cities should ever be ceded to violent ideological bullies — a now familiar pattern that set the stage for Rittenhouse’s actions
----
To understand why private guns may be decisive in a fight against tyranny, let’s take a moment to revisit what is assuredly the most inscrutable section of the United States Constitution, the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
It’s almost like a deliberate non-sequitur. In fact, after decades of pondering the question, I’m now fairly convinced that that is exactly what the founders gave us: an intentionally vague pronouncement designed to force the question into the future, to ensure it would be repeatedly reevaluated to keep up with changing weaponry and circumstances. Near as I can tell, it’s a place holder for a principle they could not tailor in advance.
They clearly didn’t want to give the legislature or the courts complete latitude. They tied our hands; our representatives are not allowed to disarm the public, even if a majority desires it. And the founders gave us a strong hint about why — something about the need to protect a “free state” from, you know… stuff. But they didn’t tell us how much firepower citizens should be allowed to have. And thank goodness they didn’t, because muzzle-loaded weapons are no better a model of modern weapons than a movable-type printing press is for an algorithmically personalised infinite scroll.
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
Wrong.
There is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that endorsed insurrectionist dogma.
The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, not to act as a ‘deterrent’ to government tyranny.
“…the insurrectionist interpretation of the Declaration of Rights is fundamentally flawed. An historically sound understanding of the Second Amendment's English heritage belies the proposition that the Second Amendment was intended to grant an individual right to keep or bear
arms against governmental tyranny.”
Wild Bill Kelsoe
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2021
- 10,070
- 9,229
- 2,138
Tyranny isn't restricted to just government oppression. What we see from ANTIFA and BLM using violence to intimidate the citizenry is tyranny, too.
Wild Bill Kelsoe
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2021
- 10,070
- 9,229
- 2,138
France and Norway are some of the whitest countries in the world.
Blues Man
Diamond Member
- Aug 28, 2016
- 35,513
- 14,915
- 1,530
How vague are the words "shall not be infringed"?Brett Weinstein is still an anti-gunner......he thinks guns are more harm than good......
He is wrong...but that isn't the point of this post....
Even though he still sees guns as more harmful than good.....he sees them as more good than harmful in the long run.......
As a young man I regarded the second amendment as the founders’ biggest blunder. As we head into 2022, my position has flipped — I now believe history may well come to regard it as the most far-sighted thing the founders did, not in spite of its vagueness, but because of it. It’s like a mysterious passage from a sacred text that forces living people to interpret it in a modern context. The founders believed the people needed to be able to defend their free state — with deadly force — whether that refers to a geographical state, or a state of being, or both.
=======
Most of those stocking up on guns and ammo belong to a culture, and like every other culture, it has its beliefs, suppositions and fears. That culture believes that tyranny may descend on us, even here in the freedom-loving United States of America, and that privately held guns are the key to fending it off.
I’m not a member of this culture, but I believe they may well be right about this.
In a country where politicians are increasingly prone to withdraw or stand-down the police to curry favour with confused constituents, it is easy to see how things can quickly escalate as they did in Kenosha, Wisconsin the night Kyle Rittenhouse shot three men in self-defence at a riot. To be clear, I do not believe Rittenhouse, then 17-years-old, should have been there with his AR-15.
But I also don’t believe the streets of American cities should ever be ceded to violent ideological bullies — a now familiar pattern that set the stage for Rittenhouse’s actions
----
To understand why private guns may be decisive in a fight against tyranny, let’s take a moment to revisit what is assuredly the most inscrutable section of the United States Constitution, the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
It’s almost like a deliberate non-sequitur. In fact, after decades of pondering the question, I’m now fairly convinced that that is exactly what the founders gave us: an intentionally vague pronouncement designed to force the question into the future, to ensure it would be repeatedly reevaluated to keep up with changing weaponry and circumstances. Near as I can tell, it’s a place holder for a principle they could not tailor in advance.
They clearly didn’t want to give the legislature or the courts complete latitude. They tied our hands; our representatives are not allowed to disarm the public, even if a majority desires it. And the founders gave us a strong hint about why — something about the need to protect a “free state” from, you know… stuff. But they didn’t tell us how much firepower citizens should be allowed to have. And thank goodness they didn’t, because muzzle-loaded weapons are no better a model of modern weapons than a movable-type printing press is for an algorithmically personalised infinite scroll.
Because they dislike you?
Concerned American
Diamond Member
Oh Gee! Whatever shall I do? A message board idiot doesn't get logic. Woe is me, the insignificant one makes an irrelevant remark.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Pro-Rights Groups Demand SBRs, Suppressors Be Added To Budget Reconciliation Bill- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 0
-
-
Putin's adviser said the Bolshevik empire continues to exist and the war in Ukraine is an "internal process."- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 0
