Should carrying a firearm become mandatory?

[progressive hunter]

No it doesn't.

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

Having a firearm increases your chance of dying from gunfire.

Being a CRIMINAL in possession of a firearm does.

You assholes always seem to leave off the important part.

as soon as you include accidental deaths and suicides you're clearly less safe with a gun than without

Our violence rate is way too low to justify owning a gun in most fo the country.

If you live in a poor part of Chicago or some other major urban center that is basically a warzone.....Then maybe it becomes rational

The great thing about rights are you don't need to justify exercising them.

It in no way follows that I think they should be taken away. Gun owners take all the risk of keeping elites scared of us?

But he seems to be confused about the statistical realities of safety and gun ownership. They will not make you safer on average.

Yes surprise your suburban little girl who you treat like a princess is not some disciplined little child soldier who won't accidentally shoot herself or some one else. Your family is probably not safer for having a gun in the house. You're in a catch 22 where you need easy access but that same access increases the threat level. *shrug*

Can't even trust the average suburban american kid at a gun range much less with 24/7 access. Going to be very few scenarios where a gun can keep you safe. Infinite where gun ownership can end up hurting you.

if anything guns are neutral when it comes to safety.

People who own guns legally are not the problem. If other activities had an accidental death rate as low as legal gun ownership they'd be praised as being extremely safe.

The problem with guns is and always has been the people who possess carry and use guns illegally.

You're very unlikely to ever need it

Which makes the claims they're neutral sort of insane

Actually, it is absolutely inevitable that people will need guns.
We formed this country due to corruption by government that required a rebellion.
That ALWAYS is the normal tendency, for all governments to become more corrupt, and for rebellion to restore rights for a time.
So whether or not guns become necessary in our life times, to us, is not relevant.
They absolutely will be necessary to some people at some time.
So it has to remain illegal for government to at all interfere in this essential weapons ownership by the general population.

Yea uh huh and i gain all the rewards with almost none of the risks with you having the gun

The only way to ensure the majority has guns to prevent tyranny, is for the right for all individuals to have guns to be kept sacrosanct.
If one generation becomes lazy and complacent, then they doom all future generations to authoritarian dictatorship at some point.

Yea and they viewed that as the states prerogative, not random plebs

Again the founding fathers hated people like you. They did not trust you to make choices about what is and is not tyrannical, or do much of anything else really.

We aren't a democracy we're a republic, there wasn't even any illusion you were allowed to vote much less use arms to affect politics.

so not only do you read minds, but read the minds of dead people,,

YOURE FUCKING AMAZING!!!

Yea it's almost like if you have a high IQ they go into great detail about American history in our education....

It's not very long relative to most nations. You can spend some time on what the founding fathers thought and the implications of the system they made. Not very difficult to connect these dots.

AP history class kids hear detailed history, not some tainted form of it, which is why teh right hates them so much. You're exhibiting the common strain of "ignorance is bliss" on our history. No it's not. Accept reality like a man. Yea our slave holding founding fatehrs who didn't like dmeocracy didn't enshrine your right to own a gun in the constitution. Not on purpose anyway

The Constitution has NO individual rights in it.
That was not its intent.
The Bill of Rights is ONLY to restrict the federal government, nothing more.
And the majority of the founders did not hold slaves or necessarily support slavery,
They did not like the original Athenian democracy, where everyone voted on each measure personally, and it had to be unanimous.
The had nothing against a representative democracy.

Of course it did.

The Bill of Rights is about the rights of the people individually and collectively and included those rights that were so important that a specific mention was needed to ensure the government could not violate them.

The bill of rights only limited the feds pre reconstruction

It did not enshrine any rights, it merely prevented the federal government from fucking with you on those rights.

Not your state or city government. Those protections would need to be in the state constitutions

Do none of you understand the system we have is in many ways not the system teh founding fathers gave us/

do you not understand that federal law supersedes state law???

AGAIN THAT WAS NOT TRUE UNTIL THE CIVIL WAR

IT WAS THE 14TH AMENDMENT THAT MAKES THAT TRUE

THIS IS WHY YOU DON'T FUCK WITH THE KID IN AP HISTORY. HOW DO YOU NOT KNOW THIS?

lol

Ron Paul's biggest dream is to basically repeal the 14th amendment so we can back to the era of "states rights"

Again the system we have is often not what the founding fathers envisioned.

states rights are not the issue,,

Yes they are, it's an issue on how we interpret federal constitutional protections

The founding fathers could not give you rights via the bill of rights under anything but federal law. Which at that time was basically meaningless because the federal government wasn't very big.

you dont interpret simple english,,, unless of course youre a dishonest person,,

It's law dude

The phrase "simple english" does not apply

what law?? got a link??

 

[Juicin]

No it doesn't.

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

Having a firearm increases your chance of dying from gunfire.

Being a CRIMINAL in possession of a firearm does.

You assholes always seem to leave off the important part.

as soon as you include accidental deaths and suicides you're clearly less safe with a gun than without

Our violence rate is way too low to justify owning a gun in most fo the country.

If you live in a poor part of Chicago or some other major urban center that is basically a warzone.....Then maybe it becomes rational

The great thing about rights are you don't need to justify exercising them.

It in no way follows that I think they should be taken away. Gun owners take all the risk of keeping elites scared of us?

But he seems to be confused about the statistical realities of safety and gun ownership. They will not make you safer on average.

Yes surprise your suburban little girl who you treat like a princess is not some disciplined little child soldier who won't accidentally shoot herself or some one else. Your family is probably not safer for having a gun in the house. You're in a catch 22 where you need easy access but that same access increases the threat level. *shrug*

Can't even trust the average suburban american kid at a gun range much less with 24/7 access. Going to be very few scenarios where a gun can keep you safe. Infinite where gun ownership can end up hurting you.

if anything guns are neutral when it comes to safety.

People who own guns legally are not the problem. If other activities had an accidental death rate as low as legal gun ownership they'd be praised as being extremely safe.

The problem with guns is and always has been the people who possess carry and use guns illegally.

You're very unlikely to ever need it

Which makes the claims they're neutral sort of insane

Actually, it is absolutely inevitable that people will need guns.
We formed this country due to corruption by government that required a rebellion.
That ALWAYS is the normal tendency, for all governments to become more corrupt, and for rebellion to restore rights for a time.
So whether or not guns become necessary in our life times, to us, is not relevant.
They absolutely will be necessary to some people at some time.
So it has to remain illegal for government to at all interfere in this essential weapons ownership by the general population.

Yea uh huh and i gain all the rewards with almost none of the risks with you having the gun

The only way to ensure the majority has guns to prevent tyranny, is for the right for all individuals to have guns to be kept sacrosanct.
If one generation becomes lazy and complacent, then they doom all future generations to authoritarian dictatorship at some point.

Yea and they viewed that as the states prerogative, not random plebs

Again the founding fathers hated people like you. They did not trust you to make choices about what is and is not tyrannical, or do much of anything else really.

We aren't a democracy we're a republic, there wasn't even any illusion you were allowed to vote much less use arms to affect politics.

so not only do you read minds, but read the minds of dead people,,

YOURE FUCKING AMAZING!!!

Yea it's almost like if you have a high IQ they go into great detail about American history in our education....

It's not very long relative to most nations. You can spend some time on what the founding fathers thought and the implications of the system they made. Not very difficult to connect these dots.

AP history class kids hear detailed history, not some tainted form of it, which is why teh right hates them so much. You're exhibiting the common strain of "ignorance is bliss" on our history. No it's not. Accept reality like a man. Yea our slave holding founding fatehrs who didn't like dmeocracy didn't enshrine your right to own a gun in the constitution. Not on purpose anyway

The Constitution has NO individual rights in it.
That was not its intent.
The Bill of Rights is ONLY to restrict the federal government, nothing more.
And the majority of the founders did not hold slaves or necessarily support slavery,
They did not like the original Athenian democracy, where everyone voted on each measure personally, and it had to be unanimous.
The had nothing against a representative democracy.

Of course it did.

The Bill of Rights is about the rights of the people individually and collectively and included those rights that were so important that a specific mention was needed to ensure the government could not violate them.

The bill of rights only limited the feds pre reconstruction

It did not enshrine any rights, it merely prevented the federal government from fucking with you on those rights.

Not your state or city government. Those protections would need to be in the state constitutions

Do none of you understand the system we have is in many ways not the system teh founding fathers gave us/

do you not understand that federal law supersedes state law???

AGAIN THAT WAS NOT TRUE UNTIL THE CIVIL WAR

IT WAS THE 14TH AMENDMENT THAT MAKES THAT TRUE

THIS IS WHY YOU DON'T FUCK WITH THE KID IN AP HISTORY. HOW DO YOU NOT KNOW THIS?

lol

Ron Paul's biggest dream is to basically repeal the 14th amendment so we can back to the era of "states rights"

Again the system we have is often not what the founding fathers envisioned.

states rights are not the issue,,

Yes they are, it's an issue on how we interpret federal constitutional protections

The founding fathers could not give you rights via the bill of rights under anything but federal law. Which at that time was basically meaningless because the federal government wasn't very big.

you dont interpret simple english,,, unless of course youre a dishonest person,,

It's law dude

The phrase "simple english" does not apply

what law?? got a link??

YOu want me to link you to the 14th amendment and basic american history/ lol

I could but considering you spent the better part of two decades going over our very short histroy and still don't get it. What is the point on trying to tell you for the 15th time?

At a certain point you just have to sit the fuck down and realize you do not catalogue this sort of information well. And should just shut up because you have no idea what's going on.

We are at that point now on this topic

 

[progressive hunter]

No it doesn't.

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

Having a firearm increases your chance of dying from gunfire.

Being a CRIMINAL in possession of a firearm does.

You assholes always seem to leave off the important part.

as soon as you include accidental deaths and suicides you're clearly less safe with a gun than without

Our violence rate is way too low to justify owning a gun in most fo the country.

If you live in a poor part of Chicago or some other major urban center that is basically a warzone.....Then maybe it becomes rational

The great thing about rights are you don't need to justify exercising them.

It in no way follows that I think they should be taken away. Gun owners take all the risk of keeping elites scared of us?

But he seems to be confused about the statistical realities of safety and gun ownership. They will not make you safer on average.

Yes surprise your suburban little girl who you treat like a princess is not some disciplined little child soldier who won't accidentally shoot herself or some one else. Your family is probably not safer for having a gun in the house. You're in a catch 22 where you need easy access but that same access increases the threat level. *shrug*

Can't even trust the average suburban american kid at a gun range much less with 24/7 access. Going to be very few scenarios where a gun can keep you safe. Infinite where gun ownership can end up hurting you.

if anything guns are neutral when it comes to safety.

People who own guns legally are not the problem. If other activities had an accidental death rate as low as legal gun ownership they'd be praised as being extremely safe.

The problem with guns is and always has been the people who possess carry and use guns illegally.

You're very unlikely to ever need it

Which makes the claims they're neutral sort of insane

Actually, it is absolutely inevitable that people will need guns.
We formed this country due to corruption by government that required a rebellion.
That ALWAYS is the normal tendency, for all governments to become more corrupt, and for rebellion to restore rights for a time.
So whether or not guns become necessary in our life times, to us, is not relevant.
They absolutely will be necessary to some people at some time.
So it has to remain illegal for government to at all interfere in this essential weapons ownership by the general population.

Yea uh huh and i gain all the rewards with almost none of the risks with you having the gun

The only way to ensure the majority has guns to prevent tyranny, is for the right for all individuals to have guns to be kept sacrosanct.
If one generation becomes lazy and complacent, then they doom all future generations to authoritarian dictatorship at some point.

Yea and they viewed that as the states prerogative, not random plebs

Again the founding fathers hated people like you. They did not trust you to make choices about what is and is not tyrannical, or do much of anything else really.

We aren't a democracy we're a republic, there wasn't even any illusion you were allowed to vote much less use arms to affect politics.

so not only do you read minds, but read the minds of dead people,,

YOURE FUCKING AMAZING!!!

Yea it's almost like if you have a high IQ they go into great detail about American history in our education....

It's not very long relative to most nations. You can spend some time on what the founding fathers thought and the implications of the system they made. Not very difficult to connect these dots.

AP history class kids hear detailed history, not some tainted form of it, which is why teh right hates them so much. You're exhibiting the common strain of "ignorance is bliss" on our history. No it's not. Accept reality like a man. Yea our slave holding founding fatehrs who didn't like dmeocracy didn't enshrine your right to own a gun in the constitution. Not on purpose anyway

The Constitution has NO individual rights in it.
That was not its intent.
The Bill of Rights is ONLY to restrict the federal government, nothing more.
And the majority of the founders did not hold slaves or necessarily support slavery,
They did not like the original Athenian democracy, where everyone voted on each measure personally, and it had to be unanimous.
The had nothing against a representative democracy.

Of course it did.

The Bill of Rights is about the rights of the people individually and collectively and included those rights that were so important that a specific mention was needed to ensure the government could not violate them.

The bill of rights only limited the feds pre reconstruction

It did not enshrine any rights, it merely prevented the federal government from fucking with you on those rights.

Not your state or city government. Those protections would need to be in the state constitutions

Do none of you understand the system we have is in many ways not the system teh founding fathers gave us/

do you not understand that federal law supersedes state law???

AGAIN THAT WAS NOT TRUE UNTIL THE CIVIL WAR

IT WAS THE 14TH AMENDMENT THAT MAKES THAT TRUE

THIS IS WHY YOU DON'T FUCK WITH THE KID IN AP HISTORY. HOW DO YOU NOT KNOW THIS?

lol

Ron Paul's biggest dream is to basically repeal the 14th amendment so we can back to the era of "states rights"

Again the system we have is often not what the founding fathers envisioned.

states rights are not the issue,,

Yes they are, it's an issue on how we interpret federal constitutional protections

The founding fathers could not give you rights via the bill of rights under anything but federal law. Which at that time was basically meaningless because the federal government wasn't very big.

you dont interpret simple english,,, unless of course youre a dishonest person,,

It's law dude

The phrase "simple english" does not apply

what law?? got a link??

YOu want me to link you to the 14th amendment and basic american history/ lol

I could but considering you spent the better part of two decades going over our very short histroy and still don't get it. What is the point on trying to tell you for the 15th time?

the 14th didnt repeal the 2nd,,,

 

[Juicin]

No it doesn't.

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

Having a firearm increases your chance of dying from gunfire.

Being a CRIMINAL in possession of a firearm does.

You assholes always seem to leave off the important part.

as soon as you include accidental deaths and suicides you're clearly less safe with a gun than without

Our violence rate is way too low to justify owning a gun in most fo the country.

If you live in a poor part of Chicago or some other major urban center that is basically a warzone.....Then maybe it becomes rational

The great thing about rights are you don't need to justify exercising them.

It in no way follows that I think they should be taken away. Gun owners take all the risk of keeping elites scared of us?

But he seems to be confused about the statistical realities of safety and gun ownership. They will not make you safer on average.

Yes surprise your suburban little girl who you treat like a princess is not some disciplined little child soldier who won't accidentally shoot herself or some one else. Your family is probably not safer for having a gun in the house. You're in a catch 22 where you need easy access but that same access increases the threat level. *shrug*

Can't even trust the average suburban american kid at a gun range much less with 24/7 access. Going to be very few scenarios where a gun can keep you safe. Infinite where gun ownership can end up hurting you.

if anything guns are neutral when it comes to safety.

People who own guns legally are not the problem. If other activities had an accidental death rate as low as legal gun ownership they'd be praised as being extremely safe.

The problem with guns is and always has been the people who possess carry and use guns illegally.

You're very unlikely to ever need it

Which makes the claims they're neutral sort of insane

Actually, it is absolutely inevitable that people will need guns.
We formed this country due to corruption by government that required a rebellion.
That ALWAYS is the normal tendency, for all governments to become more corrupt, and for rebellion to restore rights for a time.
So whether or not guns become necessary in our life times, to us, is not relevant.
They absolutely will be necessary to some people at some time.
So it has to remain illegal for government to at all interfere in this essential weapons ownership by the general population.

Yea uh huh and i gain all the rewards with almost none of the risks with you having the gun

The only way to ensure the majority has guns to prevent tyranny, is for the right for all individuals to have guns to be kept sacrosanct.
If one generation becomes lazy and complacent, then they doom all future generations to authoritarian dictatorship at some point.

Yea and they viewed that as the states prerogative, not random plebs

Again the founding fathers hated people like you. They did not trust you to make choices about what is and is not tyrannical, or do much of anything else really.

We aren't a democracy we're a republic, there wasn't even any illusion you were allowed to vote much less use arms to affect politics.

so not only do you read minds, but read the minds of dead people,,

YOURE FUCKING AMAZING!!!

Yea it's almost like if you have a high IQ they go into great detail about American history in our education....

It's not very long relative to most nations. You can spend some time on what the founding fathers thought and the implications of the system they made. Not very difficult to connect these dots.

AP history class kids hear detailed history, not some tainted form of it, which is why teh right hates them so much. You're exhibiting the common strain of "ignorance is bliss" on our history. No it's not. Accept reality like a man. Yea our slave holding founding fatehrs who didn't like dmeocracy didn't enshrine your right to own a gun in the constitution. Not on purpose anyway

The Constitution has NO individual rights in it.
That was not its intent.
The Bill of Rights is ONLY to restrict the federal government, nothing more.
And the majority of the founders did not hold slaves or necessarily support slavery,
They did not like the original Athenian democracy, where everyone voted on each measure personally, and it had to be unanimous.
The had nothing against a representative democracy.

Of course it did.

The Bill of Rights is about the rights of the people individually and collectively and included those rights that were so important that a specific mention was needed to ensure the government could not violate them.

The bill of rights only limited the feds pre reconstruction

It did not enshrine any rights, it merely prevented the federal government from fucking with you on those rights.

Not your state or city government. Those protections would need to be in the state constitutions

Do none of you understand the system we have is in many ways not the system teh founding fathers gave us/

do you not understand that federal law supersedes state law???

AGAIN THAT WAS NOT TRUE UNTIL THE CIVIL WAR

IT WAS THE 14TH AMENDMENT THAT MAKES THAT TRUE

THIS IS WHY YOU DON'T FUCK WITH THE KID IN AP HISTORY. HOW DO YOU NOT KNOW THIS?

lol

Ron Paul's biggest dream is to basically repeal the 14th amendment so we can back to the era of "states rights"

Again the system we have is often not what the founding fathers envisioned.

states rights are not the issue,,

Yes they are, it's an issue on how we interpret federal constitutional protections

The founding fathers could not give you rights via the bill of rights under anything but federal law. Which at that time was basically meaningless because the federal government wasn't very big.

you dont interpret simple english,,, unless of course youre a dishonest person,,

It's law dude

The phrase "simple english" does not apply

what law?? got a link??

YOu want me to link you to the 14th amendment and basic american history/ lol

I could but considering you spent the better part of two decades going over our very short histroy and still don't get it. What is the point on trying to tell you for the 15th time?

the 14th didnt repeal the 2nd,,,

It did the opposite you dumb fuck

It made the 2nd amendment a universal right as opposed to something left up to the states

There was no way to interpret the second amendment as universal right pre 14th amendment.

GOOGLE IT YOU STUPID WHITE TRASH, MY GOD. YOU STILL DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE 14TH AMENDMENT EVEN IS. AS SOON AS YOU DO YOU WILL REALIZE HOW ABSURD IT IS TO THINK THE FOUNDING FATHERS GUARANTEED YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE A GUN

edit- no you won't, you're fucking retarded. Who am i kidding. Blocking you for being so fucking dense.

You join an elite list of only one other person who i blocked for reasons i can't remember

 

[progressive hunter]

No it doesn't.

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

Having a firearm increases your chance of dying from gunfire.

Being a CRIMINAL in possession of a firearm does.

You assholes always seem to leave off the important part.

as soon as you include accidental deaths and suicides you're clearly less safe with a gun than without

Our violence rate is way too low to justify owning a gun in most fo the country.

If you live in a poor part of Chicago or some other major urban center that is basically a warzone.....Then maybe it becomes rational

The great thing about rights are you don't need to justify exercising them.

It in no way follows that I think they should be taken away. Gun owners take all the risk of keeping elites scared of us?

But he seems to be confused about the statistical realities of safety and gun ownership. They will not make you safer on average.

Yes surprise your suburban little girl who you treat like a princess is not some disciplined little child soldier who won't accidentally shoot herself or some one else. Your family is probably not safer for having a gun in the house. You're in a catch 22 where you need easy access but that same access increases the threat level. *shrug*

Can't even trust the average suburban american kid at a gun range much less with 24/7 access. Going to be very few scenarios where a gun can keep you safe. Infinite where gun ownership can end up hurting you.

if anything guns are neutral when it comes to safety.

People who own guns legally are not the problem. If other activities had an accidental death rate as low as legal gun ownership they'd be praised as being extremely safe.

The problem with guns is and always has been the people who possess carry and use guns illegally.

You're very unlikely to ever need it

Which makes the claims they're neutral sort of insane

Actually, it is absolutely inevitable that people will need guns.
We formed this country due to corruption by government that required a rebellion.
That ALWAYS is the normal tendency, for all governments to become more corrupt, and for rebellion to restore rights for a time.
So whether or not guns become necessary in our life times, to us, is not relevant.
They absolutely will be necessary to some people at some time.
So it has to remain illegal for government to at all interfere in this essential weapons ownership by the general population.

Yea uh huh and i gain all the rewards with almost none of the risks with you having the gun

The only way to ensure the majority has guns to prevent tyranny, is for the right for all individuals to have guns to be kept sacrosanct.
If one generation becomes lazy and complacent, then they doom all future generations to authoritarian dictatorship at some point.

Yea and they viewed that as the states prerogative, not random plebs

Again the founding fathers hated people like you. They did not trust you to make choices about what is and is not tyrannical, or do much of anything else really.

We aren't a democracy we're a republic, there wasn't even any illusion you were allowed to vote much less use arms to affect politics.

so not only do you read minds, but read the minds of dead people,,

YOURE FUCKING AMAZING!!!

Yea it's almost like if you have a high IQ they go into great detail about American history in our education....

It's not very long relative to most nations. You can spend some time on what the founding fathers thought and the implications of the system they made. Not very difficult to connect these dots.

AP history class kids hear detailed history, not some tainted form of it, which is why teh right hates them so much. You're exhibiting the common strain of "ignorance is bliss" on our history. No it's not. Accept reality like a man. Yea our slave holding founding fatehrs who didn't like dmeocracy didn't enshrine your right to own a gun in the constitution. Not on purpose anyway

The Constitution has NO individual rights in it.
That was not its intent.
The Bill of Rights is ONLY to restrict the federal government, nothing more.
And the majority of the founders did not hold slaves or necessarily support slavery,
They did not like the original Athenian democracy, where everyone voted on each measure personally, and it had to be unanimous.
The had nothing against a representative democracy.

Of course it did.

The Bill of Rights is about the rights of the people individually and collectively and included those rights that were so important that a specific mention was needed to ensure the government could not violate them.

The bill of rights only limited the feds pre reconstruction

It did not enshrine any rights, it merely prevented the federal government from fucking with you on those rights.

Not your state or city government. Those protections would need to be in the state constitutions

Do none of you understand the system we have is in many ways not the system teh founding fathers gave us/

do you not understand that federal law supersedes state law???

AGAIN THAT WAS NOT TRUE UNTIL THE CIVIL WAR

IT WAS THE 14TH AMENDMENT THAT MAKES THAT TRUE

THIS IS WHY YOU DON'T FUCK WITH THE KID IN AP HISTORY. HOW DO YOU NOT KNOW THIS?

lol

Ron Paul's biggest dream is to basically repeal the 14th amendment so we can back to the era of "states rights"

Again the system we have is often not what the founding fathers envisioned.

states rights are not the issue,,

Yes they are, it's an issue on how we interpret federal constitutional protections

The founding fathers could not give you rights via the bill of rights under anything but federal law. Which at that time was basically meaningless because the federal government wasn't very big.

you dont interpret simple english,,, unless of course youre a dishonest person,,

It's law dude

The phrase "simple english" does not apply

what law?? got a link??

YOu want me to link you to the 14th amendment and basic american history/ lol

I could but considering you spent the better part of two decades going over our very short histroy and still don't get it. What is the point on trying to tell you for the 15th time?

the 14th didnt repeal the 2nd,,,

It did the opposite you dumb fuck

It made the 2nd amendment a universal right as opposed to something left up to the states

There was no way to interpret the second amendment as universal right pre 14th amendment.

GOOGLE IT YOU STUPID WHITE TRASH, MY GOD. YOU STILL DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE 14TH AMENDMENT EVEN IS

it was never up to the states,,, federal law over rides state law,,,

 

[Juicin]

No it doesn't.

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

Having a firearm increases your chance of dying from gunfire.

Being a CRIMINAL in possession of a firearm does.

You assholes always seem to leave off the important part.

as soon as you include accidental deaths and suicides you're clearly less safe with a gun than without

Our violence rate is way too low to justify owning a gun in most fo the country.

If you live in a poor part of Chicago or some other major urban center that is basically a warzone.....Then maybe it becomes rational

The great thing about rights are you don't need to justify exercising them.

It in no way follows that I think they should be taken away. Gun owners take all the risk of keeping elites scared of us?

But he seems to be confused about the statistical realities of safety and gun ownership. They will not make you safer on average.

Yes surprise your suburban little girl who you treat like a princess is not some disciplined little child soldier who won't accidentally shoot herself or some one else. Your family is probably not safer for having a gun in the house. You're in a catch 22 where you need easy access but that same access increases the threat level. *shrug*

Can't even trust the average suburban american kid at a gun range much less with 24/7 access. Going to be very few scenarios where a gun can keep you safe. Infinite where gun ownership can end up hurting you.

if anything guns are neutral when it comes to safety.

People who own guns legally are not the problem. If other activities had an accidental death rate as low as legal gun ownership they'd be praised as being extremely safe.

The problem with guns is and always has been the people who possess carry and use guns illegally.

You're very unlikely to ever need it

Which makes the claims they're neutral sort of insane

Actually, it is absolutely inevitable that people will need guns.
We formed this country due to corruption by government that required a rebellion.
That ALWAYS is the normal tendency, for all governments to become more corrupt, and for rebellion to restore rights for a time.
So whether or not guns become necessary in our life times, to us, is not relevant.
They absolutely will be necessary to some people at some time.
So it has to remain illegal for government to at all interfere in this essential weapons ownership by the general population.

Yea uh huh and i gain all the rewards with almost none of the risks with you having the gun

The only way to ensure the majority has guns to prevent tyranny, is for the right for all individuals to have guns to be kept sacrosanct.
If one generation becomes lazy and complacent, then they doom all future generations to authoritarian dictatorship at some point.

Yea and they viewed that as the states prerogative, not random plebs

Again the founding fathers hated people like you. They did not trust you to make choices about what is and is not tyrannical, or do much of anything else really.

We aren't a democracy we're a republic, there wasn't even any illusion you were allowed to vote much less use arms to affect politics.

so not only do you read minds, but read the minds of dead people,,

YOURE FUCKING AMAZING!!!

Yea it's almost like if you have a high IQ they go into great detail about American history in our education....

It's not very long relative to most nations. You can spend some time on what the founding fathers thought and the implications of the system they made. Not very difficult to connect these dots.

AP history class kids hear detailed history, not some tainted form of it, which is why teh right hates them so much. You're exhibiting the common strain of "ignorance is bliss" on our history. No it's not. Accept reality like a man. Yea our slave holding founding fatehrs who didn't like dmeocracy didn't enshrine your right to own a gun in the constitution. Not on purpose anyway

The Constitution has NO individual rights in it.
That was not its intent.
The Bill of Rights is ONLY to restrict the federal government, nothing more.
And the majority of the founders did not hold slaves or necessarily support slavery,
They did not like the original Athenian democracy, where everyone voted on each measure personally, and it had to be unanimous.
The had nothing against a representative democracy.

Of course it did.

The Bill of Rights is about the rights of the people individually and collectively and included those rights that were so important that a specific mention was needed to ensure the government could not violate them.

The bill of rights only limited the feds pre reconstruction

It did not enshrine any rights, it merely prevented the federal government from fucking with you on those rights.

Not your state or city government. Those protections would need to be in the state constitutions

Do none of you understand the system we have is in many ways not the system teh founding fathers gave us/

do you not understand that federal law supersedes state law???

AGAIN THAT WAS NOT TRUE UNTIL THE CIVIL WAR

IT WAS THE 14TH AMENDMENT THAT MAKES THAT TRUE

THIS IS WHY YOU DON'T FUCK WITH THE KID IN AP HISTORY. HOW DO YOU NOT KNOW THIS?

lol

Ron Paul's biggest dream is to basically repeal the 14th amendment so we can back to the era of "states rights"

Again the system we have is often not what the founding fathers envisioned.

states rights are not the issue,,

Yes they are, it's an issue on how we interpret federal constitutional protections

The founding fathers could not give you rights via the bill of rights under anything but federal law. Which at that time was basically meaningless because the federal government wasn't very big.

you dont interpret simple english,,, unless of course youre a dishonest person,,

It's law dude

The phrase "simple english" does not apply

what law?? got a link??

YOu want me to link you to the 14th amendment and basic american history/ lol

I could but considering you spent the better part of two decades going over our very short histroy and still don't get it. What is the point on trying to tell you for the 15th time?

the 14th didnt repeal the 2nd,,,

It did the opposite you dumb fuck

It made the 2nd amendment a universal right as opposed to something left up to the states

There was no way to interpret the second amendment as universal right pre 14th amendment.

GOOGLE IT YOU STUPID WHITE TRASH, MY GOD. YOU STILL DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE 14TH AMENDMENT EVEN IS

it was never up to the states,,, federal law over rides state law,,,

Google 14th amendment, i'm done

blocked for real this time i remembered how

your mother should have aborted you

 

[progressive hunter]

No it doesn't.

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

Having a firearm increases your chance of dying from gunfire.

Being a CRIMINAL in possession of a firearm does.

You assholes always seem to leave off the important part.

as soon as you include accidental deaths and suicides you're clearly less safe with a gun than without

Our violence rate is way too low to justify owning a gun in most fo the country.

If you live in a poor part of Chicago or some other major urban center that is basically a warzone.....Then maybe it becomes rational

The great thing about rights are you don't need to justify exercising them.

It in no way follows that I think they should be taken away. Gun owners take all the risk of keeping elites scared of us?

But he seems to be confused about the statistical realities of safety and gun ownership. They will not make you safer on average.

Yes surprise your suburban little girl who you treat like a princess is not some disciplined little child soldier who won't accidentally shoot herself or some one else. Your family is probably not safer for having a gun in the house. You're in a catch 22 where you need easy access but that same access increases the threat level. *shrug*

Can't even trust the average suburban american kid at a gun range much less with 24/7 access. Going to be very few scenarios where a gun can keep you safe. Infinite where gun ownership can end up hurting you.

if anything guns are neutral when it comes to safety.

People who own guns legally are not the problem. If other activities had an accidental death rate as low as legal gun ownership they'd be praised as being extremely safe.

The problem with guns is and always has been the people who possess carry and use guns illegally.

You're very unlikely to ever need it

Which makes the claims they're neutral sort of insane

Actually, it is absolutely inevitable that people will need guns.
We formed this country due to corruption by government that required a rebellion.
That ALWAYS is the normal tendency, for all governments to become more corrupt, and for rebellion to restore rights for a time.
So whether or not guns become necessary in our life times, to us, is not relevant.
They absolutely will be necessary to some people at some time.
So it has to remain illegal for government to at all interfere in this essential weapons ownership by the general population.

Yea uh huh and i gain all the rewards with almost none of the risks with you having the gun

The only way to ensure the majority has guns to prevent tyranny, is for the right for all individuals to have guns to be kept sacrosanct.
If one generation becomes lazy and complacent, then they doom all future generations to authoritarian dictatorship at some point.

Yea and they viewed that as the states prerogative, not random plebs

Again the founding fathers hated people like you. They did not trust you to make choices about what is and is not tyrannical, or do much of anything else really.

We aren't a democracy we're a republic, there wasn't even any illusion you were allowed to vote much less use arms to affect politics.

so not only do you read minds, but read the minds of dead people,,

YOURE FUCKING AMAZING!!!

Yea it's almost like if you have a high IQ they go into great detail about American history in our education....

It's not very long relative to most nations. You can spend some time on what the founding fathers thought and the implications of the system they made. Not very difficult to connect these dots.

AP history class kids hear detailed history, not some tainted form of it, which is why teh right hates them so much. You're exhibiting the common strain of "ignorance is bliss" on our history. No it's not. Accept reality like a man. Yea our slave holding founding fatehrs who didn't like dmeocracy didn't enshrine your right to own a gun in the constitution. Not on purpose anyway

The Constitution has NO individual rights in it.
That was not its intent.
The Bill of Rights is ONLY to restrict the federal government, nothing more.
And the majority of the founders did not hold slaves or necessarily support slavery,
They did not like the original Athenian democracy, where everyone voted on each measure personally, and it had to be unanimous.
The had nothing against a representative democracy.

Of course it did.

The Bill of Rights is about the rights of the people individually and collectively and included those rights that were so important that a specific mention was needed to ensure the government could not violate them.

The bill of rights only limited the feds pre reconstruction

It did not enshrine any rights, it merely prevented the federal government from fucking with you on those rights.

Not your state or city government. Those protections would need to be in the state constitutions

Do none of you understand the system we have is in many ways not the system teh founding fathers gave us/

do you not understand that federal law supersedes state law???

AGAIN THAT WAS NOT TRUE UNTIL THE CIVIL WAR

IT WAS THE 14TH AMENDMENT THAT MAKES THAT TRUE

THIS IS WHY YOU DON'T FUCK WITH THE KID IN AP HISTORY. HOW DO YOU NOT KNOW THIS?

lol

Ron Paul's biggest dream is to basically repeal the 14th amendment so we can back to the era of "states rights"

Again the system we have is often not what the founding fathers envisioned.

states rights are not the issue,,

Yes they are, it's an issue on how we interpret federal constitutional protections

The founding fathers could not give you rights via the bill of rights under anything but federal law. Which at that time was basically meaningless because the federal government wasn't very big.

you dont interpret simple english,,, unless of course youre a dishonest person,,

It's law dude

The phrase "simple english" does not apply

what law?? got a link??

YOu want me to link you to the 14th amendment and basic american history/ lol

I could but considering you spent the better part of two decades going over our very short histroy and still don't get it. What is the point on trying to tell you for the 15th time?

the 14th didnt repeal the 2nd,,,

It did the opposite you dumb fuck

It made the 2nd amendment a universal right as opposed to something left up to the states

There was no way to interpret the second amendment as universal right pre 14th amendment.

GOOGLE IT YOU STUPID WHITE TRASH, MY GOD. YOU STILL DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE 14TH AMENDMENT EVEN IS

it was never up to the states,,, federal law over rides state law,,,

Google 14th amendment, i'm done

blocked for real this time i remembered how

your mother should have aborted you

so you admit youre wrong and now going to run away,,,

GOOD,,

 

[Blues Man]

No it doesn't.

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

Having a firearm increases your chance of dying from gunfire.

Being a CRIMINAL in possession of a firearm does.

You assholes always seem to leave off the important part.

as soon as you include accidental deaths and suicides you're clearly less safe with a gun than without

Our violence rate is way too low to justify owning a gun in most fo the country.

If you live in a poor part of Chicago or some other major urban center that is basically a warzone.....Then maybe it becomes rational

The great thing about rights are you don't need to justify exercising them.

It in no way follows that I think they should be taken away. Gun owners take all the risk of keeping elites scared of us?

But he seems to be confused about the statistical realities of safety and gun ownership. They will not make you safer on average.

Yes surprise your suburban little girl who you treat like a princess is not some disciplined little child soldier who won't accidentally shoot herself or some one else. Your family is probably not safer for having a gun in the house. You're in a catch 22 where you need easy access but that same access increases the threat level. *shrug*

Can't even trust the average suburban american kid at a gun range much less with 24/7 access. Going to be very few scenarios where a gun can keep you safe. Infinite where gun ownership can end up hurting you.

if anything guns are neutral when it comes to safety.

People who own guns legally are not the problem. If other activities had an accidental death rate as low as legal gun ownership they'd be praised as being extremely safe.

The problem with guns is and always has been the people who possess carry and use guns illegally.

You're very unlikely to ever need it

Which makes the claims they're neutral sort of insane

Actually, it is absolutely inevitable that people will need guns.
We formed this country due to corruption by government that required a rebellion.
That ALWAYS is the normal tendency, for all governments to become more corrupt, and for rebellion to restore rights for a time.
So whether or not guns become necessary in our life times, to us, is not relevant.
They absolutely will be necessary to some people at some time.
So it has to remain illegal for government to at all interfere in this essential weapons ownership by the general population.

Yea uh huh and i gain all the rewards with almost none of the risks with you having the gun

The only way to ensure the majority has guns to prevent tyranny, is for the right for all individuals to have guns to be kept sacrosanct.
If one generation becomes lazy and complacent, then they doom all future generations to authoritarian dictatorship at some point.

Yea and they viewed that as the states prerogative, not random plebs

Again the founding fathers hated people like you. They did not trust you to make choices about what is and is not tyrannical, or do much of anything else really.

We aren't a democracy we're a republic, there wasn't even any illusion you were allowed to vote much less use arms to affect politics.

so not only do you read minds, but read the minds of dead people,,

YOURE FUCKING AMAZING!!!

Yea it's almost like if you have a high IQ they go into great detail about American history in our education....

It's not very long relative to most nations. You can spend some time on what the founding fathers thought and the implications of the system they made. Not very difficult to connect these dots.

AP history class kids hear detailed history, not some tainted form of it, which is why teh right hates them so much. You're exhibiting the common strain of "ignorance is bliss" on our history. No it's not. Accept reality like a man. Yea our slave holding founding fatehrs who didn't like dmeocracy didn't enshrine your right to own a gun in the constitution. Not on purpose anyway

The Constitution has NO individual rights in it.
That was not its intent.
The Bill of Rights is ONLY to restrict the federal government, nothing more.
And the majority of the founders did not hold slaves or necessarily support slavery,
They did not like the original Athenian democracy, where everyone voted on each measure personally, and it had to be unanimous.
The had nothing against a representative democracy.

Of course it did.

The Bill of Rights is about the rights of the people individually and collectively and included those rights that were so important that a specific mention was needed to ensure the government could not violate them.

The bill of rights only limited the feds pre reconstruction

It did not enshrine any rights, it merely prevented the federal government from fucking with you

Not your state or city government. Those protections would need to be in the state constitutions

Do none of you understand the system we have is in many ways not the system teh founding fathers gave us/

You do realize that states are still bound by the Constitution right? State and local laws cannot violate the Constitution.

not pre civil war they weren't

you could have your own little theocracy, no first amendment protections

could certainly disarm people

This is why Ron Paul is a libertarian. The constitution allows him to have his own little theocracy in east texas as long as the texas constitution doesn't allow it. Many libertarians are not really believers in the NAP, they want pre reconstruction america. To go back to a time where the bill of rights did not apply to state governments

pre civil war is irrelevant to today

 

[Juicin]

No it doesn't.

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

Having a firearm increases your chance of dying from gunfire.

Being a CRIMINAL in possession of a firearm does.

You assholes always seem to leave off the important part.

as soon as you include accidental deaths and suicides you're clearly less safe with a gun than without

Our violence rate is way too low to justify owning a gun in most fo the country.

If you live in a poor part of Chicago or some other major urban center that is basically a warzone.....Then maybe it becomes rational

The great thing about rights are you don't need to justify exercising them.

It in no way follows that I think they should be taken away. Gun owners take all the risk of keeping elites scared of us?

But he seems to be confused about the statistical realities of safety and gun ownership. They will not make you safer on average.

Yes surprise your suburban little girl who you treat like a princess is not some disciplined little child soldier who won't accidentally shoot herself or some one else. Your family is probably not safer for having a gun in the house. You're in a catch 22 where you need easy access but that same access increases the threat level. *shrug*

Can't even trust the average suburban american kid at a gun range much less with 24/7 access. Going to be very few scenarios where a gun can keep you safe. Infinite where gun ownership can end up hurting you.

if anything guns are neutral when it comes to safety.

People who own guns legally are not the problem. If other activities had an accidental death rate as low as legal gun ownership they'd be praised as being extremely safe.

The problem with guns is and always has been the people who possess carry and use guns illegally.

You're very unlikely to ever need it

Which makes the claims they're neutral sort of insane

Actually, it is absolutely inevitable that people will need guns.
We formed this country due to corruption by government that required a rebellion.
That ALWAYS is the normal tendency, for all governments to become more corrupt, and for rebellion to restore rights for a time.
So whether or not guns become necessary in our life times, to us, is not relevant.
They absolutely will be necessary to some people at some time.
So it has to remain illegal for government to at all interfere in this essential weapons ownership by the general population.

Yea uh huh and i gain all the rewards with almost none of the risks with you having the gun

The only way to ensure the majority has guns to prevent tyranny, is for the right for all individuals to have guns to be kept sacrosanct.
If one generation becomes lazy and complacent, then they doom all future generations to authoritarian dictatorship at some point.

Yea and they viewed that as the states prerogative, not random plebs

Again the founding fathers hated people like you. They did not trust you to make choices about what is and is not tyrannical, or do much of anything else really.

We aren't a democracy we're a republic, there wasn't even any illusion you were allowed to vote much less use arms to affect politics.

so not only do you read minds, but read the minds of dead people,,

YOURE FUCKING AMAZING!!!

Yea it's almost like if you have a high IQ they go into great detail about American history in our education....

It's not very long relative to most nations. You can spend some time on what the founding fathers thought and the implications of the system they made. Not very difficult to connect these dots.

AP history class kids hear detailed history, not some tainted form of it, which is why teh right hates them so much. You're exhibiting the common strain of "ignorance is bliss" on our history. No it's not. Accept reality like a man. Yea our slave holding founding fatehrs who didn't like dmeocracy didn't enshrine your right to own a gun in the constitution. Not on purpose anyway

The Constitution has NO individual rights in it.
That was not its intent.
The Bill of Rights is ONLY to restrict the federal government, nothing more.
And the majority of the founders did not hold slaves or necessarily support slavery,
They did not like the original Athenian democracy, where everyone voted on each measure personally, and it had to be unanimous.
The had nothing against a representative democracy.

Of course it did.

The Bill of Rights is about the rights of the people individually and collectively and included those rights that were so important that a specific mention was needed to ensure the government could not violate them.

The bill of rights only limited the feds pre reconstruction

It did not enshrine any rights, it merely prevented the federal government from fucking with you

Not your state or city government. Those protections would need to be in the state constitutions

Do none of you understand the system we have is in many ways not the system teh founding fathers gave us/

You do realize that states are still bound by the Constitution right? State and local laws cannot violate the Constitution.

not pre civil war they weren't

you could have your own little theocracy, no first amendment protections

could certainly disarm people

This is why Ron Paul is a libertarian. The constitution allows him to have his own little theocracy in east texas as long as the texas constitution doesn't allow it. Many libertarians are not really believers in the NAP, they want pre reconstruction america. To go back to a time where the bill of rights did not apply to state governments

pre civil war is irrelevant to today

It's not to what the founding fathers thought tho

is it?

you stupid fuck

the founding fathers didn't do anything but gives states the rights to decide gun laws themselves. That's it

You'd have to be totally retarded to think they were mandating* anything approaching universal gun rights

 

[progressive hunter]

No it doesn't.

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

Having a firearm increases your chance of dying from gunfire.

Being a CRIMINAL in possession of a firearm does.

You assholes always seem to leave off the important part.

as soon as you include accidental deaths and suicides you're clearly less safe with a gun than without

Our violence rate is way too low to justify owning a gun in most fo the country.

If you live in a poor part of Chicago or some other major urban center that is basically a warzone.....Then maybe it becomes rational

The great thing about rights are you don't need to justify exercising them.

It in no way follows that I think they should be taken away. Gun owners take all the risk of keeping elites scared of us?

But he seems to be confused about the statistical realities of safety and gun ownership. They will not make you safer on average.

Yes surprise your suburban little girl who you treat like a princess is not some disciplined little child soldier who won't accidentally shoot herself or some one else. Your family is probably not safer for having a gun in the house. You're in a catch 22 where you need easy access but that same access increases the threat level. *shrug*

Can't even trust the average suburban american kid at a gun range much less with 24/7 access. Going to be very few scenarios where a gun can keep you safe. Infinite where gun ownership can end up hurting you.

if anything guns are neutral when it comes to safety.

People who own guns legally are not the problem. If other activities had an accidental death rate as low as legal gun ownership they'd be praised as being extremely safe.

The problem with guns is and always has been the people who possess carry and use guns illegally.

You're very unlikely to ever need it

Which makes the claims they're neutral sort of insane

Actually, it is absolutely inevitable that people will need guns.
We formed this country due to corruption by government that required a rebellion.
That ALWAYS is the normal tendency, for all governments to become more corrupt, and for rebellion to restore rights for a time.
So whether or not guns become necessary in our life times, to us, is not relevant.
They absolutely will be necessary to some people at some time.
So it has to remain illegal for government to at all interfere in this essential weapons ownership by the general population.

Yea uh huh and i gain all the rewards with almost none of the risks with you having the gun

The only way to ensure the majority has guns to prevent tyranny, is for the right for all individuals to have guns to be kept sacrosanct.
If one generation becomes lazy and complacent, then they doom all future generations to authoritarian dictatorship at some point.

Yea and they viewed that as the states prerogative, not random plebs

Again the founding fathers hated people like you. They did not trust you to make choices about what is and is not tyrannical, or do much of anything else really.

We aren't a democracy we're a republic, there wasn't even any illusion you were allowed to vote much less use arms to affect politics.

so not only do you read minds, but read the minds of dead people,,

YOURE FUCKING AMAZING!!!

Yea it's almost like if you have a high IQ they go into great detail about American history in our education....

It's not very long relative to most nations. You can spend some time on what the founding fathers thought and the implications of the system they made. Not very difficult to connect these dots.

AP history class kids hear detailed history, not some tainted form of it, which is why teh right hates them so much. You're exhibiting the common strain of "ignorance is bliss" on our history. No it's not. Accept reality like a man. Yea our slave holding founding fatehrs who didn't like dmeocracy didn't enshrine your right to own a gun in the constitution. Not on purpose anyway

The Constitution has NO individual rights in it.
That was not its intent.
The Bill of Rights is ONLY to restrict the federal government, nothing more.
And the majority of the founders did not hold slaves or necessarily support slavery,
They did not like the original Athenian democracy, where everyone voted on each measure personally, and it had to be unanimous.
The had nothing against a representative democracy.

Of course it did.

The Bill of Rights is about the rights of the people individually and collectively and included those rights that were so important that a specific mention was needed to ensure the government could not violate them.

The bill of rights only limited the feds pre reconstruction

It did not enshrine any rights, it merely prevented the federal government from fucking with you

Not your state or city government. Those protections would need to be in the state constitutions

Do none of you understand the system we have is in many ways not the system teh founding fathers gave us/

You do realize that states are still bound by the Constitution right? State and local laws cannot violate the Constitution.

not pre civil war they weren't

you could have your own little theocracy, no first amendment protections

could certainly disarm people

This is why Ron Paul is a libertarian. The constitution allows him to have his own little theocracy in east texas as long as the texas constitution doesn't allow it. Many libertarians are not really believers in the NAP, they want pre reconstruction america. To go back to a time where the bill of rights did not apply to state governments

pre civil war is irrelevant to today

It's not to what the founding fathers thought tho

is it?

you stupid fuck

the founding fathers didn't do anything but gives states the rights to decide gun laws themselves. That's it

then why doesnt the constitution say that???

 

[Rigby5]

No it doesn't.

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

Having a firearm increases your chance of dying from gunfire.

Being a CRIMINAL in possession of a firearm does.

You assholes always seem to leave off the important part.

as soon as you include accidental deaths and suicides you're clearly less safe with a gun than without

Our violence rate is way too low to justify owning a gun in most fo the country.

If you live in a poor part of Chicago or some other major urban center that is basically a warzone.....Then maybe it becomes rational

The great thing about rights are you don't need to justify exercising them.

It in no way follows that I think they should be taken away. Gun owners take all the risk of keeping elites scared of us?

But he seems to be confused about the statistical realities of safety and gun ownership. They will not make you safer on average.

Yes surprise your suburban little girl who you treat like a princess is not some disciplined little child soldier who won't accidentally shoot herself or some one else. Your family is probably not safer for having a gun in the house. You're in a catch 22 where you need easy access but that same access increases the threat level. *shrug*

Can't even trust the average suburban american kid at a gun range much less with 24/7 access. Going to be very few scenarios where a gun can keep you safe. Infinite where gun ownership can end up hurting you.

if anything guns are neutral when it comes to safety.

People who own guns legally are not the problem. If other activities had an accidental death rate as low as legal gun ownership they'd be praised as being extremely safe.

The problem with guns is and always has been the people who possess carry and use guns illegally.

You're very unlikely to ever need it

Which makes the claims they're neutral sort of insane

Actually, it is absolutely inevitable that people will need guns.
We formed this country due to corruption by government that required a rebellion.
That ALWAYS is the normal tendency, for all governments to become more corrupt, and for rebellion to restore rights for a time.
So whether or not guns become necessary in our life times, to us, is not relevant.
They absolutely will be necessary to some people at some time.
So it has to remain illegal for government to at all interfere in this essential weapons ownership by the general population.

Yea uh huh and i gain all the rewards with almost none of the risks with you having the gun

The only way to ensure the majority has guns to prevent tyranny, is for the right for all individuals to have guns to be kept sacrosanct.
If one generation becomes lazy and complacent, then they doom all future generations to authoritarian dictatorship at some point.

Yea and they viewed that as the states prerogative, not random plebs

Again the founding fathers hated people like you. They did not trust you to make choices about what is and is not tyrannical, or do much of anything else really.

We aren't a democracy we're a republic, there wasn't even any illusion you were allowed to vote much less use arms to affect politics.

so not only do you read minds, but read the minds of dead people,,

YOURE FUCKING AMAZING!!!

Yea it's almost like if you have a high IQ they go into great detail about American history in our education....

It's not very long relative to most nations. You can spend some time on what the founding fathers thought and the implications of the system they made. Not very difficult to connect these dots.

AP history class kids hear detailed history, not some tainted form of it, which is why teh right hates them so much. You're exhibiting the common strain of "ignorance is bliss" on our history. No it's not. Accept reality like a man. Yea our slave holding founding fatehrs who didn't like dmeocracy didn't enshrine your right to own a gun in the constitution. Not on purpose anyway

The Constitution has NO individual rights in it.
That was not its intent.
The Bill of Rights is ONLY to restrict the federal government, nothing more.
And the majority of the founders did not hold slaves or necessarily support slavery,
They did not like the original Athenian democracy, where everyone voted on each measure personally, and it had to be unanimous.
The had nothing against a representative democracy.

It does post reconstruction, because no level of governmetn can violate your constitutionally provided rights

Pre reconstruction it didn't

While that is true, it is also not relevant.
There are lots of individual rights the state nor federal government may not infringe upon, that are not enumerated.
They are infinite, so could never be enumerated.
That was the argument against the Bill of Rights, in that they were afraid some might get the false impression that only enumerated rights were protected.
An example is the right to privacy.
Not enumerated anywhere, but could not be infringed upon by federal, state, or local, even before the reconstruction period and 14th amendment.
And the right to defensive weapons should be obvious, since there is no other way to defend the right to life.

 

[Juicin]

No it doesn't.

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

Having a firearm increases your chance of dying from gunfire.

Being a CRIMINAL in possession of a firearm does.

You assholes always seem to leave off the important part.

as soon as you include accidental deaths and suicides you're clearly less safe with a gun than without

Our violence rate is way too low to justify owning a gun in most fo the country.

If you live in a poor part of Chicago or some other major urban center that is basically a warzone.....Then maybe it becomes rational

The great thing about rights are you don't need to justify exercising them.

It in no way follows that I think they should be taken away. Gun owners take all the risk of keeping elites scared of us?

But he seems to be confused about the statistical realities of safety and gun ownership. They will not make you safer on average.

Yes surprise your suburban little girl who you treat like a princess is not some disciplined little child soldier who won't accidentally shoot herself or some one else. Your family is probably not safer for having a gun in the house. You're in a catch 22 where you need easy access but that same access increases the threat level. *shrug*

Can't even trust the average suburban american kid at a gun range much less with 24/7 access. Going to be very few scenarios where a gun can keep you safe. Infinite where gun ownership can end up hurting you.

if anything guns are neutral when it comes to safety.

People who own guns legally are not the problem. If other activities had an accidental death rate as low as legal gun ownership they'd be praised as being extremely safe.

The problem with guns is and always has been the people who possess carry and use guns illegally.

You're very unlikely to ever need it

Which makes the claims they're neutral sort of insane

Actually, it is absolutely inevitable that people will need guns.
We formed this country due to corruption by government that required a rebellion.
That ALWAYS is the normal tendency, for all governments to become more corrupt, and for rebellion to restore rights for a time.
So whether or not guns become necessary in our life times, to us, is not relevant.
They absolutely will be necessary to some people at some time.
So it has to remain illegal for government to at all interfere in this essential weapons ownership by the general population.

Yea uh huh and i gain all the rewards with almost none of the risks with you having the gun

The only way to ensure the majority has guns to prevent tyranny, is for the right for all individuals to have guns to be kept sacrosanct.
If one generation becomes lazy and complacent, then they doom all future generations to authoritarian dictatorship at some point.

Yea and they viewed that as the states prerogative, not random plebs

Again the founding fathers hated people like you. They did not trust you to make choices about what is and is not tyrannical, or do much of anything else really.

We aren't a democracy we're a republic, there wasn't even any illusion you were allowed to vote much less use arms to affect politics.

so not only do you read minds, but read the minds of dead people,,

YOURE FUCKING AMAZING!!!

Yea it's almost like if you have a high IQ they go into great detail about American history in our education....

It's not very long relative to most nations. You can spend some time on what the founding fathers thought and the implications of the system they made. Not very difficult to connect these dots.

AP history class kids hear detailed history, not some tainted form of it, which is why teh right hates them so much. You're exhibiting the common strain of "ignorance is bliss" on our history. No it's not. Accept reality like a man. Yea our slave holding founding fatehrs who didn't like dmeocracy didn't enshrine your right to own a gun in the constitution. Not on purpose anyway

The Constitution has NO individual rights in it.
That was not its intent.
The Bill of Rights is ONLY to restrict the federal government, nothing more.
And the majority of the founders did not hold slaves or necessarily support slavery,
They did not like the original Athenian democracy, where everyone voted on each measure personally, and it had to be unanimous.
The had nothing against a representative democracy.

It does post reconstruction, because no level of governmetn can violate your constitutionally provided rights

Pre reconstruction it didn't

While that is true, it is also not relevant.
There are lots of individual rights the state nor federal government may not infringe upon, that are not enumerated.
They are infinite, so could never be enumerated.
That was the argument against the Bill of Rights, in that they were afraid some might get the false impression that only enumerated rights were protected.
An example is the right to privacy.
Not enumerated anywhere, but could not be infringed upon by federal, state, or local, even before the reconstruction period and 14th amendment.
And the right to defensive weapons should be obvious, since there is no other way to defend the right to life.

States had absolute control of gun laws inside their border pre 14th amendment, period

Just because states didn't take the guns away doesn't mean the founding fathers wanted you to have a gun, they didn't.

 

[progressive hunter]

No it doesn't.

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

Having a firearm increases your chance of dying from gunfire.

Being a CRIMINAL in possession of a firearm does.

You assholes always seem to leave off the important part.

as soon as you include accidental deaths and suicides you're clearly less safe with a gun than without

Our violence rate is way too low to justify owning a gun in most fo the country.

If you live in a poor part of Chicago or some other major urban center that is basically a warzone.....Then maybe it becomes rational

The great thing about rights are you don't need to justify exercising them.

It in no way follows that I think they should be taken away. Gun owners take all the risk of keeping elites scared of us?

But he seems to be confused about the statistical realities of safety and gun ownership. They will not make you safer on average.

Yes surprise your suburban little girl who you treat like a princess is not some disciplined little child soldier who won't accidentally shoot herself or some one else. Your family is probably not safer for having a gun in the house. You're in a catch 22 where you need easy access but that same access increases the threat level. *shrug*

Can't even trust the average suburban american kid at a gun range much less with 24/7 access. Going to be very few scenarios where a gun can keep you safe. Infinite where gun ownership can end up hurting you.

if anything guns are neutral when it comes to safety.

People who own guns legally are not the problem. If other activities had an accidental death rate as low as legal gun ownership they'd be praised as being extremely safe.

The problem with guns is and always has been the people who possess carry and use guns illegally.

You're very unlikely to ever need it

Which makes the claims they're neutral sort of insane

Actually, it is absolutely inevitable that people will need guns.
We formed this country due to corruption by government that required a rebellion.
That ALWAYS is the normal tendency, for all governments to become more corrupt, and for rebellion to restore rights for a time.
So whether or not guns become necessary in our life times, to us, is not relevant.
They absolutely will be necessary to some people at some time.
So it has to remain illegal for government to at all interfere in this essential weapons ownership by the general population.

Yea uh huh and i gain all the rewards with almost none of the risks with you having the gun

The only way to ensure the majority has guns to prevent tyranny, is for the right for all individuals to have guns to be kept sacrosanct.
If one generation becomes lazy and complacent, then they doom all future generations to authoritarian dictatorship at some point.

Yea and they viewed that as the states prerogative, not random plebs

Again the founding fathers hated people like you. They did not trust you to make choices about what is and is not tyrannical, or do much of anything else really.

We aren't a democracy we're a republic, there wasn't even any illusion you were allowed to vote much less use arms to affect politics.

so not only do you read minds, but read the minds of dead people,,

YOURE FUCKING AMAZING!!!

Yea it's almost like if you have a high IQ they go into great detail about American history in our education....

It's not very long relative to most nations. You can spend some time on what the founding fathers thought and the implications of the system they made. Not very difficult to connect these dots.

AP history class kids hear detailed history, not some tainted form of it, which is why teh right hates them so much. You're exhibiting the common strain of "ignorance is bliss" on our history. No it's not. Accept reality like a man. Yea our slave holding founding fatehrs who didn't like dmeocracy didn't enshrine your right to own a gun in the constitution. Not on purpose anyway

The Constitution has NO individual rights in it.
That was not its intent.
The Bill of Rights is ONLY to restrict the federal government, nothing more.
And the majority of the founders did not hold slaves or necessarily support slavery,
They did not like the original Athenian democracy, where everyone voted on each measure personally, and it had to be unanimous.
The had nothing against a representative democracy.

It does post reconstruction, because no level of governmetn can violate your constitutionally provided rights

Pre reconstruction it didn't

While that is true, it is also not relevant.
There are lots of individual rights the state nor federal government may not infringe upon, that are not enumerated.
They are infinite, so could never be enumerated.
That was the argument against the Bill of Rights, in that they were afraid some might get the false impression that only enumerated rights were protected.
An example is the right to privacy.
Not enumerated anywhere, but could not be infringed upon by federal, state, or local, even before the reconstruction period and 14th amendment.
And the right to defensive weapons should be obvious, since there is no other way to defend the right to life.

States had absolute control of gun laws pre 14th amendment, period

the 2nd A says otherwise,,,

 

[Rigby5]

No it doesn't.

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

Having a firearm increases your chance of dying from gunfire.

Being a CRIMINAL in possession of a firearm does.

You assholes always seem to leave off the important part.

as soon as you include accidental deaths and suicides you're clearly less safe with a gun than without

Our violence rate is way too low to justify owning a gun in most fo the country.

If you live in a poor part of Chicago or some other major urban center that is basically a warzone.....Then maybe it becomes rational

The great thing about rights are you don't need to justify exercising them.

It in no way follows that I think they should be taken away. Gun owners take all the risk of keeping elites scared of us?

But he seems to be confused about the statistical realities of safety and gun ownership. They will not make you safer on average.

Yes surprise your suburban little girl who you treat like a princess is not some disciplined little child soldier who won't accidentally shoot herself or some one else. Your family is probably not safer for having a gun in the house. You're in a catch 22 where you need easy access but that same access increases the threat level. *shrug*

Can't even trust the average suburban american kid at a gun range much less with 24/7 access. Going to be very few scenarios where a gun can keep you safe. Infinite where gun ownership can end up hurting you.

if anything guns are neutral when it comes to safety.

People who own guns legally are not the problem. If other activities had an accidental death rate as low as legal gun ownership they'd be praised as being extremely safe.

The problem with guns is and always has been the people who possess carry and use guns illegally.

You're very unlikely to ever need it

Which makes the claims they're neutral sort of insane

Actually, it is absolutely inevitable that people will need guns.
We formed this country due to corruption by government that required a rebellion.
That ALWAYS is the normal tendency, for all governments to become more corrupt, and for rebellion to restore rights for a time.
So whether or not guns become necessary in our life times, to us, is not relevant.
They absolutely will be necessary to some people at some time.
So it has to remain illegal for government to at all interfere in this essential weapons ownership by the general population.

Yea uh huh and i gain all the rewards with almost none of the risks with you having the gun

The only way to ensure the majority has guns to prevent tyranny, is for the right for all individuals to have guns to be kept sacrosanct.
If one generation becomes lazy and complacent, then they doom all future generations to authoritarian dictatorship at some point.

Yea and they viewed that as the states prerogative, not random plebs

Again the founding fathers hated people like you. They did not trust you to make choices about what is and is not tyrannical, or do much of anything else really.

We aren't a democracy we're a republic, there wasn't even any illusion you were allowed to vote much less use arms to affect politics.

so not only do you read minds, but read the minds of dead people,,

YOURE FUCKING AMAZING!!!

Yea it's almost like if you have a high IQ they go into great detail about American history in our education....

It's not very long relative to most nations. You can spend some time on what the founding fathers thought and the implications of the system they made. Not very difficult to connect these dots.

AP history class kids hear detailed history, not some tainted form of it, which is why teh right hates them so much. You're exhibiting the common strain of "ignorance is bliss" on our history. No it's not. Accept reality like a man. Yea our slave holding founding fatehrs who didn't like dmeocracy didn't enshrine your right to own a gun in the constitution. Not on purpose anyway

The Constitution has NO individual rights in it.
That was not its intent.
The Bill of Rights is ONLY to restrict the federal government, nothing more.
And the majority of the founders did not hold slaves or necessarily support slavery,
They did not like the original Athenian democracy, where everyone voted on each measure personally, and it had to be unanimous.
The had nothing against a representative democracy.

Of course it did.

The Bill of Rights is about the rights of the people individually and collectively and included those rights that were so important that a specific mention was needed to ensure the government could not violate them.

The bill of rights only limited the feds pre reconstruction

It did not enshrine any rights, it merely prevented the federal government from fucking with you on those rights.

Not your state or city government. Those protections would need to be in the state constitutions

Do none of you understand the system we have is in many ways not the system teh founding fathers gave us/

do you not understand that federal law supersedes state law???

AGAIN THAT WAS NOT TRUE UNTIL THE CIVIL WAR

IT WAS THE 14TH AMENDMENT THAT MAKES THAT TRUE

THIS IS WHY YOU DON'T FUCK WITH THE KID IN AP HISTORY. HOW DO YOU NOT KNOW THIS?

lol

Ron Paul's biggest dream is to basically repeal the 14th ammendment so we can back to the era of "states rights"

No, it was also state constitutions that enshrined individual rights.

What? did you quote the wrong post?

i've already said 10 times states were bound by their own constitutions

The point is individual rights ARE enshrined and always have been.
The fact that was not an obligation of the federal government, does not mean individual rights were not enshrined before the 14th amendment forced the federal government to also protect them.
The point of the Declaration of Independence is to enshrine individual rights.
They not only superceed government, but are what allows for government to exist at all.
So then no, any significant gun control is inherently illegal, whether federal, state, or local.
But the closer to the people, the more legitimate gun law may be.
Like an age restriction could be reasonable.
But that should not be federal.
Clearly that should change based on locations.
For example, a 16 year old should have firearms possession rights in bear country, but maybe not in somewhere like NYC.

 

[progressive hunter]

No it doesn't.

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

Having a firearm increases your chance of dying from gunfire.

Being a CRIMINAL in possession of a firearm does.

You assholes always seem to leave off the important part.

as soon as you include accidental deaths and suicides you're clearly less safe with a gun than without

Our violence rate is way too low to justify owning a gun in most fo the country.

If you live in a poor part of Chicago or some other major urban center that is basically a warzone.....Then maybe it becomes rational

The great thing about rights are you don't need to justify exercising them.

It in no way follows that I think they should be taken away. Gun owners take all the risk of keeping elites scared of us?

But he seems to be confused about the statistical realities of safety and gun ownership. They will not make you safer on average.

Yes surprise your suburban little girl who you treat like a princess is not some disciplined little child soldier who won't accidentally shoot herself or some one else. Your family is probably not safer for having a gun in the house. You're in a catch 22 where you need easy access but that same access increases the threat level. *shrug*

Can't even trust the average suburban american kid at a gun range much less with 24/7 access. Going to be very few scenarios where a gun can keep you safe. Infinite where gun ownership can end up hurting you.

if anything guns are neutral when it comes to safety.

People who own guns legally are not the problem. If other activities had an accidental death rate as low as legal gun ownership they'd be praised as being extremely safe.

The problem with guns is and always has been the people who possess carry and use guns illegally.

You're very unlikely to ever need it

Which makes the claims they're neutral sort of insane

Actually, it is absolutely inevitable that people will need guns.
We formed this country due to corruption by government that required a rebellion.
That ALWAYS is the normal tendency, for all governments to become more corrupt, and for rebellion to restore rights for a time.
So whether or not guns become necessary in our life times, to us, is not relevant.
They absolutely will be necessary to some people at some time.
So it has to remain illegal for government to at all interfere in this essential weapons ownership by the general population.

Yea uh huh and i gain all the rewards with almost none of the risks with you having the gun

The only way to ensure the majority has guns to prevent tyranny, is for the right for all individuals to have guns to be kept sacrosanct.
If one generation becomes lazy and complacent, then they doom all future generations to authoritarian dictatorship at some point.

Yea and they viewed that as the states prerogative, not random plebs

Again the founding fathers hated people like you. They did not trust you to make choices about what is and is not tyrannical, or do much of anything else really.

We aren't a democracy we're a republic, there wasn't even any illusion you were allowed to vote much less use arms to affect politics.

so not only do you read minds, but read the minds of dead people,,

YOURE FUCKING AMAZING!!!

Yea it's almost like if you have a high IQ they go into great detail about American history in our education....

It's not very long relative to most nations. You can spend some time on what the founding fathers thought and the implications of the system they made. Not very difficult to connect these dots.

AP history class kids hear detailed history, not some tainted form of it, which is why teh right hates them so much. You're exhibiting the common strain of "ignorance is bliss" on our history. No it's not. Accept reality like a man. Yea our slave holding founding fatehrs who didn't like dmeocracy didn't enshrine your right to own a gun in the constitution. Not on purpose anyway

The Constitution has NO individual rights in it.
That was not its intent.
The Bill of Rights is ONLY to restrict the federal government, nothing more.
And the majority of the founders did not hold slaves or necessarily support slavery,
They did not like the original Athenian democracy, where everyone voted on each measure personally, and it had to be unanimous.
The had nothing against a representative democracy.

Of course it did.

The Bill of Rights is about the rights of the people individually and collectively and included those rights that were so important that a specific mention was needed to ensure the government could not violate them.

The bill of rights only limited the feds pre reconstruction

It did not enshrine any rights, it merely prevented the federal government from fucking with you on those rights.

Not your state or city government. Those protections would need to be in the state constitutions

Do none of you understand the system we have is in many ways not the system teh founding fathers gave us/

do you not understand that federal law supersedes state law???

AGAIN THAT WAS NOT TRUE UNTIL THE CIVIL WAR

IT WAS THE 14TH AMENDMENT THAT MAKES THAT TRUE

THIS IS WHY YOU DON'T FUCK WITH THE KID IN AP HISTORY. HOW DO YOU NOT KNOW THIS?

lol

Ron Paul's biggest dream is to basically repeal the 14th ammendment so we can back to the era of "states rights"

No, it was also state constitutions that enshrined individual rights.

What? did you quote the wrong post?

i've already said 10 times states were bound by their own constitutions

The point is individual rights ARE enshrined and always have been.
The fact that was not an obligation of the federal government, does not mean individual rights were not enshrined before the 14th amendment forced the federal government to also protect them.
The point of the Declaration of Independence is to enshrine individual rights.
They not only superceed government, but are what allows for government to exist at all.
So then no, any significant gun control is inherently illegal, whether federal, state, or local.
But the closer to the people, the more legitimate gun law may be.
Like an age restriction could be reasonable.
But that should not be federal.
Clearly that should change based on locations.
For example, a 16 year old should have firearms possession rights in bear country, but maybe not in somewhere like NYC.

ask him what other of the bill of rights the states can change?? can they change the 5th or 6th and execute people without a fair trial??

he has me on ignore cause I keep proving him wrong,,,

 

[Rigby5]

No it doesn't.

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

Having a firearm increases your chance of dying from gunfire.

Being a CRIMINAL in possession of a firearm does.

You assholes always seem to leave off the important part.

as soon as you include accidental deaths and suicides you're clearly less safe with a gun than without

Our violence rate is way too low to justify owning a gun in most fo the country.

If you live in a poor part of Chicago or some other major urban center that is basically a warzone.....Then maybe it becomes rational

The great thing about rights are you don't need to justify exercising them.

It in no way follows that I think they should be taken away. Gun owners take all the risk of keeping elites scared of us?

But he seems to be confused about the statistical realities of safety and gun ownership. They will not make you safer on average.

Yes surprise your suburban little girl who you treat like a princess is not some disciplined little child soldier who won't accidentally shoot herself or some one else. Your family is probably not safer for having a gun in the house. You're in a catch 22 where you need easy access but that same access increases the threat level. *shrug*

Can't even trust the average suburban american kid at a gun range much less with 24/7 access. Going to be very few scenarios where a gun can keep you safe. Infinite where gun ownership can end up hurting you.

if anything guns are neutral when it comes to safety.

People who own guns legally are not the problem. If other activities had an accidental death rate as low as legal gun ownership they'd be praised as being extremely safe.

The problem with guns is and always has been the people who possess carry and use guns illegally.

You're very unlikely to ever need it

Which makes the claims they're neutral sort of insane

Actually, it is absolutely inevitable that people will need guns.
We formed this country due to corruption by government that required a rebellion.
That ALWAYS is the normal tendency, for all governments to become more corrupt, and for rebellion to restore rights for a time.
So whether or not guns become necessary in our life times, to us, is not relevant.
They absolutely will be necessary to some people at some time.
So it has to remain illegal for government to at all interfere in this essential weapons ownership by the general population.

Yea uh huh and i gain all the rewards with almost none of the risks with you having the gun

The only way to ensure the majority has guns to prevent tyranny, is for the right for all individuals to have guns to be kept sacrosanct.
If one generation becomes lazy and complacent, then they doom all future generations to authoritarian dictatorship at some point.

Yea and they viewed that as the states prerogative, not random plebs

Again the founding fathers hated people like you. They did not trust you to make choices about what is and is not tyrannical, or do much of anything else really.

We aren't a democracy we're a republic, there wasn't even any illusion you were allowed to vote much less use arms to affect politics.

so not only do you read minds, but read the minds of dead people,,

YOURE FUCKING AMAZING!!!

Yea it's almost like if you have a high IQ they go into great detail about American history in our education....

It's not very long relative to most nations. You can spend some time on what the founding fathers thought and the implications of the system they made. Not very difficult to connect these dots.

AP history class kids hear detailed history, not some tainted form of it, which is why teh right hates them so much. You're exhibiting the common strain of "ignorance is bliss" on our history. No it's not. Accept reality like a man. Yea our slave holding founding fatehrs who didn't like dmeocracy didn't enshrine your right to own a gun in the constitution. Not on purpose anyway

The Constitution has NO individual rights in it.
That was not its intent.
The Bill of Rights is ONLY to restrict the federal government, nothing more.
And the majority of the founders did not hold slaves or necessarily support slavery,
They did not like the original Athenian democracy, where everyone voted on each measure personally, and it had to be unanimous.
The had nothing against a representative democracy.

It does post reconstruction, because no level of governmetn can violate your constitutionally provided rights

Pre reconstruction it didn't

While that is true, it is also not relevant.
There are lots of individual rights the state nor federal government may not infringe upon, that are not enumerated.
They are infinite, so could never be enumerated.
That was the argument against the Bill of Rights, in that they were afraid some might get the false impression that only enumerated rights were protected.
An example is the right to privacy.
Not enumerated anywhere, but could not be infringed upon by federal, state, or local, even before the reconstruction period and 14th amendment.
And the right to defensive weapons should be obvious, since there is no other way to defend the right to life.

States had absolute control of gun laws inside their border pre 14th amendment, period

Just because states didn't take the guns away doesn't mean the founding fathers wanted you to have a gun, they didn't.

No, individual rights ALWAYS had precedence over any level of government authority.
That is because government authority is just borrowing delegated authority derived from the collective defense of inherent individual rights. So no government could ever legally violate individual rights.
Rights like self defense, privacy, family, etc., always are superior to any government authority.
If not, that is legitimate grounds for a rebellion.

And you keep saying the founders did not want everyone to be armed, and that is just plain false.
They wrote often about considering making being armed mandatory and universal.
Washington in particular was well known for making that clear.

from the former president’s annual address to the Senate and House of Representatives on 8 January 1790, in which he argued in favor of an armed citizenry and self-sufficiency in production military supplies as a deterrent to war:

Among the many interesting objects, which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defence will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.
A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.
The proper establishment of the Troops which may be deemed indispensible, will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it, it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the Officers and Soldiers with a due regard to economy.

 

[Rigby5]

...

It did the opposite you dumb fuck

It made the 2nd amendment a universal right as opposed to something left up to the states

There was no way to interpret the second amendment as universal right pre 14th amendment.

GOOGLE IT YOU STUPID WHITE TRASH, MY GOD. YOU STILL DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE 14TH AMENDMENT EVEN IS. AS SOON AS YOU DO YOU WILL REALIZE HOW ABSURD IT IS TO THINK THE FOUNDING FATHERS GUARANTEED YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE A GUN

edit- no you won't, you're fucking retarded. Who am i kidding. Blocking you for being so fucking dense.

You join an elite list of only one other person who i blocked for reasons i can't remember

But you seem to be of the false impression individual rights did not exist before the 14th amendment?
And that is wrong.
There are no state firearm laws before the Civil War.
That was because firearms for self defense were so universally accepted as an individual right, no such law would have been tolerated, on federal, state, or local level.
The whole point of needing the 14th amendment is that states started to make restrictive firearm law after the Civil War, against Blacks.

 

[Juicin]

No it doesn't.

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

Having a firearm increases your chance of dying from gunfire.

Being a CRIMINAL in possession of a firearm does.

You assholes always seem to leave off the important part.

as soon as you include accidental deaths and suicides you're clearly less safe with a gun than without

Our violence rate is way too low to justify owning a gun in most fo the country.

If you live in a poor part of Chicago or some other major urban center that is basically a warzone.....Then maybe it becomes rational

The great thing about rights are you don't need to justify exercising them.

It in no way follows that I think they should be taken away. Gun owners take all the risk of keeping elites scared of us?

But he seems to be confused about the statistical realities of safety and gun ownership. They will not make you safer on average.

Yes surprise your suburban little girl who you treat like a princess is not some disciplined little child soldier who won't accidentally shoot herself or some one else. Your family is probably not safer for having a gun in the house. You're in a catch 22 where you need easy access but that same access increases the threat level. *shrug*

Can't even trust the average suburban american kid at a gun range much less with 24/7 access. Going to be very few scenarios where a gun can keep you safe. Infinite where gun ownership can end up hurting you.

if anything guns are neutral when it comes to safety.

People who own guns legally are not the problem. If other activities had an accidental death rate as low as legal gun ownership they'd be praised as being extremely safe.

The problem with guns is and always has been the people who possess carry and use guns illegally.

You're very unlikely to ever need it

Which makes the claims they're neutral sort of insane

Actually, it is absolutely inevitable that people will need guns.
We formed this country due to corruption by government that required a rebellion.
That ALWAYS is the normal tendency, for all governments to become more corrupt, and for rebellion to restore rights for a time.
So whether or not guns become necessary in our life times, to us, is not relevant.
They absolutely will be necessary to some people at some time.
So it has to remain illegal for government to at all interfere in this essential weapons ownership by the general population.

Yea uh huh and i gain all the rewards with almost none of the risks with you having the gun

The only way to ensure the majority has guns to prevent tyranny, is for the right for all individuals to have guns to be kept sacrosanct.
If one generation becomes lazy and complacent, then they doom all future generations to authoritarian dictatorship at some point.

Yea and they viewed that as the states prerogative, not random plebs

Again the founding fathers hated people like you. They did not trust you to make choices about what is and is not tyrannical, or do much of anything else really.

We aren't a democracy we're a republic, there wasn't even any illusion you were allowed to vote much less use arms to affect politics.

so not only do you read minds, but read the minds of dead people,,

YOURE FUCKING AMAZING!!!

Yea it's almost like if you have a high IQ they go into great detail about American history in our education....

It's not very long relative to most nations. You can spend some time on what the founding fathers thought and the implications of the system they made. Not very difficult to connect these dots.

AP history class kids hear detailed history, not some tainted form of it, which is why teh right hates them so much. You're exhibiting the common strain of "ignorance is bliss" on our history. No it's not. Accept reality like a man. Yea our slave holding founding fatehrs who didn't like dmeocracy didn't enshrine your right to own a gun in the constitution. Not on purpose anyway

The Constitution has NO individual rights in it.
That was not its intent.
The Bill of Rights is ONLY to restrict the federal government, nothing more.
And the majority of the founders did not hold slaves or necessarily support slavery,
They did not like the original Athenian democracy, where everyone voted on each measure personally, and it had to be unanimous.
The had nothing against a representative democracy.

Of course it did.

The Bill of Rights is about the rights of the people individually and collectively and included those rights that were so important that a specific mention was needed to ensure the government could not violate them.

The bill of rights only limited the feds pre reconstruction

It did not enshrine any rights, it merely prevented the federal government from fucking with you on those rights.

Not your state or city government. Those protections would need to be in the state constitutions

Do none of you understand the system we have is in many ways not the system teh founding fathers gave us/

do you not understand that federal law supersedes state law???

AGAIN THAT WAS NOT TRUE UNTIL THE CIVIL WAR

IT WAS THE 14TH AMENDMENT THAT MAKES THAT TRUE

THIS IS WHY YOU DON'T FUCK WITH THE KID IN AP HISTORY. HOW DO YOU NOT KNOW THIS?

lol

Ron Paul's biggest dream is to basically repeal the 14th ammendment so we can back to the era of "states rights"

No, it was also state constitutions that enshrined individual rights.

What? did you quote the wrong post?

i've already said 10 times states were bound by their own constitutions

The point is individual rights ARE enshrined and always have been.
The fact that was not an obligation of the federal government, does not mean individual rights were not enshrined before the 14th amendment forced the federal government to also protect them.
The point of the Declaration of Independence is to enshrine individual rights.
They not only superceed government, but are what allows for government to exist at all.
So then no, any significant gun control is inherently illegal, whether federal, state, or local.
But the closer to the people, the more legitimate gun law may be.
Like an age restriction could be reasonable.
But that should not be federal.
Clearly that should change based on locations.
For example, a 16 year old should have firearms possession rights in bear country, but maybe not in somewhere like NYC.

Me, Ron Paul, and every legal scholar with power disagree

If you reappeal the 14th amendment we have all sorts of precedent to fall back on

Yea maybe in time modern SCOTUS would say fuck it and do what they want and return us to what we are now. But that would be a long and arduous process the court would not undertake. They'd just have to overturn precedent after precedent until the court was just obviously legislating

 

[Tax Man]

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

So many more targets for me!!

 

[Juicin]

No it doesn't.

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

Having a firearm increases your chance of dying from gunfire.

Being a CRIMINAL in possession of a firearm does.

You assholes always seem to leave off the important part.

as soon as you include accidental deaths and suicides you're clearly less safe with a gun than without

Our violence rate is way too low to justify owning a gun in most fo the country.

If you live in a poor part of Chicago or some other major urban center that is basically a warzone.....Then maybe it becomes rational

The great thing about rights are you don't need to justify exercising them.

It in no way follows that I think they should be taken away. Gun owners take all the risk of keeping elites scared of us?

But he seems to be confused about the statistical realities of safety and gun ownership. They will not make you safer on average.

Yes surprise your suburban little girl who you treat like a princess is not some disciplined little child soldier who won't accidentally shoot herself or some one else. Your family is probably not safer for having a gun in the house. You're in a catch 22 where you need easy access but that same access increases the threat level. *shrug*

Can't even trust the average suburban american kid at a gun range much less with 24/7 access. Going to be very few scenarios where a gun can keep you safe. Infinite where gun ownership can end up hurting you.

if anything guns are neutral when it comes to safety.

People who own guns legally are not the problem. If other activities had an accidental death rate as low as legal gun ownership they'd be praised as being extremely safe.

The problem with guns is and always has been the people who possess carry and use guns illegally.

You're very unlikely to ever need it

Which makes the claims they're neutral sort of insane

Actually, it is absolutely inevitable that people will need guns.
We formed this country due to corruption by government that required a rebellion.
That ALWAYS is the normal tendency, for all governments to become more corrupt, and for rebellion to restore rights for a time.
So whether or not guns become necessary in our life times, to us, is not relevant.
They absolutely will be necessary to some people at some time.
So it has to remain illegal for government to at all interfere in this essential weapons ownership by the general population.

Yea uh huh and i gain all the rewards with almost none of the risks with you having the gun

The only way to ensure the majority has guns to prevent tyranny, is for the right for all individuals to have guns to be kept sacrosanct.
If one generation becomes lazy and complacent, then they doom all future generations to authoritarian dictatorship at some point.

Yea and they viewed that as the states prerogative, not random plebs

Again the founding fathers hated people like you. They did not trust you to make choices about what is and is not tyrannical, or do much of anything else really.

We aren't a democracy we're a republic, there wasn't even any illusion you were allowed to vote much less use arms to affect politics.

so not only do you read minds, but read the minds of dead people,,

YOURE FUCKING AMAZING!!!

Yea it's almost like if you have a high IQ they go into great detail about American history in our education....

It's not very long relative to most nations. You can spend some time on what the founding fathers thought and the implications of the system they made. Not very difficult to connect these dots.

AP history class kids hear detailed history, not some tainted form of it, which is why teh right hates them so much. You're exhibiting the common strain of "ignorance is bliss" on our history. No it's not. Accept reality like a man. Yea our slave holding founding fatehrs who didn't like dmeocracy didn't enshrine your right to own a gun in the constitution. Not on purpose anyway

The Constitution has NO individual rights in it.
That was not its intent.
The Bill of Rights is ONLY to restrict the federal government, nothing more.
And the majority of the founders did not hold slaves or necessarily support slavery,
They did not like the original Athenian democracy, where everyone voted on each measure personally, and it had to be unanimous.
The had nothing against a representative democracy.

It does post reconstruction, because no level of governmetn can violate your constitutionally provided rights

Pre reconstruction it didn't

While that is true, it is also not relevant.
There are lots of individual rights the state nor federal government may not infringe upon, that are not enumerated.
They are infinite, so could never be enumerated.
That was the argument against the Bill of Rights, in that they were afraid some might get the false impression that only enumerated rights were protected.
An example is the right to privacy.
Not enumerated anywhere, but could not be infringed upon by federal, state, or local, even before the reconstruction period and 14th amendment.
And the right to defensive weapons should be obvious, since there is no other way to defend the right to life.

States had absolute control of gun laws inside their border pre 14th amendment, period

Just because states didn't take the guns away doesn't mean the founding fathers wanted you to have a gun, they didn't.

No, individual rights ALWAYS had precedence over any level of government authority.
That is because government authority is just borrowing delegated authority derived from the collective defense of inherent individual rights. So no government could ever legally violate individual rights.
Rights like self defense, privacy, family, etc., always are superior to any government authority.
If not, that is legitimate grounds for a rebellion.

And you keep saying the founders did not want everyone to be armed, and that is just plain false.
They wrote often about considering making being armed mandatory and universal.
Washington in particular was well known for making that clear.

from the former president’s annual address to the Senate and House of Representatives on 8 January 1790, in which he argued in favor of an armed citizenry and self-sufficiency in production military supplies as a deterrent to war:

Among the many interesting objects, which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defence will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.
A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.
The proper establishment of the Troops which may be deemed indispensible, will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it, it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the Officers and Soldiers with a due regard to economy.

again me and every relevant legal scholar disagree

fought a civil war over the issue after disagreements pushed half the nation to succeed.