Should carrying a firearm become mandatory?

[cnm]

And we don't need a sheep fucker from NZ telling us how to live

Absolutely not. You guys manage to fuck yourselves up without any help at all from any sort of fucker. Kudos.

 

[evenflow1969]

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

No. Not every one is suited to carry one. Some times people get killed with their own gun

View attachment 425243

View attachment 425244

View attachment 425245

View attachment 425246

Sometimes people get killed by their own governments guns.

*****SMILE*****

All true the facts remain the same some idiots do not need guns. I see people who don't clean their own nasty asses. A gun is gonna explode in these idiots faces inside six months with any use. Not to mention some people just can't pull the trigger.

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

No. Not every one is suited to carry one. Some times people get killed with their own gun

Anyone who would get shot with their own gun should be removed from the genepool.

They are out there. I think if you wanna cary thats your right but forcing people who do not want to carry is a bad idea.

 

[Blues Man]

And we don't need a sheep fucker from NZ telling us how to live

Absolutely not. You guys manage to fuck yourselves up without any help at all from any sort of fucker. Kudos.

So why don't you mind your own fucking business?

 

[Juicin]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the precedent on this issue. It's not some philosophical problem. We have decades of case law on the issue and fought a civil war over the issue. It's why we passed the 14th ammendment to make what you're saying true.

Everyone, including blacks, had guns before the Civil War. There were black soldiers on both sides of that war, in fact. It never occurred to anyone that the mere "possession" of a weapon of any sort might be illegal.

The judges masturbated on the bench in a court of law and revoked our gun rights after the war, along with the Jim Crow laws, the Sunday Blue laws, etc., etc.

The tobacco plantations of the deep south went to pot, and the owners started smoking too much weed.

Again the fact the states didn't ban personal firearms doesn't preclude them the right to do so

They lost that ability post 14th amendment and whatever SCOTUS case first changed their interpretation in the context of the 14th amendments ratification

Why you think people having guns is relevant to the legal concept of the states ability to ban ownership of them I have no idea...Totally non sequitur

 

[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

Look Fucknut the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution for a reason and I never said a word about a mandate.
And we don't have universal gun rights now either , Idiot.

We in fact exclude many people from owning guns, don't we?

Yea it was to let the states be tyrants. it's a states rights issue pre 14th amendment

You had no freedom of speech or religion, you sure as shit did not have freedom to bear arms in any state mandated by the federal constitution.

The states were very concerned about their own autonomy pre civil war because under law they had a lot of it.

The fact no state outright banned personal ownership of guns doesn't mean they could not have legally. Many people only ate what they killed at that time I'm sure it would not have been a popular policy.

 

[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

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

Look Fucknut the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution for a reason and I never said a word about a mandate.
And we don't have universal gun rights now either , Idiot.

We in fact exclude many people from owning guns, don't we?

Yea it was to let the states be tryants. it's a states rights issue pre 14th ammendment

You had no freedom of speech or religion, you sure as shit did not have freedom to bear arms in any state mandated by the federal constitution.

The states were very concerned about their own autonomy pre civil war because under law they had a lot of it.

The fact no state outright banned personal ownership of guns doesn't mean they could not have legally. Many people only ate what they killed at that time I'm sure it would not have been a popular policy.

the first amendment doesnt have anything to do with free speech,,

as for you cliam of states rights before the 14th,, are you saying they could execute people without trial???

 

[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

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

Look Fucknut the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution for a reason and I never said a word about a mandate.
And we don't have universal gun rights now either , Idiot.

We in fact exclude many people from owning guns, don't we?

Yea it was to let the states be tyrants. it's a states rights issue pre 14th amendment

You had no freedom of speech or religion, you sure as shit did not have freedom to bear arms in any state mandated by the federal constitution.

The states were very concerned about their own autonomy pre civil war because under law they had a lot of it.

The fact no state outright banned personal ownership of guns doesn't mean they could not have legally. Many people only ate what they killed at that time I'm sure it would not have been a popular policy.

and once again pre-civil war Constitutional law has nothing to do with the present.

The Bill of rights will never be repealed and States are bound by it.

 

[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

Look Fucknut the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution for a reason and I never said a word about a mandate.
And we don't have universal gun rights now either , Idiot.

We in fact exclude many people from owning guns, don't we?

Yea it was to let the states be tyrants. it's a states rights issue pre 14th amendment

You had no freedom of speech or religion, you sure as shit did not have freedom to bear arms in any state mandated by the federal constitution.

The states were very concerned about their own autonomy pre civil war because under law they had a lot of it.

The fact no state outright banned personal ownership of guns doesn't mean they could not have legally. Many people only ate what they killed at that time I'm sure it would not have been a popular policy.

and once again pre-civil war Constitutional law has nothing to do with the present.

The Bill of rights will never be repealed and States are bound by it.

You're moving the goal posts

THe question was did the founding fathers want you to have a gun

The answer is no

 

[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

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

Look Fucknut the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution for a reason and I never said a word about a mandate.
And we don't have universal gun rights now either , Idiot.

We in fact exclude many people from owning guns, don't we?

Yea it was to let the states be tyrants. it's a states rights issue pre 14th amendment

You had no freedom of speech or religion, you sure as shit did not have freedom to bear arms in any state mandated by the federal constitution.

The states were very concerned about their own autonomy pre civil war because under law they had a lot of it.

The fact no state outright banned personal ownership of guns doesn't mean they could not have legally. Many people only ate what they killed at that time I'm sure it would not have been a popular policy.

and once again pre-civil war Constitutional law has nothing to do with the present.

The Bill of rights will never be repealed and States are bound by it.

You're moving the goal posts

THe question was did the founding fathers want you to have a gun

The answer is no

In case you didn't realize it, the Bill of Rights was ratified before the Civil War. James Madison who is considered to be the Father of the Constitution wrote it in 1789

So not only did one of the founding fathers author the Bill of Rights prior to the Civil War it was also ratified and in place prior to the Civil War so it sure as hell seems to me that the Founding Father who wrote it and the Founding Fathers who approved it to be sent to the States for ratification did want the People to have Second Amendment protection for their right to keep and bear arms.

 

[westwall]

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

Look Fucknut the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution for a reason and I never said a word about a mandate.
And we don't have universal gun rights now either , Idiot.

We in fact exclude many people from owning guns, don't we?

Yea it was to let the states be tyrants. it's a states rights issue pre 14th amendment

You had no freedom of speech or religion, you sure as shit did not have freedom to bear arms in any state mandated by the federal constitution.

The states were very concerned about their own autonomy pre civil war because under law they had a lot of it.

The fact no state outright banned personal ownership of guns doesn't mean they could not have legally. Many people only ate what they killed at that time I'm sure it would not have been a popular policy.

and once again pre-civil war Constitutional law has nothing to do with the present.

The Bill of rights will never be repealed and States are bound by it.

You're moving the goal posts

THe question was did the founding fathers want you to have a gun

The answer is no

You are an idiot if you believe that. Show one quote where the Founders say you should not own a firearm.

 

[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

Look Fucknut the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution for a reason and I never said a word about a mandate.
And we don't have universal gun rights now either , Idiot.

We in fact exclude many people from owning guns, don't we?

Yea it was to let the states be tyrants. it's a states rights issue pre 14th amendment

You had no freedom of speech or religion, you sure as shit did not have freedom to bear arms in any state mandated by the federal constitution.

The states were very concerned about their own autonomy pre civil war because under law they had a lot of it.

The fact no state outright banned personal ownership of guns doesn't mean they could not have legally. Many people only ate what they killed at that time I'm sure it would not have been a popular policy.

and once again pre-civil war Constitutional law has nothing to do with the present.

The Bill of rights will never be repealed and States are bound by it.

You're moving the goal posts

THe question was did the founding fathers want you to have a gun

The answer is no

You are an idiot if you believe that. Show one quote where the Founders say you should not own a firearm.

Then why didn't they federally mandate it?

And go as far as to assure states the feds would never move on states autonomy on this issue?

I don't need to link you their writings it's all in the system they made.

You didn't remember one of our most important ammendments, the 14th, i think the founding father's correspondence is a bit high level for this discussion, lol

 

[westwall]

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

Look Fucknut the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution for a reason and I never said a word about a mandate.
And we don't have universal gun rights now either , Idiot.

We in fact exclude many people from owning guns, don't we?

Yea it was to let the states be tyrants. it's a states rights issue pre 14th amendment

You had no freedom of speech or religion, you sure as shit did not have freedom to bear arms in any state mandated by the federal constitution.

The states were very concerned about their own autonomy pre civil war because under law they had a lot of it.

The fact no state outright banned personal ownership of guns doesn't mean they could not have legally. Many people only ate what they killed at that time I'm sure it would not have been a popular policy.

and once again pre-civil war Constitutional law has nothing to do with the present.

The Bill of rights will never be repealed and States are bound by it.

You're moving the goal posts

THe question was did the founding fathers want you to have a gun

The answer is no

You are an idiot if you believe that. Show one quote where the Founders say you should not own a firearm.

Then why didn't they federally mandate it?

And go as far as to assure states the feds would never move on states autonomy on this issue?

I don't need to link you their writings it's all in the system they made.

You didn't remember one of our most important ammendments, the 14th, i think the founding father's correspondence is a bit high level for this discussion, lol

Because the Feds don't mandate you dumbass. Liberals founded this country....LIBERTY FROM GOVERNMENT was their guiding principle. The Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what the government can do to the individual....and one final option.

I suggest you read what the Founders actually said so you don't look so stupid next time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Look Fucknut the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution for a reason and I never said a word about a mandate.
And we don't have universal gun rights now either , Idiot.

We in fact exclude many people from owning guns, don't we?

Yea it was to let the states be tyrants. it's a states rights issue pre 14th amendment

You had no freedom of speech or religion, you sure as shit did not have freedom to bear arms in any state mandated by the federal constitution.

The states were very concerned about their own autonomy pre civil war because under law they had a lot of it.

The fact no state outright banned personal ownership of guns doesn't mean they could not have legally. Many people only ate what they killed at that time I'm sure it would not have been a popular policy.

and once again pre-civil war Constitutional law has nothing to do with the present.

The Bill of rights will never be repealed and States are bound by it.

You're moving the goal posts

THe question was did the founding fathers want you to have a gun

The answer is no

You are an idiot if you believe that. Show one quote where the Founders say you should not own a firearm.

For some reason, disarming the populace is always high on the list for Leftists.

You may recall the professor who made up all sorts of stats denying that the early Americans even had guns.


"Michael A. Bellesiles is a former professor of American colonial history at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S. Two years after publishing Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture (2000), Bellesiles was investigated by Emory University for research misconduct. After the committee found him "guilty of unprofessional and misleading work," he resigned his professorship in October 2002, and the Bancroft Prize of Columbia University, earlier awarded the book, was rescinded.[1]"

Michael A. Bellesiles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[westwall]

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

Look Fucknut the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution for a reason and I never said a word about a mandate.
And we don't have universal gun rights now either , Idiot.

We in fact exclude many people from owning guns, don't we?

Yea it was to let the states be tyrants. it's a states rights issue pre 14th amendment

You had no freedom of speech or religion, you sure as shit did not have freedom to bear arms in any state mandated by the federal constitution.

The states were very concerned about their own autonomy pre civil war because under law they had a lot of it.

The fact no state outright banned personal ownership of guns doesn't mean they could not have legally. Many people only ate what they killed at that time I'm sure it would not have been a popular policy.

and once again pre-civil war Constitutional law has nothing to do with the present.

The Bill of rights will never be repealed and States are bound by it.

You're moving the goal posts

THe question was did the founding fathers want you to have a gun

The answer is no

You are an idiot if you believe that. Show one quote where the Founders say you should not own a firearm.

For some reason, disarming the populace is always high on the list for Leftists.

You may recall the professor who made up all sorts of stats denying that the early Americans even had guns.


"Michael A. Bellesiles is a former professor of American colonial history at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S. Two years after publishing Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture (2000), Bellesiles was investigated by Emory University for research misconduct. After the committee found him "guilty of unprofessional and misleading work," he resigned his professorship in October 2002, and the Bancroft Prize of Columbia University, earlier awarded the book, was rescinded.[1]"

Michael A. Bellesiles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last I heard he was pouring coffee for a living.

 

[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

Look Fucknut the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution for a reason and I never said a word about a mandate.
And we don't have universal gun rights now either , Idiot.

We in fact exclude many people from owning guns, don't we?

Yea it was to let the states be tyrants. it's a states rights issue pre 14th amendment

You had no freedom of speech or religion, you sure as shit did not have freedom to bear arms in any state mandated by the federal constitution.

The states were very concerned about their own autonomy pre civil war because under law they had a lot of it.

The fact no state outright banned personal ownership of guns doesn't mean they could not have legally. Many people only ate what they killed at that time I'm sure it would not have been a popular policy.

and once again pre-civil war Constitutional law has nothing to do with the present.

The Bill of rights will never be repealed and States are bound by it.

You're moving the goal posts

THe question was did the founding fathers want you to have a gun

The answer is no

You are an idiot if you believe that. Show one quote where the Founders say you should not own a firearm.

For some reason, disarming the populace is always high on the list for Leftists.

You may recall the professor who made up all sorts of stats denying that the early Americans even had guns.


"Michael A. Bellesiles is a former professor of American colonial history at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S. Two years after publishing Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture (2000), Bellesiles was investigated by Emory University for research misconduct. After the committee found him "guilty of unprofessional and misleading work," he resigned his professorship in October 2002, and the Bancroft Prize of Columbia University, earlier awarded the book, was rescinded.[1]"

Michael A. Bellesiles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yea the people who couldn't stand out in their rural classes of 30 have a good grasp of history...lol

Founding fathers pissed on just about everyone who wasn't a land owner. Women included

Anyone who thinks differently knows nothing about them.

Literally discussing right now a system in which our legislators can simply overrule the results of an election at their will. So many examples of the founding father's disdain for the average man.

First we started out by teaching you about the 14th amendment, next we're moving on to the realities of our political system from an even more macro view?

When we started off by you retards claiming the 2nd amendment protected gun rights pre 14th amendment. Ignorance of the most basic building blocks of our system

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Look Fucknut the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution for a reason and I never said a word about a mandate.
And we don't have universal gun rights now either , Idiot.

We in fact exclude many people from owning guns, don't we?

Yea it was to let the states be tyrants. it's a states rights issue pre 14th amendment

You had no freedom of speech or religion, you sure as shit did not have freedom to bear arms in any state mandated by the federal constitution.

The states were very concerned about their own autonomy pre civil war because under law they had a lot of it.

The fact no state outright banned personal ownership of guns doesn't mean they could not have legally. Many people only ate what they killed at that time I'm sure it would not have been a popular policy.

and once again pre-civil war Constitutional law has nothing to do with the present.

The Bill of rights will never be repealed and States are bound by it.

You're moving the goal posts

THe question was did the founding fathers want you to have a gun

The answer is no

You are an idiot if you believe that. Show one quote where the Founders say you should not own a firearm.

For some reason, disarming the populace is always high on the list for Leftists.

You may recall the professor who made up all sorts of stats denying that the early Americans even had guns.


"Michael A. Bellesiles is a former professor of American colonial history at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S. Two years after publishing Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture (2000), Bellesiles was investigated by Emory University for research misconduct. After the committee found him "guilty of unprofessional and misleading work," he resigned his professorship in October 2002, and the Bancroft Prize of Columbia University, earlier awarded the book, was rescinded.[1]"

Michael A. Bellesiles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last I heard he was pouring coffee for a living.

I believe he is a bartender, which put him in line to lead the Democrat Party, currently led by a former bartender.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Look Fucknut the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution for a reason and I never said a word about a mandate.
And we don't have universal gun rights now either , Idiot.

We in fact exclude many people from owning guns, don't we?

Yea it was to let the states be tyrants. it's a states rights issue pre 14th amendment

You had no freedom of speech or religion, you sure as shit did not have freedom to bear arms in any state mandated by the federal constitution.

The states were very concerned about their own autonomy pre civil war because under law they had a lot of it.

The fact no state outright banned personal ownership of guns doesn't mean they could not have legally. Many people only ate what they killed at that time I'm sure it would not have been a popular policy.

and once again pre-civil war Constitutional law has nothing to do with the present.

The Bill of rights will never be repealed and States are bound by it.

You're moving the goal posts

THe question was did the founding fathers want you to have a gun

The answer is no

You are an idiot if you believe that. Show one quote where the Founders say you should not own a firearm.

For some reason, disarming the populace is always high on the list for Leftists.

You may recall the professor who made up all sorts of stats denying that the early Americans even had guns.


"Michael A. Bellesiles is a former professor of American colonial history at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S. Two years after publishing Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture (2000), Bellesiles was investigated by Emory University for research misconduct. After the committee found him "guilty of unprofessional and misleading work," he resigned his professorship in October 2002, and the Bancroft Prize of Columbia University, earlier awarded the book, was rescinded.[1]"

Michael A. Bellesiles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yea the people who couldn't stand out in their rural classes of 30 have a good grasp of history...lol

Founding fathers pissed on just about everyone who wasn't a land owner. Women included

Anyone who thinks differently knows nothing about them.

Literally discussing right now a system in which our legislators can simply overrule the results of an election at their will. So many examples of the founding father's disdain for the average man.

First we started out by teaching you about the 14th amendment, next we're moving on to the realities of our political system from an even more macro view?

When we started off by you retards claiming the 2nd ammendment protected gun rights pre 14th amendment.

"Yea the people who couldn't stand out in their rural classes of 30 have a good grasp of history...lol "

Not certain to whom that is directed, but for clarity, I attended the best schools in the nation.

Let me know if you'd care to compare educational resumes.

 

[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

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

Look Fucknut the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution for a reason and I never said a word about a mandate.
And we don't have universal gun rights now either , Idiot.

We in fact exclude many people from owning guns, don't we?

Yea it was to let the states be tyrants. it's a states rights issue pre 14th amendment

You had no freedom of speech or religion, you sure as shit did not have freedom to bear arms in any state mandated by the federal constitution.

The states were very concerned about their own autonomy pre civil war because under law they had a lot of it.

The fact no state outright banned personal ownership of guns doesn't mean they could not have legally. Many people only ate what they killed at that time I'm sure it would not have been a popular policy.

and once again pre-civil war Constitutional law has nothing to do with the present.

The Bill of rights will never be repealed and States are bound by it.

You're moving the goal posts

THe question was did the founding fathers want you to have a gun

The answer is no

You are an idiot if you believe that. Show one quote where the Founders say you should not own a firearm.

For some reason, disarming the populace is always high on the list for Leftists.

You may recall the professor who made up all sorts of stats denying that the early Americans even had guns.


"Michael A. Bellesiles is a former professor of American colonial history at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S. Two years after publishing Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture (2000), Bellesiles was investigated by Emory University for research misconduct. After the committee found him "guilty of unprofessional and misleading work," he resigned his professorship in October 2002, and the Bancroft Prize of Columbia University, earlier awarded the book, was rescinded.[1]"

Michael A. Bellesiles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yea the people who couldn't stand out in their rural classes of 30 have a good grasp of history...lol

Founding fathers pissed on just about everyone who wasn't a land owner. Women included

Anyone who thinks differently knows nothing about them.

Literally discussing right now a system in which our legislators can simply overrule the results of an election at their will. So many examples of the founding father's disdain for the average man.

First we started out by teaching you about the 14th amendment, next we're moving on to the realities of our political system from an even more macro view?

When we started off by you retards claiming the 2nd ammendment protected gun rights pre 14th amendment.

"Yea the people who couldn't stand out in their rural classes of 30 have a good grasp of history...lol "

Not certain to whom that is directed, but for clarity, I attended the best schools in the nation.

Let me know if you'd care to compare educational resumes.

could someone pull me out of this quote stream please,,,

 

[d0gbreath]

could someone pull me out of this quote stream please,,,

OK, you're out.

Will these mandatory pistols be purchased and distributed by the government using taxpayer money?

That looks like socialism.

 

[progressive hunter]

could someone pull me out of this quote stream please,,,

OK, you're out.

Will these mandatory pistols be purchased and distributed by the government using taxpayer money?

That looks like socialism.

I would be happy if they just dropped the taxs and background checks,,