The Gun Control Debate will continue until we find solutions that make sense for people on both sides of the issue.

[Blues Man]

God given right? How about Constitutional Rights. Once again, you are trying to destroy the 1st amendment to justify your own beliefs. There are some scholars out there that are comparing political groups to religious groups. It pretty well amounts to the same thing anymore. There is quite a few reasons for the Religious part of the 1st amendment. And when we start breying about God Given Rights when dealing with the Constitution, you have introduced the control of any religion.

You keep illustrating your ignorance of the the First Amendment here.

There is no "right to life" mentioned in the First Amendment.

First Amendment​

First Amendment Explained


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Vrenn]

The Constitution is a document designed by men that simply guaranteed a man's God-given, natural rights. Like it or not, the vast majority of the Founders were Christians of varying denominations. Though they had doctrinal disagreements, they all ended up agreeing on some fundamental issues. One of which was a man's right to defend himself and his property.

Who's God and Who's Rights? The second you interject "God's" anything you just injected YOUR religion into the mix. What you are doing is proving that Politics have become Religion and that's the one thing our Founding Father's knew would wreck the Nation.

If my potential enemy had a catapult that could sling a 100lb stone, then it is my right to have a weapon of equal or greater ability as a means to fend off my potential enemy. If my enemy carries an AR-15, then it's within my right to have the same or better. If my potential enemy knows that I'm as well armed as he is, then he's less apt to exercise aggression towards me.

So you use the eqivelant of today's Artillery to justify your argument. Okay, let's look at that. When the 2nd amendment was really written, it was taken from the Magn Carta that the King was forced to sign in 1215. Common man could not afford even having a sword around since that same sword was better recast as a plow shear. Economics kept many of the weapons of war from being introduced into the general population. Only the Royalty or Rich could afford those weapons. Daggers were what was the primary blade weapon of the common man because it was as important that it could skin a deer, dress out a duck, etc.. Almost no thought was given to whether it could be used to overthrow the king or not. This is why the 2A says "Arms" rather than weapons since it was taken directly from the Magna Carta and British Bill of Rights.

The only reason we can now afford the weapons of war is because our manufacturing has reduced the cost to a rediculous level. And we have had to find limits. I mean, just because you want a Nuclear Warhead doesn't mean you should have one.

Free men don't require other men to dictate their personal version(s) of morality. Too much of that sort of thing leads to a Stalinist Russia or a Mao Tse Tung China or a Trudeau Canada. We Americans would like to avoid that.

When your religion starts dictating things, that we should also avoid. And you Gunnutters and MAGAts have introduced your own "Religion" into the mix but you call it "Politics".

 

[Vrenn]

You keep illustrating your ignorance of the the First Amendment here.

There is no "right to life" mentioned in the First Amendment.

First Amendment​

First Amendment Explained


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Do you mean that I have no right to life? Are you saying that the 10 commandments should be disregarded? I am certainly glad that murder is against the law.

 

[SaxonJackson]

Who's God and Who's Rights? The second you interject "God's" anything you just injected YOUR religion into the mix. What you are doing is proving that Politics have become Religion and that's the one thing our Founding Father's knew would wreck the Nation.




So you use the eqivelant of today's Artillery to justify your argument. Okay, let's look at that. When the 2nd amendment was really written, it was taken from the Magn Carta that the King was forced to sign in 1215. Common man could not afford even having a sword around since that same sword was better recast as a plow shear. Economics kept many of the weapons of war from being introduced into the general population. Only the Royalty or Rich could afford those weapons. Daggers were what was the primary blade weapon of the common man because it was as important that it could skin a deer, dress out a duck, etc.. Almost no thought was given to whether it could be used to overthrow the king or not. This is why the 2A says "Arms" rather than weapons since it was taken directly from the Magna Carta and British Bill of Rights.

The only reason we can now afford the weapons of war is because our manufacturing has reduced the cost to a rediculous level. And we have had to find limits. I mean, just because you want a Nuclear Warhead doesn't mean you should have one.



When your religion starts dictating things, that we should also avoid. And you Gunnutters and MAGAts have introduced your own "Religion" into the mix but you call it "Politics".

The moment you remove God from the equation, you've inserted your own thoughts, opinions, and ideology into the mix as if they're somehow superior to everyone else's. You've become your own “god.”

Economics may restrict a man's ability to own a weapon, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with a man's RIGHT to own a weapon. If a wolverine is attacked by a wolf with sharp teeth, the wolverine has the right to defend itself with sharp teeth. If the wolverine could afford longer and sharper teeth, it would likely buy them.

My religion promotes moral standards. Thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Thou shalt not steal. Etc. It promotes life and it promotes it abundantly. I promote the right to life and the right to protect it from enemies both foreign and domestic. I promote the right to protect life and limb from despotic or tyrannical governments as well.

 

[Blues Man]

Do you mean that I have no right to life? Are you saying that the 10 commandments should be disregarded? I am certainly glad that murder is against the law.

YOU said the right to life is addressed in the 1st Amendment you were wrong just admit it.

And how does your right to life trump my right to own a gun if I am not going to kill you?

 

[Vrenn]

The moment you remove God from the equation, you've inserted your own thoughts, opinions, and ideology into the mix as if they're somehow superior to everyone else's. You've become your own “god.”

Economics may restrict a man's ability to own a weapon, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with a man's RIGHT to own a weapon. If a wolverine is attacked by a wolf with sharp teeth, the wolverine has the right to defend itself with sharp teeth. If the wolverine could afford longer and sharper teeth, it would likely buy them.

My religion promotes moral standards. Thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Thou shalt not steal. Etc. It promotes life and it promotes it abundantly. I promote the right to life and the right to protect it from enemies both foreign and domestic. I promote the right to protect life and limb from despotic or tyrannical governments as well.

And, according to the Founding Fathers, you need to keep that religion out of ruling the nation. Otherwise, it becomes the Ruling of the Nation.

 

[SaxonJackson]

And, according to the Founding Fathers, you need to keep that religion out of ruling the nation. Otherwise, it becomes the Ruling of the Nation.

I can prove to you that you're wrong, but I have a feeling you wouldn't look at the evidence.

 

[Vrenn]

YOU said the right to life is addressed in the 1st Amendment you were wrong just admit it.

And how does your right to life trump my right to own a gun if I am not going to kill you?

Actually, there is a lot more to the 1st ammendment than you quote. Read the whole thing, not just the parts that agree with you.

My right to life should never end when you decide to kill me. Why is a M-249 illegal to own without special licensing and storage? You, as a civilian, cannot own one. Misused, it's just too deadly. So, it's ownership is limited. In 1922, the Thompson Model 1921 could be purchased in the Sears Catalogue. It was the AR-15 of the 20s and 30s before it was regulated in the 1934 National Firearms Act.

 

[Vrenn]

I can prove to you that you're wrong, but I have a feeling you wouldn't look at the evidence.

In otherwords, you can't find a flaw in my views except it's against your "Religion" which translates to Political Views.

 

[SaxonJackson]

In otherwords, you can't find a flaw in my views except it's against your "Religion" which translates to Political Views.

I didn't think you wanted to see any real evidence. Let me know when facts and truth interest you.

 

[2aguy]

And, according to the Founding Fathers, you need to keep that religion out of ruling the nation. Otherwise, it becomes the Ruling of the Nation.

Nope......Seperation of Church and state is not in the Constitution.......and a private letter from Thomas Jefferson isn't law......

 

[Blues Man]

Actually, there is a lot more to the 1st ammendment than you quote. Read the whole thing, not just the parts that agree with you.

My right to life should never end when you decide to kill me. Why is a M-249 illegal to own without special licensing and storage? You, as a civilian, cannot own one. Misused, it's just too deadly. So, it's ownership is limited. In 1922, the Thompson Model 1921 could be purchased in the Sears Catalogue. It was the AR-15 of the 20s and 30s before it was regulated in the 1934 National Firearms Act.

Is there a right to life mentioned in the First Amendment?

And why do you think I am culpable in anyone's murder simply because I own a firearm? And FYI an AR 15 is NOT equivalent to a machine gun. We've been over this too many times to rehash that.

One of the other things we do in this country is to not call other people guilty of crimes they do not commit.

Your likelihood of getting murdered by a person with an AR 15 is infinitesimally low. You have an irrational fear of semiautomatic rifles.

If you had an irrational fear of clowns do you think you have the right to ban them too?

 

[Vrenn]

I didn't think you wanted to see any real evidence. Let me know when facts and truth interest you.

You lost. Get over it and come up with another lie to try and cover up the last one.

 

[Vrenn]

Is there a right to life mentioned in the First Amendment?

And why do you think I am culpable in anyone's murder simply because I own a firearm? And FYI an AR 15 is NOT equivalent to a machine gun. We've been over this too many times to rehash that.

One of the other things we do in this country is to not call other people guilty of crimes they do not commit.

Your likelihood of getting murdered by a person with an AR 15 is infinitesimally low. You have an irrational fear of semiautomatic rifles.

If you had an irrational fear of clowns do you think you have the right to ban them too?

Just keep bringing your Political Religion into play. And it's being noted that you are attempting to force you Political Religion on others.

Now, move on to the next lie to cover up the last lie.

 

[Blues Man]

Just keep bringing your Political Religion into play. And it's being noted that you are attempting to force you Political Religion on others.

Now, move on to the next lie to cover up the last lie.

Where did I bring up politics or religion?

I am speaking of the LAW.

We do not hold people who have committed no crimes to be responsible for the crimes of others.

This is exactly what you are trying to do.

I notice then when you have no response that you try these futile evasion tactics.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The only reason we can now afford the weapons of war is because our manufacturing has reduced the cost to a rediculous level. And we have had to find limits. I mean, just because you want a Nuclear Warhead doesn't mean you should have one.

This has been addressed by the USSC.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why is a M-249 illegal to own without special licensing and storage? You, as a civilian, cannot own one. Misused, it's just too deadly.

Why do you think the laws currently governing the transfer and possession o M249s, et al, will survive the test laid out in Bruen?

 

[SaxonJackson]

You lost. Get over it and come up with another lie to try and cover up the last one.

I knew you weren't ready for the truth!

From the Library of Congress:

"Religion played a major role in the American Revolution by offering a moral sanction for opposition to the British--an assurance to the average American that revolution was justified in the sight of God. As a recent scholar has observed, "by turning colonial resistance into a righteous cause, and by crying the message to all ranks in all parts of the colonies, ministers did the work of secular radicalism and did it better."

Ministers served the American cause in many capacities during the Revolution: as military chaplains, as penmen for committees of correspondence, and as members of state legislatures, constitutional conventions and the national Congress. Some even took up arms, leading Continental troops in battle.

The Revolution split some denominations, notably the Church of England, whose ministers were bound by oath to support the King, and the Quakers, who were traditionally pacifists. Religious practice suffered in certain places because of the absence of ministers and the destruction of churches, but in other areas, religion flourished.

The Revolution strengthened millennialist strains in American theology. At the beginning of the war some ministers were persuaded that, with God's help, America might become "the principal Seat of the glorious Kingdom which Christ shall erect upon Earth in the latter Days." Victory over the British was taken as a sign of God's partiality for America and stimulated an outpouring of millennialist expectations--the conviction that Christ would rule on earth for 1,000 years. This attitude combined with a groundswell of secular optimism about the future of America to create the buoyant mood of the new nation that became so evident after Jefferson assumed the presidency in 1801."

Religion and the American Revolution - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress)

Religion played a major role in the American Revolution by offering a moral sanction for opposition to the British--an assurance to the average American that revolution was justified in the sight of God.

www.loc.gov

 

[SaxonJackson]

Vrenn

More information for the uninformed (compliments of the Library of Congress):

"The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.

Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.

The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."

Religion and the Congress of the Confederation - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress)

The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained a number of deeply religious men. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to...

www.loc.gov

 

[Vrenn]

Where did I bring up politics or religion?

I am speaking of the LAW.

We do not hold people who have committed no crimes to be responsible for the crimes of others.

This is exactly what you are trying to do.

I notice then when you have no response that you try these futile evasion tactics.

I don't drink and drive yet, due to others, I have to have a dl and insurance. I don't do that because of the ones that are least likely to run into me, I do that for the drunks (no fault insurance) full coverage to pay for my vehicle when I get nailed. I don't see any difference between gun regs and driving laws.