Revisionism ITT.

Wrong wrong wrong. There was no such thing as legal gun ownership in the time of the founding. In fact, there was not much guarantee of ownership at all. Any time the King could take what he wanted by force, or anyone else for that matter. Arms were guaranteed to resist totalitarianism. Any arms that could be owned by the government for defense, could be used to oppress, and honest free citizen must have equal means to resist.


OUR FOUNDERS DID NOT WRITE ABOUT SPECIFICS, handguns, vs rifles vs nukes.

They gave us the PRINCIPALS to preserve freedom. Apply the principals.

Just because you think freedom is universal now, you think these principals don't matter. If you do not see the error of your ways, your children will. Totalitarianism has always been the objective of government. Look around the world.

I just looked and found that this is obviously wrong.

It is simple logic. Not hard to see. I presume you looked around the world, and thought about how you felt about the current state of governments.

Look more historically.

Power seeks to protect and increase itself. Do you disagree?

Totalitarianism can take many forms.

If I look historically and I see that totalitarianism has decreased, especially at the end of the 20th century, then that would refute your point.

Not really.

So you think at the time of the founding of the United States there was no legal gun ownership? Really?

Handguns and rifles did not exist at that same time? Really?

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Could you be any more wrong? I'm curious, what weapons then were used to fight the revolutionary war?

It is your classification of "Legal" guns I disagree with. People had guns, they did not consider them a matter of Law. People did not even have a guarantee of ownership of their own homes and land, being in rebellion to the authority of those things. Actually I would bet the King had laws about subjects in the colonies, and their possession of arms. So it would take some checking, but the handguns and rifles used in the revolutionary war, were probably ILLEGAL guns.

Would you say they had legally owned shoes?

You have surprisingly strong opinions, all things considered.

Obviously the American colonies were governed by British law but guns did exist in early America. Whether the British government considered them legal is not really the issue here. If anything it probably contributed to the ideal that shaped the 2nd amendment.

My point is that when the United States was formed out of the 13 British colonies they had to take independence by force with guns. I do not really care about British Law or the legality of shoes. What I and some other Americans do care to remember is the role that guns played in our independence from British rule and shaping the country over the history of the United States. For example the role the colt revolver and the henry rifle played in the settling of the west and the shaping of the United States.

The ideal of guaranteeing the right to bear arms that you mentioned earlier is very important though. It is that ideal that prevents gun control legislation from being passed imo.

Something is wrong with Murrica when you can't sell guns on the net but you can sell this on the net...

http://gulfport.craigslist.org/boa/3730171827.html

This is the closest thing to a compliment I've gotten on here. Thank you.

You heard it here first, folks. The founders intended for school administrators to be the preservers of freedom.

Ack. I always do that. YKWIM

But terrorists can easily communicate and plot on the internet.

Unfortunately (for you) we have to go by what they wrote instead of what you think they actually meant. Furthermore they didn't have AR15's back then so please STFU with your nonsense.

We should acknowledge the fact that we live in a society that breeds mental illness of a violent variety. We should acknowledge it because it is an objective FACT. We should make guns harder to get as a simple safety measure, a bandage to apply while we address the underlying problems which are at the root of all this gun violence.

While mental illness is going up and the lethality of "arms" are simultaneously increasing, idiots like you are arguing in favor of more arms for more people. Why? Because you think you are John Rambo. You think that your fantasies of swooping in on the next mental defective with an automatic machine gun are going to come true. You think that your fantasies of resisting the U.S. military wielded by some black communist dictator are going to come true. I think you're an idiot.

Sweet personal attacks.

Care to elaborate on the discrepancy between you wanting to reduce the protections of the 2nd amendment, while not reducing the protections of the 1st?

A terrorist could use the internet to set off a bomb, for example. If the government should crack down on guns, shouldn't it also crack down on the internet?

Deaths from guns vs. Internet bombs?

(Domestic) terrorists can use the mail to attack people. There are now facilities to deal with mail attacks. Terrorists can't kill people via the internet.

Congratulations on one of the most entertaining and false posts itt.

Maybe not kill people directly, but

Sure they can. They could rig a bomb with internet connectivity, connect to it via the internet and detonate it.

Why is it a "discrepancy" to think that some rights are more important than others, or that some amendments are less anachronistic than others?

so does the internet explode, or does the bomb?

To even cite the 2nd amendment in arguing against gun control is to advocate more guns to more people. The language is clear and unambiguous. The amendment is flawed and antiquated.

Legal arguments are boring. You win the legal argument, hands down. However this is one of those cases where the law does not coincide with morality or reason. So if you want to make a argument based on practicality or morality leave the 2nd amendment out of it. Otherwise you are arguing for the easing of all restrictions on all weapons because that is the literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment. If we are to make any other "interpretation" of the amendment then we might as well just scrap it and start over by leaving "arms" completely out of the constitution.

To make this a constitutional issue is to expose the laughing stock of the amendment controlling the issue. You can't seek legal cover under the 2nd amendment without taking on the moral lunacy of the 2nd amendment as applied in the current context of weapons of mass destruction as well as however you want to classify AR15's. Accept this. Stop playing dumb and accept this. Stop being a coward and say what you really believe because you don't believe a citizen should be allowed to own WMD's.