|
Originally Posted by Mason32
(Post 586553)
Just as the actual statistics of the number of crimes prevented by gun ownership/use is also equally higher than the anti-gun crowd wants to admit.
What kind of double talk is that? How can you advocate supporting the Bill of Rights... and then say it is "ok" to regulate? You either regulate it, or you don't. Once the door to regulation is open, then it is just a matter of opinion as to what is too much, or too little... and nobody will ever agree on what is too much, or too little. I don't see you advocating regulation of the press or freedom of religion? Why is one right suddenly less important to you than another? I think you are on to something and don't even know it. That is exactly how much of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights works. There is no absolute freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or freedom of the press. There is also no absolute freedom to keep and bear arms. They all are regulated and they all are complicated. That door to regulation has been opened long ago. The bottom line is that very little about the United States Constitution is so cut and dry. The parts that are absolute are easy to find, because they generate little discussion and few cases. You know, stuff like having to be 30 to be a U.S. senator, or the 13th Amendment and the prohibition of slavery, or the 26th Amendment and needing to be 18 to vote. For you to project that you think any regulation of any of the first 10 Amendemnts is unsupportave of them shows that you haven't thought thru the issue. Should the mentally impaired be able to own guns? No? (Thats regulation of the right to bear arms.) Should you be able to organize the overthrow of the government? No? (That's regulation of free speech) Should newspapers be able to publish things that they know to be false? No? (That is regualtion of freedom of the press) Should men be able to marry more than one women (sometimes under-age)? No? (That is a regulation of the freedom of religion) You are right that one one will ever agree on what is too much or too little regulation. But, I hope you now realize that everyone agrees that there should be some regulation. :D New K Now |
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 586825)
Mason,
Should you be able to organize the overthrow of the government? No? (That's regulation of free speech) New K Now Full disclosure - I own no firearms and am not a member of the NRA. I do however, believe in the vision of our founders... Sorry about the thread drift. |
Originally Posted by chuckyt1
(Post 586836)
I think that one of the reasons the constitution was written, was so that the Government could be overthrown. I don't have the exact quote but Jefferson intimated that it would be required, every few hundred years or so. That's why they gave us the right to free speech, and the right to bear arms.
Full disclosure - I own no firearms and am not a member of the NRA. I do however, believe in the vision of our founders... Sorry about the thread drift. To make a long story short on a Saturday night, trust me, you cannot conspire to overthrow the government. That's were the term, "Clear and Present Danger" came from. Not just a good movie, but a judicial test, coined by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. :) New K Now |
No he is not move along now
|
There are democrats who like guns. Some of us enjoy shooting as a hobby but still believe in some level of gun control. Obama himself is a sporting clays guy and has been seen going bird hunting. (Maybe that was campaning on his part). The whole Obama hates guns thing is a farce made up by the NRA because they couldn't lobby him. Good old Nancy P on the other hand hates guns.
|
Comments political in nature. Thread closed.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:02 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands