NRA Once Again Defends 2nd Amendment

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,639
12,105
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,572.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
All "rights" in amerika are granted by government, although the word rights doesn't really fit the bill as they are not treated as such.

I think these days, too many people take their rights for granted and are content to allow the government to have too much power, which allows for their rights to be taken away by government. Obviously, govt. didn't give us the rights in the first place, but it can sure take them away--especially when the people are too afraid or uninformed to rise up and defend them.
 
Upvote 0

mafwons

Hi guys
Feb 16, 2014
2,740
169
✟11,177.00
Faith
Non-Denom
All rights in America are not granted by government. Our nation was founded on, among others, this principal:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If government grants a right then government can take it away. That is why the words above were articulated in the manner they were, to limit the power of government in light of a higher power.

That higher power is not the President, as much as many would wish it were.

That may be the words, however they are mere lip service, or quill service if you will, to those principals. Consider that the men who wrote that kept slaves, treated women as second class citizens, or worse, and approved of killing the original inhabitants of this land for barely more than sport, not to mention a myriad of other flaws in that poorly concievwd notion.
 
Upvote 0

mafwons

Hi guys
Feb 16, 2014
2,740
169
✟11,177.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I think these days, too many people take their rights for granted and are content to allow the government to have too much power, which allows for their rights to be taken away by government. Obviously, govt. didn't give us the rights in the first place, but it can sure take them away--especially when the people are too afraid or uninformed to rise up and defend them.

Rise up and tell the man, yessir, masser sir.
 
Upvote 0

Sistrin

We are such stuff as dreams are made on...
Supporter
Jun 9, 2012
6,488
3,399
Location Location Location
✟197,980.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That may be the words, however they are mere lip service, or quill service if you will, to those principals.

You know nothing of the founding of this country.

Consider that the men who wrote that kept slaves, treated women as second class citizens, or worse...

This is a ridiculous argument, as it is based on judging men of the past according to the standards of today, standards which are often imposed and viewed through the biased demands of feminism and liberalism. Slavery was not just a white man's game, and if you knew anything of the history you would know that. Women were not considered second class in the context you suggest. You want to hold a view of the evil white interloper destroying everything in his path and building an illegitimate nation on the backs of the oppressed go ahead, but it is an extremely uneducated view.

...and approved of killing the original inhabitants of this land for barely more than sport...

More nonsense. Again, if you knew the history of the native American tribes you would know they killed each other for land and sport long before the evil white man arrived.

...not to mention a myriad of other flaws in that poorly conceived notion.

So which country to you admire for its utopian existence? Russia? Iran? China? Uganda perhaps?
 
Upvote 0

mafwons

Hi guys
Feb 16, 2014
2,740
169
✟11,177.00
Faith
Non-Denom
You know nothing of the founding of this country.

This is a ridiculous argument, as it is based on judging men of the past according to the standards of today, standards which are often imposed and viewed through the biased demands of feminism and liberalism. Slavery was not just a white man's game, and if you knew anything of the history you would know that. Women were not considered second class in the context you suggest. You want to hold a view of the evil white interloper destroying everything in his path and building an illegitimate nation on the backs of the oppressed go ahead, but it is an extremely uneducated view.

More nonsense. Again, if you knew the history of the native American tribes you would know they killed each other for land and sport long before the evil white man arrived.

So which country to you admire for its utopian existence? Russia? Iran? China? Uganda perhaps?

Interesting that I know nothing of the founding of this country, yet have spent years studying it. If I do not judge the men of the past on today's standards, how then would I concieve that their standards are good enough to be used to guide this nation today, it simply cannot follow. Slavery was not just a white mans game, does that somehow justify it, what metric shall we use to say slavery was ok until this day and then well its not ok anymore, with that statement you babble so incomprehensibly it is hard to respond without resorting to personal attacks like yourself, but I will refrain.
I sir am white and hold no view of an evil white interloper, much evil eent on at and around the founding of this not so great nation. The fact of the matter is indians killing each other is not an excuse for the people who settled this continent to slaughter them wholesale in the name of whatever diety they were doing it in. Again I'm fairly farmiliar with indian history from 1492 on, not my area of expertise but I've read a bit.
I admire no country, I am not a stastist and therefore have a hard time with any opprrssive government, I understand the need but also understand that government is one of the truly dark evils of this world. As far as I can tell true utopia for mankind has only been in the garden of eden and will not return until Jesus does. Man ruling at the expense of even the few, is unpalatable at best.
 
Upvote 0

Vylo

Stick with the King!
Aug 3, 2003
24,732
7,790
43
New Jersey
✟203,465.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The problem is, the UK isn't bordered by one of the most corrupt governments in the world, where drug cartels are smuggling real automatic weapons across their border. You see no matter how many laws are passed, no matter how many guns are taken away, it only affects the law abiding citizen. Those who couldn't care less about that piece of paper telling them they can't buy a mac10, or an AK-47, aren't going to bother following that piece of paper and can find their way around it. Now all you have is a country of unarmed sheeple, ready for the slaughter....

You could you know, use border control. The Mexico/US border remains one of the most porous ones in the world.

Removing the legality of guns will undoubtedly reduce the number of them, and crimes committed by them dramatically. Yes, many criminals don't care about gun laws, but if they can't access the guns they can't use them. That is why you don't see nearly the gun crime rate in nations with strict gun laws.

Of course that leads to another false association I see many anti-gun people make. That we will be safer just because we ban guns. Yes, we will be safer from guns. Things other than guns can be used to kill people, and are in countries with strict controls. It will reduce deaths from mass killings, as well as heat of the moment shootings, but it will not stop premeditated murder at all. There have also been indications that some other crimes like burglary would go up, due to reduced fear of lethal reprisal from home owners.

The removal of guns from our society would be long and extremely costly, for very limited gains we wouldn't see for many years. It just doesn't add up against the reduction of freedoms to be worthwhile in my opinion.

Of course all of this should be moot due to the second amendment.
 
Upvote 0