Can you give me an example of what you see as undercutting it?
I agree that these are things we should treat as a moral responsibility. I disagree that these are things that can not be taken away even as a moral idea. There have been many cases throughout history of people no longer considering others worthy of protection.
An interesting thought, though I think it would need to be expanded. I can see a case for a right to self defense but that is a far cry from what most who support the second amendment assert. You certainly do not need an AR to defend yourself. In fact I can think of many other weapons that would be better suited to that task.
A large part of the problem I see is that people become so black and white in their thinking they refuse to discuss the ideas behind their stances. I, for example, am pro second amendment and own several firearms. I still think we should have reasonable gun control and favor measures such as bio keyed locking devices to reduce the damage that weapons can produce. That stance has me labeled as a "Gun grabber" by some even though that is not even close to my stance.
I mean, that's fine, but then you want a change to an amendment. Making laws that violate the constitution should not be encouraged, especially to one of our basic rights. There are avenues built into our constitution to change it, making laws that fly in the face of it is not one of them.All parts of the constitution can be up for debate, it's a document written in ink not holy writ carved in stone.
I agree, but that's not what I was replying to. I was replying to the pearl clutching over discussing changing something in the constitution. As I said the deification of the founders and the transformation of their works into things that cannot be improved on is a detriment to good government as it drags woo woo into discussions of how best to do that.I mean, that's fine, but then you want a change to an amendment. Making laws that violate the constitution should not be encouraged, especially to one of our basic rights. There are avenues built into our constitution to change it, making laws that fly in the face of it is not one of them.
what about demonizing them?deification of the founders...
What on earth are you talking about? None of that is related to a single word I posted.what about demonizing them?
can't claim you're trying to "improve upon" them if you denounce them as thoroughly evil so as to cancel them
can't claim they "got your first down yardage" if you're trying to sack them and run the other way
Statement by the President Three Years After the Parkland Shooting | The White House
This Administration will not wait for the next mass shooting to heed that call. We will take action to end our epidemic of gun violence and make our schools and communities safer. Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets. We owe it to all those we’ve lost and to all those left behind to grieve to make a change. The time to act is now.
If the US government tries to restrict our Second Amendment rights, what is to stop them from restricting our First Amendment rights in the future? If they take our guns away today, then years from now they will take away our free speech. Less government is always better; it prevents tyranny and human rights abuses.
Good thing the government isn't taking your guns away, then
As to restrictions, that's fully in keeping with the second amendment, the part about a "well-regulated militia."
-- A2SG, you are part of a militia, right?
The Democrats will stop at nothing to take our guns away. If it weren’t for the Republicans to provide a balance of political power, the Dems would have abolished the Second Amendment a long time ago. Don’t you get it?
The Democrats will stop at nothing to take our guns away.
If it weren’t for the Republicans to provide a balance of political power, the Dems would have abolished the Second Amendment a long time ago. Don’t you get it?
Agreed.
Yes, here is a rundown on the AR-15.
The AR in “AR-15” rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s.
AR-15-style rifles look like military rifles, such as the M-16, but function like other semi-automatic civilian sporting firearms, firing only one round with each pull of the trigger.
Since the 19th century, civilian sporting rifles have evolved from their military predecessors. The modern sporting rifle simply follows that tradition.
These rifles’ accuracy, reliability, ruggedness and versatility serve target shooters and hunters well. They are true all-weather firearms.
Chamberings include .22, .223 (5.56 x 45mm), 6.8 SPC, .308, .450 Bushmaster and about a dozen others. Upper receivers for pistol calibers such as 9 mm, .40, and .45 are available. There are even .410 shotgun versions.
These rifles are used for many different types of hunting, from varmint to big game. And they’re used for target shooting in the national matches.
Modern Sporting Rifle - AR-15 platform-based rifles
It’s been proven effective against primates, too.So the section at the bottom there, "popular for varmint and big game hunting"
So lions and mice. That's what the gun is used for.
Do you have any references or links or youtube clips of Democrats promoting taking away all guns from citizens of USA?The Democrats will stop at nothing to take our guns away. If it weren’t for the Republicans to provide a balance of political power, the Dems would have abolished the Second Amendment a long time ago. Don’t you get it?
The Democrats will stop at nothing to take our guns away. If it weren’t for the Republicans to provide a balance of political power, the Dems would have abolished the Second Amendment a long time ago. Don’t you get it?
So it's a secret plan to take our guns away and the reason there is no evidence of it is that it is secret. Yeah.If the real notion is to "stop gun violence" then logic and reason suggest that the only way to ultimately achieve this is to ban all guns outright. Logic and reason also suggest that this will do little to nothing to actually stop violence, because banning a tool doesn't even being to address the underlying root causes of violence.
Any argument to the contrary is disengenious, and I wouldn't expect any of the opposition to reveal their true motivations until their goals have actually been achieved.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?