A Blog About Anything & Everything.
Tell you what: I propose you are not allowed more than 2 political opinion posts per week. Once you start tampering with the Rights endowed by our Creator, the slope gets real slippery, real fast.
Rights endowed by our CreatorGod wants us to have guns?Must have missed that part in Sunday School.Please tell me what chapter and verse in the bible this comes from?
I point to the Declaration of Independence (generally), and the Bill of Rights, 2nd Amendement (specifically). Read the reasons and the debate over the Bill of Rights if you are unfamiliar with how our Rights are sacrosanct, and why many wanted the inalienable Right specified.If you believe in the spirit of the 1st Amendment with the same lackluster bad you do the 2nd, you won’t mind me limiting your speech. Please don’t respond with “the original guns were flintlocks” argument, as I will reply with “the original printing press is not the Internet;” we both know you won’t win with that reasoning.
Typo: same lackluster *that* you...
I'm not going to engage in pointless debate. In the end you will still support unlimited guns and I still won't. Plus any debate here on the blog will change nothing.That said I will respond briefly then exit this discussion. If others wish to get involved so be it."A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."HERE'S MY TALKING POINT...The supreme court and all advocates ignore the most important part.."A well regulated militia". It was put in front for a reason as a matter of priority. Founders wanted everyone joining a "militia" to be heavily armed if the need should arise to keep "the security of a free state"So in essence there's three key parts. In order of their appearance--(1) "A well regulated militia"(2) to maintain "the security of a free state"(3) Heavily armed to secure and maintain our nationAt this point in time everyone's focus seems to be only on the 3rd part ignoring the first 2 as part of the whole.Like I said I will not further engage. But since you took the time to comment and asked for a response I thought it's only fitting I respond.
Fair enough; I tip my hat to you for your response regarding an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Limiting ownership remains a slippery slope, in my view, and one that can have us limited in the kinds of speech we all enjoy.Cheers.
All comments are under moderation. Meaning pending approval. If comments are disrespectful or do not address this specific topic they will not be published
Tell you what: I propose you are not allowed more than 2 political opinion posts per week.
ReplyDeleteOnce you start tampering with the Rights endowed by our Creator, the slope gets real slippery, real fast.
Rights endowed by our Creator
DeleteGod wants us to have guns?
Must have missed that part in Sunday School.
Please tell me what chapter and verse in the bible this comes from?
I point to the Declaration of Independence (generally), and the Bill of Rights, 2nd Amendement (specifically). Read the reasons and the debate over the Bill of Rights if you are unfamiliar with how our Rights are sacrosanct, and why many wanted the inalienable Right specified.
ReplyDeleteIf you believe in the spirit of the 1st Amendment with the same lackluster bad you do the 2nd, you won’t mind me limiting your speech.
Please don’t respond with “the original guns were flintlocks” argument, as I will reply with “the original printing press is not the Internet;” we both know you won’t win with that reasoning.
Typo: same lackluster *that* you...
DeleteI'm not going to engage in pointless debate. In the end you will still support unlimited guns and I still won't. Plus any debate here on the blog will change nothing.
DeleteThat said I will respond briefly then exit this discussion. If others wish to get involved so be it.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
HERE'S MY TALKING POINT...
The supreme court and all advocates ignore the most important part.."A well regulated militia". It was put in front for a reason as a matter of priority. Founders wanted everyone joining a "militia" to be heavily armed if the need should arise to keep "the security of a free state"
So in essence there's three key parts. In order of their appearance--
(1) "A well regulated militia"
(2) to maintain "the security of a free state"
(3) Heavily armed to secure and maintain our nation
At this point in time everyone's focus seems to be only on the 3rd part ignoring the first 2 as part of the whole.
Like I said I will not further engage. But since you took the time to comment and asked for a response I thought it's only fitting I respond.
Fair enough; I tip my hat to you for your response regarding an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Limiting ownership remains a slippery slope, in my view, and one that can have us limited in the kinds of speech we all enjoy.
DeleteCheers.