Supreme Court Gun Case

Can you believe we actually agree on something?

 

Research would have answered this question for you. The founders were very concerned with tyranny. They looked for the possibility that it could arise out of any Government; they were extremely concerned that it would arise out of the one they were creating. They believed that one of the first things a tyrannical government would do was disarm its populace. The Second Amendment was simply recognizing a God-given right for the people to defend themselves. Again, they knew that any such government would have "good" reasons for its actions- always have...always will. The point that they were making was that any such infringement was both unethical and illegitimate.

 

It was bound to happen. One thing is for sure it is hypocritical to argue for freedom in any other area while sacrificing safety but be for banning guns from citizens (which does nothing to make the streets safer) in the name of safety.

 

Whether or not you prescribe to this nonsense, I cannot know. Still, I know this line of argumentation well. It is morally bankrupt, because it is patently dishonest- attempting to hide a modern liberal argument in the skin of an original intent argument. Context and research answers this question very well.

I never cease to be amazed at how liberals try to argue what the founders meant to say. I have noticed how quickly they abandon such arguments when they realize that it is not a winning hand. Pure and simple- liberals care about what the Founders meant when they see it as a road to victory.

How I wish more Americans truly cared what "they meant".

 

Revmitchell,

You are correct sir.


"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin (1775)

 

It was simply a point to the discussion. The subject has been debated for a long time. In fact, the founding fathers assumed we would have a militia which would be called when necessary and that we would not have a standing army.


[/quote]I never cease to be amazed at how liberals try to argue what the founders meant to say.[/QUOTE]

The same could be said about conservatives, socialists, libertarians, free masons, etc. In some areas their words are vague enough that arguments can be made from many philosophies.

It seems to me the courts have settled enough cases that precedent has been set and the I believe the Supreme Court will rule against Chicago's law.

Would you be willing to follow the Swiss model on guns and gun control? Read below:

Buying a gun in Switzerland:

 

I understanding you were being facetious; I love facetious humor and use it myself. However, if we have no firearms and a man (or men) breaking into our home does, where are we on "equal footing?"

Burglars used to break in only when no one was home (as they did with me), and they probably didn't carry guns. Now they come in when you and your family are all there, and they too often kill everyone--including the children. No feeling, no remorse, no sense of right and wrong--just a desire to kill for the thrill of killing.

 

So, your answer to "responsibility" is to prohibit the private ownership of guns?

No thanks.

 

Hmmm, you jump to conclusions. I haven't said that.

 

Then, do you agree or disagree with Chicago's banning of handgun ownership by private, law-abiding citizens?

 

Did you see my post that gave information on the Swiss system of guns and gun control?

 

I didn't ask you about Swiss policy. I asked a simple question:

Do you agree or disagree with Chicago's banning of handgun ownership by private, law-abiding citizens?

 

You have your answer.

 

Curtis...I'm sure you're right...but I'm trying to make Crabby do something unprecedented: answer a question directly.

 

Yup. I'd also like to see him answer his own questions. I have no idea how many kids have been killed by "empty" guns, nor can I find stats on "handy" gun crimes. Speculation & conjecture have no place in a discussion about facts.

 

People who want to ban guns do not really believe in freedom.

 

I prefer to take my chances with my neighbors than with the government. Freedom is dangerous. The USSR didn't have this problem.