C-south
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2018
- Messages
- 27,107
- Likes
- 48,427
My belief is that they are intentionally being disingenuous. They don't actually believe what they claim. If they did then they don't know how commas work, what our founders said regarding citizens freedoms, and foolishly think a group of men, who felt the need to over throw an oppressive government, would turn around and create a government that they themselves could not overthrow should they deem it necessary. They just know that if they admit the 2A is what it actual is then they can never achieve their actual intent. The bar to change the 2A is too high of one for them to achieve. It's easier to lie, be disingenuous, and attempt to actually subvert our founders intent.I feel that you open a hole for the Luthers of the world to drive their gun grabbing agenda through when you tie the 2 sections together in anyway.
No, it isn't. At least not as he's laid it out. How could one possibly come to the conclusion the government should have the power to deny it's citizenry the means to take up arms against it if the intent was to grant citizens the means to fight against a tyrannical government in the first place.Which seems perfectly reasonable.
That is one of their fundamental defenses.When you say 'gun grabbing', it sounds like grabbin all guns which is not the intent.
That's such an absurdly stupid take. There was no unanimous decision. There was a dissent. There was plenty of disagreement about the significance of that comma. That comma was actually missing in at least 3 of the state's ratification.My belief is that they are intentionally being disingenuous. They don't actually believe what they claim. If they did then they don't know how commas work, what our founders said regarding citizens freedoms, and foolishly think a group of men, who felt the need to over throw an oppressive government, would turn around and create a government that they themselves could not overthrow should they deem it necessary. They just know that if they admit the 2A is what it actual is then they can never achieve their actual intent. The bar to change the 2A is too high of one for them to achieve. It's easier to lie, be disingenuous, and attempt to actually subvert our founders intent.
Well in defense of those that want to give no ground they've restricted ownership before, and they pushed for more almost immediately after. They have good reason to believe government would take them all if they could. There's plenty of sound bytes from politicians calling for exactly that.That is one of their fundamental defenses.
It's the whole "slippery slope" fear mongering. "You can't regulate any, because if you regulate one, you will not stop until you regulate all."
It's about as stupid as saying .........................
"you cannot assign a legal speed limit, because if you set a limit, you will not stop until the limit is zero."
It's really just delusional paranoia, but it seems to work for (on) some of you.Well in defense of those that want to give no ground they've restricted ownership before, and they pushed for more almost immediately after. They have good reason to believe government would take them all if they could. There's plenty of sound bytes from politicians calling for exactly that.