Guns don't kill

#226
#226
punkcat said:
It can also be twisted to where everything is an "assault rifle" even though there is no such thing. Again, who are you to tell me what kind of firearm I can own?
Click to expand...

didn't you know? Ed is an expert on all things and has an IQ double that of Rod Wilkes' and Tim Tebow's love child.
 
#229
#229
It is natural for a far left statist to hate private gun ownership.

The 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with hunting. It had little to do with home defense in the sense that we think of it.

The primary reasons for the 2nd Amendment were for defense against foreign invaders and as a check against an oppressive central gov't.
 
#230
#230
sjt18 said:
It is natural for a far left statist to hate private gun ownership.

The 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with hunting. It had little to do with home defense in the sense that we think of it.

The primary reasons for the 2nd Amendment were for defense against foreign invaders and as a check against an oppressive central gov't.
Click to expand...

While I see where you're going with this you need to be careful. One of the more insidious ways the liberals try to get at private ownership is to actually play up the "militia" aspect and then turn it around as something that makes possession of private firearms more vulnerable to the government's largesse. This is what was very common leading up to DC v Heller, the landmark case that finally set forth that the 2A did indeed refer to individual rights and specifically in regard to private defense. If you take a little time and look up the arguments used by those against Heller they very much try to bang the militia "group defense" intent.

In 2003 a lawsuit was filed in DC district court challenging DC's handgun ban and that rifles or shotguns must be essentially "disabled", even in the home. It was dismissed but successfully appealed in circuit court. Note the phrasing used to defend the rights of ownership by the appeals court:

That 2A "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms" and that the right was "premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)." Further..."the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."

This is essentially what was upheld by SCOTUS. At any rate people had guns for the express purpose of self defense and hunting well before the Constitution was written. I see no reason to diminish these rightful usages when adding the "defense against foreign invaders and as a check against an oppressive central gov't." component you cite.
 
#234
#234
Ed12111 said:
No I don't think it was a good idea. It really has nothing to do with firearms though.
Click to expand...

How many alcohol related deaths are there last year? Obviously wed be better off without alcohol for sale to the general public according to your logic.
 
#236
#236
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
George Washington
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top