Jump to content
The Klipsch Audio Community
juniper

dont want to be political

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

Of course, Jeff.  Like I said though, research their actual thinking on the constitution, they left a great paper trail.

 

1 minute ago, henry4841 said:

And included the 2nd amendment and never changed it. They included checks and balances as best they knew how when forming this government. The 2nd amendment is a check on government. 

 

It doesn't really matter; it will not change anything.  We have the 2nd Amendment.  I don't think any contemporaneous writings would show they were oblivious to the notion that arms could be used to overthrow the government they were creating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jeff Matthews said:

 

 

It doesn't really matter; it will not change anything.  We have the 2nd Amendment.  I don't think any contemporaneous writings would show they were oblivious to the notion that arms could be used to overthrow the government they were creating.

I agree.  But once again, it does matter.  It's deja vu from the last constitutional topic.  They were definitely not oblivious, or Washington would not have led an army to quell a tax rebellion.  The phrase "well regulated militia" is also in there for a reason.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, oldtimer said:

But once again, it does matter.

Why does it matter?  If you're allowed to have a gun, you can have one.  I don't see how mentioning a militia changes that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jeff Matthews said:

Why does it matter?  If you're allowed to have a gun, you can have one.  I don't see how mentioning a militia changes that.

Understanding our own constitution doesn't matter to you.  Confirmed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, oldtimer said:

Understanding our own constitution doesn't matter to you.  Confirmed.  

Waste of time.  Snark is pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jeff Matthews said:

Waste of time.  Snark is pointless.

It is not snark anymore than your position that only outcomes matter.  And it seems to be a pattern of your thinking on a variety of subjects.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, oldtimer said:

It is not snark anymore than your position that only outcomes matter.  And it seems to be a pattern of your thinking on a variety of subjects.

You dodged my question, and I put it to you squarely.  Rather than answer squarely, you said I don't care to understand.  That's not on point, and it's a red herring.  I assume it's because you didn't have a good answer by the time you felt ready to post.

 

Is it your opinion that the 2nd's mention of the militia limits the right to bear arms in some way?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should have discussions and disagreements in a civil and gentlemanly way. That is part of the United States of America as well. We are free to disagree as long as it is peaceful and civil. I believe we all here on this forum are decent upstanding people with different views and opinions. Lets all be together on that thought. I agree we should be able to disagree on any subject. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

Is it your opinion that the 2nd's mention of the militia limits the right to bear arms in some way?

That is not what you asked, and the answer is no.  You know my position to be far broader than just firearms, or is your memory failing?  My position is that why is important, every bit as much as what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, henry4841 said:

We should have discussions and disagreements in a civil and gentlemanly way. That is part of the United States of America as well. We are free to disagree as long as it is peaceful and civil. I believe we all here on this forum are decent upstanding people with different views and opinions. Lets all be together on that thought. I agree we should be able to disagree on any subject. 

Worried about someone?

(Aren't you glad you're not posting with tube people?  LOL)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

My position is that why is important, every bit as much as what.

But if why doesn't make a difference, then how is it so important?  It's kind of like arguing against my freedom of speech just because I say something like, "The first amendment was added because pizza tastes so good."  You can correct me for curiosity's sake, but the result doesn't change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, oldtimer said:

Worried about someone?

(Aren't you glad you're not posting with tube people?  LOL)

Probably, he thinks you and I are getting cross. Henry, Oldie and I go way back.  We get along just fine the way we carry on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF?  Let's not presuppose down that wormhole.  Once again, you are showing my so called snark to be spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll put it this way.  I think that the why is extremely important, to really fully understand who we are as a nation.  You think that only the outcome matters and do not care to bother with why.  There is not much more to pursue, except for debate over specific implementation, which would probably get us in moderator hot water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, oldtimer said:

I'll put it this way.  I think that the why is extremely important, to really fully understand who we are as a nation.  You think that only the outcome matters and do not care to bother with why.  There is not much more to pursue, except for debate over specific implementation, which would probably get us in moderator hot water.

Ok.  You are not exactly correct as to my opinion.  Like you, I have some curiosity as to the purpose for mentioning militias as opposed to say, "The right to self-defense being inalienable, the right to bear arms..."  Why state a reason at all?

 

That said, I am even more interested in how we managed to slice and dice the amendment to come up with some form of "consensus" that the right does not include automatic weapons, hand grenades, bombs and nukes.  I see a clear practical need for such limits, but IMO the Constitution should have been amended to water down the 2nd.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

It is not snark anymore than your position that only outcomes matter.  And it seems to be a pattern of your thinking on a variety of subjects.

Hey to Jeff and Oldie! It's good to see you both on a Sunday morning and glad y'all no longer discuss politics here...I hope you are well. :) {Note to MODs, hope you are well and couldn't get a password sent to me evidently because of an original AOL Address.}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, dtel said:

51 years owning a gun/guns and have never even came close harming someone, or ever wanted to, I have no bad intent so the weapon used is irregardless. 

.

 

.

you answered it correctly  , your reasoning is right , the good Citizen  should  not be hampered from owning guns or from having a right to own guns for sport or self-defense , and the right to bear arms -

 

 

, I was referring to the bad operators  , we have to find a way to reduce these numbers  -and the numbers of mass shootings - that's my only concern , getting the least amount  of guns in the wrong hands

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, henry4841 said:

That is just a politically statement to misinform calling semi auto guns assault rifles for those not familiar with guns. If you believe that you have taken the bait. The ones that want to ban guns know it would be hard to do outright so they chip away with one law after another. At least Beto is honest. The 2nd amendment is there to protect the people from government. Our founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they put that as 2nd. I do not trust any government so I am in favor of our 2nd amendment. "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." Read it carefully and take it as face value not with those that try to read into every word and twist it to suit there narrative. It says militia, not sporting, and shall not be infringed yet it is infringed almost daily. I've never heard of a gun killing anyone, only people doing so. In the deep south criminals do not target redneck houses because they know there is probably a gun in there to shoot back. Now more than ever we need our 2nd amendment. Just take a look at the news and see what is going on. 

@henry4841  ,  please let's no get into this constitutional debate , I was not speaking of the Right to bear Arms  which I  think is Fondamental  as one has the right to self-defense -

 

, but more in the sense of screening  some bad operators from getting their hands on certain types of weapons---

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...