Gun control debate (merged)

#14,728
#14,728
luthervol said:
There are loads of rational and reasonable actions that do not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

... And they’ve been implemented , no other right has as many restrictions on it as the 2a. Now let’s start working on the right to vote because I see , and here from people that for sure need to be vetted so we can decide if they are allowed to vote . It’s only RATIONAL and REASONABLE to do the same thing with such a powerful and deadly right , as the vote has . There’s a 99% chance your vote will affect me , there’s a 99.9% chance my firearms will never affect you .
 
#14,729
#14,729
0nelilreb said:
... And they’ve been implemented , no other right has as many restrictions on it as the 2a. Now let’s start working on the right to vote because I see , and here from people that for sure need to be vetted so we can decide if they are allowed to vote . It’s only RATIONAL and REASONABLE to do the same thing with such a powerful and deadly right , as the vote has . There’s a 99% chance your vote will affect me , there’s a 99.9% chance my firearms will never affect you .
Click to expand...
There is a 0.000000003% chance my vote will affect you.
 
#14,730
#14,730
GordonC said:
Of course. And for the sake of security, the people have the right to arm and protect themselves. Absolutely.

But when you get into 200 year-old grammatical constructs, which we're pretty much left to rely on because we can't dig the Founders up and ask them straight up, there will be and should be various interpretations. There was a time when dialogue, debate, and compromise kept this republic running.
Click to expand...

Are there many other 200+ year old documents that are grammatically dissected based on current language usages or are most of those just accepted as being exactly what was meant when it was written?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol
#14,731
#14,731
DynaLo said:
Are there many other 200+ year old documents that are grammatically dissected based on current language usages or are most of those just accepted as being exactly what was meant when it was written?
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah. Ever read the preface to a Bible translation re: idioms and grammar?
 
#14,732
#14,732
luthervol said:
There is a 0.000000003% chance my vote will affect you.
Click to expand...

Are you voting for a Democrat for the Oval Office or Congress ? There is a 0.000000001% chance you ever see any of my firearms . Let’s get started on those dangerous voting rights . They need some teeth / background checks to keep innocent people like myself from being harmed .
 
#14,734
#14,734
0nelilreb said:
To be fair the constitution didn’t have to be translated from servers different languages and words substituted for the original text . But I digress .
Click to expand...
What if it was translated from the KJV?
English is English, I guess.
Goodness.
 
#14,735
#14,735
GordonC said:
What if it was translated from the KJV?
English is English, I guess.
Goodness.
Click to expand...

If it was from the KJV to whatever version then I agree . I’m not in anyway saying man doesn’t screw things up , we do all the time . I can’t believe word for word of the KJV because there were many many scribes involved along with many different languages . The final say came from a man . But thats a whole different thread . Lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: GordonC
#14,736
#14,736
GordonC said:
Uh, yeah. Ever read the preface to a Bible translation re: idioms and grammar?
Click to expand...

So the Constitution and religious books are the only examples. It’s amazing with all the other old documents, legal and otherwise, that exist all but those two examples are apparently taken at face value for the time frame in which they were penned.
 
#14,737
#14,737
luthervol said:
There are loads of rational and reasonable actions that do not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...
Is it reasonable or rational to let someone who has admitted to having no history or expertise with a subject set policy on it?

Is it reasonable to let those who have an admitted bias against a subject set policy on the subject?
Your rational and reasonable has no basis in reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#14,739
#14,739
GordonC said:
Of course. And for the sake of security, the people have the right to arm and protect themselves. Absolutely.

But when you get into 200 year-old grammatical constructs, which we're pretty much left to rely on because we can't dig the Founders up and ask them straight up, there will be and should be various interpretations. There was a time when dialogue, debate, and compromise kept this republic running.
Click to expand...
You ever heard of The Federalist Papers? They made it very clear what was meant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BennesseeVols, DynaLo, tennvols77 and 1 other person
#14,740
#14,740
0nelilreb said:
Not having a militia doesn’t change the facts of who the right was intended for , since you couldn’t separate the people from the militia at the time it was written . A well regulated militia , ( that’s who it’s talking about in the next sentence ) being necessary to the security of a free state , ( this is talking about how important a militia is to the state ) the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, ( this is talking about who makes up the militia , the state , the country . The people since they are one in the same ) , shall not be infringed upon . Remember we are not talking about the states rights or country’s rights . When we say our right , we are talking about the PEOPLES rights , not any other institutions . So it’s hard for me to grasp the concept that all the rights we have are afforded to us as individuals except this one and they were just talking about the militia here .
Click to expand...

We still have militias. They are just called the National Guard now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DynaLo and GordonC
#14,747
#14,747
luthervol said:
There are loads of rational and reasonable actions that do not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

Using whatever definition of “infringe” the leftists have invented, you would be correct. Leftists are experts at moving the goal posts and redefining traditional western civilization words and terms to fit their ideology.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top