quote:
But this is a policy position, correct? You are against gun control leglistation in the current political climate because it has negative consequences for the Democratic party.

No, I'm against it b/c criminals do not follow the law to begin with. Law abiding citizens will be the ones without guns. If we could have a do-over and there weren't millions of weapons already in the market: I'd be open to discussion. But we are where we are.

quote:
Howver, you sincerely believe that there is no individual right and you feel far more threatened by individuals bearing arms than the government, correct?

I believe there is the right b/c the S.C. said so (as BHP pointed out). That being said: as I read that article and the 2A, I can see how the current interpretation which some see as "pry this from my cold dead hands" is NOT what the founders intended. I believe it was intended for military purposes.

Yes, I feel more threatened by armed individuals than armed government.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Ace Midnight

Between sanity and madness

Member since Dec 2006

89781 posts

Posted on 5/20/14 at 1:27 pm to a want

quote:
I believe it was intended for military purposes.

For a government document (2A is in the Bill of Rights, by the way) to guarantee the right of a government to maintain a military? The founders considered the militia and the regular army as 2 very different things - and their use of militia is far different than the way the word is used today.

Having said that - again this article of the "Bill of Rights" - is between:

I. Congress shall make no law...

and,

III. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house...

I'm just reading it as a series of protections spelled out, to protect the people from overarching government (one the drafters had just shaken off.)

Maybe I'm the crazy one...