Finally a serious question about 2nd Ammendmet

:confused: Neither the Articles of Confederation nor the U.S. Constitution bears much resemblance to any French form of government before or after 1789.

The French were your partners. Your Codified system of law and republic structure all influenced by France. The Statue of Liberty was a gift from France. I could go on...

In the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), France fought alongside the United States, against Britain, from 1778. French money, munitions, soldiers and naval forces proved essential to America's victory over the Crown.

Canada on the other hand remained loyal to the British and our superior system of Government was the result.

In the United States, president and Congress can be locked in fruitless combat for years on end. In Canada, the government and the House of Commons cannot be at odds for more than a few weeks at a time. If they differ on any matter of importance, then, promptly, there is either a new government or a new House of Commons.

Presidential-congressional government is neither responsible nor responsive. No matter how often either house votes against the president’s measures, there he or she stays. The president can veto bills passed by both houses, but cannot appeal to the people by calling an election to give him or her a Congress that will support him or her. Parliamentary-cabinet government, by contrast, is both responsible and responsive. If the House of Commons votes want of confidence in a cabinet, that cabinet must step down and make way for a new government formed by an opposition party (normally the official Opposition), or call an election right away so the people can decide which party will govern.

An American president can be blocked by one house or both for years on end. A Canadian prime minister, blocked by the House of Commons, must either make way for a new prime minister, or allow the people to elect a new House of Commons that will settle the matter, one way or another, within two or three months. That is real responsibility.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/SenatorEugeneForsey/book/chapter_4-e.html
 
The bolded part is the only part that actually matters. Rights are not inherent or gifted by God. They are granted by man and governments. Its really that cut and dry.

If thats you belief then fine, you live you life that way. I choose to go with the founders of this great country in which we live.
 
If thats you belief then fine, you live you life that way. I choose to go with the founders of this great country in which we live.

What the Founders thought is frankly immaterial since they have all come down with a permanent case of being dead. Those are the facts, your rights are granted by your government and the people around you that at least in theory create and support said government. Nothing else.

What do you base that on...by the way?

He bases it for starters on the fact that you can be denied gun ownership because you were a felon, people are starting to make a push that if you are found to be mentally unstable that you can be denied the ability to own a gun. If rights are universal and based either on you being a human being or gifts from God then they shouldn't be taken away for any reason. Unless you truly think your smarter than God and the Founding Fathers.
 
He bases it for starters on the fact that you can be denied gun ownership because you were a felon, people are starting to make a push that if you are found to be mentally unstable that you can be denied the ability to own a gun. If rights are universal and based either on you being a human being or gifts from God then they shouldn't be taken away for any reason. Unless you truly think your smarter than God and the Founding Fathers.


So then you agree if I am not a felon or mentally unstable there is no reason for the government to infringe upon my rights?
 
When bringing up the Founding Fathers, they were rich, land owning, white males bestowing rights to rich, land owning, white males.
 
Privileges may be taken away, something that is a right can not be.
So you disagree with the basis of the Declaration of Independence and the principles of the US Constitution since everything enumerated as a right can be taken away.
Good to know.
 
The French were your partners. Your Codified system of law and republic structure all influenced by France.

Only in Louisiana; the rest of the states use Anglo-American common law. And all states follow a basic political structure worked out by the colonies before or not long after independence, with an elected legislature (2 houses, each elected by single-member-district representation), separately elected governor, independent judiciary; and that basic structure more or less replicated at the federal level. Except for its being a presidential or separation-of-powers system, it's far more British than French. Remember, this form of government emerged when France was still an absolute monarchy and the Estates-General had not even met since 1614.
 
And yet you insist on denying the most obvious point that the very purpose of preserving the militia was to ensure that the pre-existing, individual right of the people to keep and bear arms would not be imperiled.

I strongly suggest you reread your Heller citation without the rose-colored glasses. What it explicitly says is the intent of the Second Amendment (that is an important word) is not the right of people to keep and bear arms. It is about the right to have a militia and the Federal Govt not infringing upon that right by denying access to arms. I'm sorry you don't understand the difference. And next time you cite something like that...how about including the rest instead of cutting and pasting only what you think is important (which supported what I was saying and not what you were saying...how fucking stupid can you be)?
 
Communist Party on board with Obama...big surprise eh?:rolleyes:


Fight to end gun violence is key to defending democracy

by: RICK NAGIN
january 18 2013

http://www.peoplesworld.org/fight-to-end-gun-violence-is-key-to-defending-democracy/

Something snarky needs to be said about a fight between two groups of people, one with guns and the other without, but I'll pass that.

The ironic part is that the side without guns can only win by getting other people with guns (duh gubm'nt) to do what they feel will make them safe.
 
Communist Party on board with Obama...big surprise eh?:rolleyes:

There are over 30,000 deaths caused by a gun each year. Two-thirds of those are suicides. One-third are murder. If it is hard for you to put your head around that number, here is a number that you should understand. There were 58,282 deaths (or MIA) in the Vietnam war. Every two years results in the same number of senseless deaths as a stupid war that shouldn't have been fought. Seems to me that we have a problem and sticking your head up your ass isn't going to make the problem go away.
 
And making recreational drug use legal would reduce those 10,000 murders by around 1/2 (the number attributed to drug related violence).
Plus it would save us billions of dollars.
Plus free up law enforcement to focus on crimes with actual victims.
Resources that could, in part, be used to make sure people buying guns are suitable owners.
 
Last edited:
Not even close.
Well, you better go back and read both again. They both identify rights that can, in fact, be taken away.
Unless your next claim is that the writers and signers of them accidentally used the word "right" when they really meant "privilege". :rolleyes:
 
I strongly suggest you reread your Heller citation without the rose-colored glasses. What it explicitly says is the intent of the Second Amendment (that is an important word) is not the right of people to keep and bear arms. It is about the right to have a militia and the Federal Govt not infringing upon that right by denying access to arms. I'm sorry you don't understand the difference. And next time you cite something like that...how about including the rest instead of cutting and pasting only what you think is important (which supported what I was saying and not what you were saying...how fucking stupid can you be)?

I strongly suggest you kiss my fucking ass, shithead.
 
All of the idiots that fucked up quotes in this thread should have their penis extenders taken away and put to the firing squad. Sgtspiderdumbfuck called himself out ffs. Contrwhatever and Sean too. Fuck, lookup Kyle's "how to quote" thread, dumbfucks.

ETA : RJDUMMY too.
 
All of the idiots that fucked up quotes in this thread should have their penis extenders taken away and put to the firing squad. Sgtspiderdumbfuck called himself out ffs. Contrwhatever and Sean too. Fuck, lookup Kyle's "how to quote" thread, dumbfucks.

ETA : RJDUMMY too.

Oh, stop kissing Kyle's ass.

:kiss:
 
Back
Top