The Second Amendment---Broken down

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by PharmrJohn, Oct 27, 2009.

  1. bcj1755

    bcj1755 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,357
    Location:
    A wretched hive of scum and villiany
    :D:D:D So true. I guess Obama and belercous really did go to the same school. They seem to have the same level of constitutional knowledge:rolleyes::rolleyes:

    "What does count is 5 people in black robes, and I'm hoping they will take your view" and "I've camapigned in 57 states. I think I have one more to go" both sound like the musings of brilliant law school grads:D
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2009
  2. Hardballer

    Hardballer New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2008
    Messages:
    471
    Location:
    Smack dab in da middle
    Come on, 'Dude', You have got to be kidding me. try clicking the links I provided, then find and read the quotes on the Second Amendment attributed to many of the Founders.

    If you are a Lawyer, that is your first mistake.

    As for debates in congress, they had no need to debate the 2nd Amendment because it was so obviously needed by the people in a country, of the people, by the people, for the people.

    I know this is a hard concept for you just being out of Lawyer school and all. Even rectal thermometers have degrees. But in every line of the Constitution, it is about the people. See above. Of the people, by the people, for the people. It means us simply us. How much plainer can it get?

    Oh. . . I almost forgot, your a lawyer. That explains everything. For you, we probably have to define the word "it".

    On another note, running away or hiding from the truth will not serve you well. Stand up, be a man, enjoin the debate here and if I were you, I don't think I would tell anybody else you went to Law school It's not a asset in the real world.
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2009
  3. belercous

    belercous Former Guest

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2009
    Messages:
    195
    I'm much better now, but that is debatable. My spelling may suffer, and my liver certainly will, but "Hey, I'm Baaack." It is difficult being a liberal in a conservative echo-chamber, but seeing as there are some here who appear to be reasonable people, I'm up for my fair share of abuse, at least for now. I know that I'm not gonna sway opinions, but this whole forum seems to be totally one-sided, and I thought I'd bring a little balance. Very little if one goes by the opinion polls current today.

    Marlin T: Yes, I said that. A court that overturns precedent is considered activist. That's what conservatives mean by it, so I'm just using their definition. Actually, it's a valid definition/description.
    The Court was activist when it ruled in Brown v. Board of Education. Remember that one? It held that (de jure, not de facto) segregated schools were unconstitutional. The law of the land (Plessy v. Ferguson [sp?]) in 1954 was that "seperate but equal" was constitutional, the settled law of the land. Divining the framers intent of the 14th Amen. was a no-brainer. In the congressional debates concerning the 14th Amen., the specific question was asked "Does this mean that white children will have to sit next to colored children in school?" The answer was a resounding "No." So, going into 1954 we had clear congressional intent and clear prior S.C. precedent saying that "seperate but equal" was what the Const. meant. The Court, by a 9-0 vote, overturned this decision. Clearly an activist court. I mention this to demonstrate why an "activist" court is not always a bad thing. Or is there someone out there who can argue against this blatantly activist decision? Racists, speak up. Now is your time to shine.

    And yes, I'm not a single-issue voter, I have many more interests than guns. If my interests in life were confined soley to firearms, I couldn't consider that much of a life. Not for me anyway, if others primary concern in life is guns, well I wish them the best and hope they are happy. I love guns, but they are not my sole all-consuming issue in life, I have other things to do. Guns are a part of my life, but by no means everything my life revolves around. It just so happens that the Democratic party represents my interests way more than the Republican party, at least now a days. I certainly don't agree with every aspect of the Dems., but the Reps. represent my views even less.

    If you think the Republican party defends the Const., Then we obviously have differing views on what the Const. means. The Rep. party just hates giving crimminal defendants rights. Never mind that they are only "accused," they are not deserving of rights because they are guilty. (Why else would they have been arrested? Circular reasoning) If you think the Republican party represents the rights granted in the Const, (outside of the 2nd and 10th) you really haven't been up on politics in the last 40+ years.

    John Brainard:No, the gov. might do something uncostitutional, but legal. The courts will keep them from enforcing an uncostitutional act. The gov. won't do something (usually) because it's illegal. If something is in violation of the law, it is illegal. If something (and it often has been a law) is in violation of the Cons., it cannot be enforced by the courts. An unconstitutional law is invalid, same as an illegal law. Neither can be enforced by the courts. Sometimes courts will enforce an illegal law, or unconstitutional law, but that is why we have appellate courts, and the S.C. Yes, it can be confusing, but I think we are on the same page.

    Muddobber: Nobody with any idea about political systems would ever say that we are a democracy. Never have been, never will be. Only the uneducated or fools could believe this. We are a republic, this is common knowledge. Yeah, I know all about how Senators used to be appointed, no surprise to me, you are correct so far. Constitutionaly speaking (and I don't agree with this, but just sayin') the 10th Amen. means nothing. Try arguing a case before the S.C. on 10th Amen. grounds, likely you won't win. The 10th Amen. has been shunted aside and forgotten. For all intents and purposes, it means nothing.

    Look, what I think of the 2nd Amen. counts for squat. If we were to use the Founding Fasthers intent,. and follow it thru to its natural outcome, in re: 2nd Amen., and let's just say for the sake of argument that it only applied to the states (the status quo today), well Oklahoma would be entitled to have an atom bomb. And ICBM's too. Do you see how this could be a problem?

    Now, let's consider if this right were granted to the individual. Well, Bill gates could own the bomb, perhaps Rupert Murdoch and Michael Bloomberg as well. Or anybody else wealthy enough to afford it. It would be one's right under the 2nd Amen., if the 2nd Amen. granted an individual the right to keep & bear arms, and this right was understanding of the Const. as being static. Does anyone see a problem with this? I mean a constitutional problem, not an actual problem?

    When the 2nd Amen. was adopted, militias had the same arms that regular armies did. Now, if we want to adopt the view (as some on this forum do) that the Const. is a static document (meaning that we cannot go beyond what the Framers intended at its adoption, not a living document as is the prevelant view today), no, Oklahoma could not have the bomb or ICBMs. They weren't around back in 1787(89), so the Const. could not possibly speak about them. As such, they could be regulated or denied.

    Alright, now let' assume that the Const. means the same thing now as it did in 1789. Cartridge rifles were not extant then, so under a "static" Const., no right to own one. My piont here is, if we were to adopt a constructional interpretation of the Const. as rigid, or "static," we would, even granted the personal right (incorporated to the states) only be allowed to own flint-lock guns.

    Such are the logical ramifications of the arguments in re; 2nd Amen.

    Now, I know I'm gonna get a lot of hate mail posts because of this, but it is reality. Please try to find fault with my arguments, but I'll only respond, non-dismissively or non-sarcasticlly, to those who can posit a reasoned argument. It might take a couple of days for my diesel-powered computator to gets back up online, but I'll check here soon. And If I don't reply to you, consider that I don't consider you in my league, much less worth my time.
    I welcome well-reasoned debate (how else can I learn?), and have been known to concede a point when I'm wrong. However, I do not suffer fools, or those who make-up their own facts, gladly. And, once again, this thread is about the 2nd Amen., not tangential (unless germane) issues.

    Me out now, good-beddy bye.
  4. belercous

    belercous Former Guest

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2009
    Messages:
    195
    Ooh, geez, don't you people go to bed? I'm trying, and after what I've drank, its easy.
    Alright.

    Hardballer: Yes, I have read that years ago. What you are citing is one primarily one view and the others, simply are not credible sources. The actual congressional deliberatations were never put down for posterity. In so much as the Const. goes, the best source we have for the actual debates are James Madison's notes. And as much as it may surprise you, Conress actualy did debate things back then, most especially when the Const. was about to be altered.

    By the way, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on tv. I have the same training a lawyer does, but I'm not a lawyer.

    Yeah, like I'm running and hiding. Sure, "cut & run," kinda like Reagan in Lebanon. No, I'm here. I think I've already enjoined the debate, (look the word up, please) I'd rather just join the debate.

    I'm so glad that you "KNOW" what the Constitution means, all them edumacated S.C. justices for well over 200 yrs. don't have the insight that you posess. You must have been born with a silver gun in your mouth to have such a superior understanding of the Const., history, fact and reality be damned.

    Marlin T: I have no idea about what you mean. Oh yeah, I see now. He isn't not oo brights is he? Good catch.
  5. RDak

    RDak New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Messages:
    25
    Location:
    Michigan
    belercous: Read Federalist Paper No. 29. It gives Hamilton's take on militias and allowing individuals to own firearms. It shows, IMHO, that the 2nd Amendment was viewed by at least one founding father to be a necessary individual right.

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed29.htm

    Here's a brief excerpt:

    Last edited: Oct 28, 2009
  6. muddober

    muddober Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    1,447
    belercous: I agree that the Constitution mandated that we were to be a Republic. The first sentence of Article 4. section 4. makes that clear as stated in part "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government,". I believe that the 17th amendment passed in 1913 "bastardized" our union so that is it neither a republic nor a democracy. The states are simply no longer represented thereby killing the mandated republican form of government as guaranteed by Article 4 section 4 and the people of the several states cannot vote for those states Representatives(the senate), thereby killing the concept of a democracy. My point is that the Constitution has or lets say HAD a common thread whereby the states where considered separate and apart from the people and in my view the four best places to see that common thread as it weaves through the Constitution is in Article 1 section 3. which provides for senators to be appointed into office by their respective states legislature, Article 4. section 4 as mentioned, the 10th amendment and the second amendment. As I am sure you are aware the senate was constitutionally designed to watch over the house being their check so the peoples Representatives did not get out of hand pandering to only what the people want, IE. spend, spend, spend, to the point of bankrupting the United States which I don't believe would have happened if the states had been represented. Today the senate, now made up of persons voted into office by the people of their state although still constitutionally mandated to look over the House's shoulder, is like asking a coyote to look after your chickens. This has been known to be a problem since around 550 to 600 BC as warned by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle that a democracy fails when the people can get their hands on the treasury of their government through their elected officials. I could not even dream up a better case in point or a scenario than what we are experiencing at this very moment.

    Ron
  7. bcj1755

    bcj1755 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,357
    Location:
    A wretched hive of scum and villiany
    See, there he goes using another standard liberal tactic...using the dreaded "R" word:rolleyes:

    We still haven't seen any definative proof that you even own guns. You have zero credibility in that department because your only purpose here is to "teach" us the glory of Obama. Want to prove me wrong? How about you answer my earlier questions from another thread
    I'm sure as a supposed law school grad, you know all about questioning someone to pin them down:rolleyes:

    Circular argument and flawed logic. If our law is based on the Constitution, but a law is passed that is unconstitutional, then it cannot be legal. Just because the gov't can do something does NOT make it right. Taking your "logic" to it's ultimate conclusion, then the gov't is infallible. Also, going by your reasoning, then everything the Nazis did was "legal" because it was all done under the guise of a government. You claim the gov't won't do something illegal? The ATF's actions at Ruby Ridge come to mind. The government's actions at Waco come to mind. How about the abuses of power committed by crooked cops? Last time I checked, the police were part of the government. How about all the illegal actions taken by members of Congress? Last time I checked, they were also part of the government. How about Obama sitting as head of the UN Security Council? That is illegal also. Don't believe me?
    Uh oh, there I go quoting that pesky Constitution again. I guess I should just bow down to your knowledge and believe everything you say:rolleyes:

    Correct, we are not a democracy. But guess who started the concept that we were. Marxists. Marxists that infiltrated the colleges of this country.
    Why do I bring that up? Remember this quote I posted earlier...
    Read carefully the definition of "socialism" given by Skousen. Now, compare that with what the gov't is doing currently. Gov't "bailouts" of major industries such as the banks, auto makers, etc. The FCC trying to force "diversity" onto media and the internet. Gee, it sure looks like socialism to me. And socialism is UNCOSTITUTIONAL, and therefore ILLEGAL, yet the gov't is practicing it. So tell me again how the gov't won't do anything illegal:rolleyes:

    Yet again you say the 10th Amendment means nothing, but yet here you say
    So in one instance you say that everything in the Constitution has meaning, but in another you say that a part of the Constitution has no meaning:confused: Well, which is it?

    Ok, since you claim you minored in American History, you would know that the most common privately owned weapon at the time was the British Brown Bess musket. You would also know that the general issue weapon to the British Army was the Brown Bess musket. So logically, therefore, the Founding Fathers knew when they wrote the 2nd, that they were protecting the rights of the people to own military weaponry. So therefore, your attempt to argue that a "static" Constitution would only allow us to own flintlock muskets is wrong. The orginal intent of the 2nd was to allow the people to be armed in order to not only prevent a tyrannical gov't from imposing it's will on the people, but also so the armed populace could form the militia for national defence. A body of people used for national defense would be less that useless if not armed with the most modern military weaponry and trained in it's use.
    From all of those quotes, you can derive one common theme, that ALL citizens were expected to compose the militia, and that the militia was to be trained and armed exactly as a regular, full-time, standing army. Therefore, it was the Founding Fathers' intention that all citizens would have access to military training and weaponry.

    You ask us to try and find fault in your posts, yet you become insulting when I and others do just that. Additionally, I have yet to see a post of yours that is NOT dismissive, sarcastic, or to see one that is a reasoned argument.
    And here you go again trying to elevate yourself intellectually above others. I really enjoyed this part...
    . You say that, yet you continually make up your own facts.

    If that's true, then how did you make the money to supposedly retire before you were 30? I think my previous thought on that matter was correct. You know, the one where I stated that you must be slinging some hardcore primo good dope, and partaking of it yourself.
    Apparently, neither are you, what with your "5 people in black robes" comment. And I think you posted a coherent thought in that one. "He isn't not oo brights is he?" Another nugget of pure intellect from belercous.

    You know, I don't blame you for wanting to ignore my posts. If I were you, I'd also ignore my posts. I'm ever so sorry that I actually use facts to back up my arguments and I'm really sorry that I have proof to back up my facts. I guess I should just start claiming to be a constitutional scholar like you and expect everyone to take what I say as gospel. Just because you claim to be a constitutional scholar and law school grad, does not make it fact. I could claim to be Khavek IV, Emperor of the Klingon Empire, but that doesn't make it true. You claim to have an extensive legal education, yet someone with only a high school education has continually proven you wrong. Whoever paid for your supposed education got ripped off.
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2009
  8. Eddie N

    Eddie N New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,192
    Location:
    Colorado
    Hope you don't mind my two cents, but I find the Constitution to be very self explanatory, if a little bit hard to read because of the language. Just read it as is and there you have it. And the second amendment says, in part, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed! And there was very good reason for this, and still is. And anybody who tries to take my "protection" away is asking for a severe case of lead poisoning! My apologies if I said anything I shouldn't have, but I have very strong feelings about this.
  9. bcj1755

    bcj1755 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4,357
    Location:
    A wretched hive of scum and villiany
    Maybe you need to do some more research about SCOTUS and the 2nd Amendment.
    Man, it looks like your "legal education" was spotty, at best.:rolleyes:
  10. Bobitis

    Bobitis Guest

    I live in the State of Mind.
    Therefore my security is paramount.
    If I'm not safe in my own State, I'm worthless to anyone else.

    Makes sense to me.:)
  11. Double D

    Double D Administrator Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Messages:
    10,675
    Location:
    North Florida
    I am not edumacated enough to have a conversation with you belercous. I will say though that sometimes education stands in the way of common sense. I have attempted to read your posts and quite frankly I dont agree with your way of thinking. I feel like I am reading from someone who "thinks" they know it all. I am not attempting to fight with you but rather point out that your way of communication is a turn off. You come across as most liberals do. Its kind of like "I need to teach you a thing or two if your smart enough". Maybe its just me. Maybe its just that I dont share the same views. I honestly dont believe that the raw solid facts could sway you.

    Since I have not been involved in these conversations, I may be out of line for jumping in at the end. Heck I may just be out of line. I just for the life of me cant figure out what it is you are trying to accomplish here. You said you wouldnt respond to anything that didnt fit your mold so you may not respond at all. You are not obligated to. I dont have any authority here any more than you do. It just doesnt seem to me that you are here to get to know anybody or share your gun stories or be part of the forum. Again maybe I am wrong.

    I hold the members here in high regard. I hope to one day get to meet them all. I dont really care if they dont share all of my views or politcal stance. I feel like people here are like an extended family of sorts. And I think most of them are trustworthy good folks. So I guess im just not sure why you are here? Just wondering.......
  12. Teejay9

    Teejay9 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,257
    Location:
    Southwest Corner of the US, "Where no stinking fen
    Ah, sensible, respectful discourse. That's what makes this place so interesting. Guns certainly Aren't my life, either, but I do rather enjoy them. As for the 2nd Amnd., well, I guess we must agree to disagree. I believe that if it did NOT mean that THE PEOPLE were understood to have the God given right to keep and bear arms, the Ferderals would have begun to disarm the population immediately after the Civil War, what with all the killing and all. But no, they didn't even have an argument in Congress over it at that time. They just kept on letting people arm and protect themselves. Now, I myself, have no attachment to either party. I have found myself voting Republican over the years because they USED to let me keep my money and they USED to create jobs where I could make money. I find myself in the Libertarian/Independent class, but that's just a wasted vote (for now). I find it strange that some people get so riled up over a topic over which they have no control. I find it stranger that some people like to agitate others. But hey, that's just me. Harballer, thanks for the links, I thoroughly enjoyed them and they supported my already held beliefs. The rest of you, agitators and agitated, please continue. It's quite absorbing. TJ
  13. RDak

    RDak New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Messages:
    25
    Location:
    Michigan
    The biggest point I think belercous misses is this IMHO:

    The SCOTUS ruled in Heller, supra, that an individual, unconnected to a militia, can own a firearm for self defense purposes.

    It was a close decision but that is now the law of the land. And Scalia wrote a very detailed explanation as to why that is now the law of the land.

    There has never been a 2nd Amendment case heard by the SCOTUS addressing incorporation. And this is especially "brought home" when reading Heller.

    Footnote 23, in Heller states:

    I'm curious how anyone unbiased could read this footnote and still feel the Court will deny incorporation. This footnote begs for future litigation and the Court did accept the incorporation case VERY quickly.

    Belercous has to remember that the States signed a contract to become part of the Union. Certain universal rights have to be honored by the States as part of this contract. Sure this is a double edged sword but I cannot think of a more basic, universal right than the right allowed in Heller (i.e., that an individual, unconnected with a militia, has the right to own a firearm for self-defense purposes).

    The Heller decision details why this individual right is fundamental and universal. Heller concludes this right precedes the constitution and has, for all intents and purposes, a life of its own based on my reading of Heller.

    No it is not a "coin-toss" whether we win the incorporation case as belercous opines IMHO. It is a slam dunk IMHO. It may be a 5-4 decision but so be it.

    I guess what I'm saying is belercous should read, and reread, Heller to gain a full understanding of how the 2nd Amendment is now interpreted by the highest court in the land. (His opinions seem to be based on arguments decided upon and rejected by Heller, supra, IMHO.)

    By doing so, he will gain an understanding that the founding fathers clearly assumed, and wanted, individuals to have the unfettered right to own firearms to guard against tyranny, (i.e., whether it be tyranny from government intrusion or tyranny derived from lawlessness).
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2009
  14. GMFWoodchuck

    GMFWoodchuck New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,369
    Location:
    Binghamton, NY
    Belercous, if your education in law school never brought you to the federalist papers written by our founding fathers, and their intentions of the constitution and bill of rights, then I understand the total dimay of our legal system.

    If a law is in violation of a supreme law (constitutional law) it is, by definition, an illegal law. If you chose to use the word "invalid" then so be it. Most anyone else will chose not to pervert the constitution and use words to attempt to soften the blow of a gross violation of the costitution. And, what difference it makes I have no idea? Illegal, unconstitutional, invalid. They all point to the same meaning....Flat out WRONG!!

    If you think our interpretation of the constitution is static, then I suggest that you get off of that computer of yours being that you think that the writers of the constitution never saw the internet coming and therefore must not apply to the first ammendment. I fully assure you of the fact that, our founding fathers all imagined the concept of a repeating rifle without ever a second thought to even a concept of what the internet is.

    The intentions of our founding fathers is very clear. If you chose not to understand their writings on the constitution, then so be it. Do not pretend to be a scholar when you ignore the fact they there are tons and tons of information written by almost every single person directly involved in the birth of the concept of our nation and the intentions be each and every single word they wrote in the constitution.

    When you chose to not read posts by other members in this forum because you can not comprehend the valid thoughts that they provide it only shows what our law schools are teaching our potential lawmaker. Pure ignorance through refusal to understand simple basic concepts.

    The constitution was designed to make our government(s) weak and fearful of the citizenry. The constitution was designed to make the citzenry the holder of absolute power. Hence the reasons for the bill of rights. No, we are not a democracy. No one has the time to deal with the daily nonsense of the affairs of our government. We hire politicians to vote on the day to day business. I have no intentions of going to a voting booth every thirty seconds just because my fellow citizen(s) thought of an idea that should be motioned into law. No group of large people will ever be a democracy. However, as a citizen of the United States of America, no person shall ever take away my basic right to speech and self-defense. That is wht the constitution and bill of rights is all about. The constitution is about who maintains the ultimate control. I intend on keeping my fair share of it.

    If you think your experience with a traffic tickets will give you your guns back, have a ball and run with that fleeting dream. Because when a ban comes, and it will, it has in the course in every single nations' history, I will KEEP my share of what's mine. You do not seem to understand that when a government intitutes a weapons ban against it's citizens, it's for quite negative reasons.

    Our founding fathers meant for us to have the same very weapons that the militia has. Be it flintlocks or the M249 SAW. Our founding fathers wrote the 2nd ammendment. And explained it in the ferderalist papers (which you apparently have never heard of) afterwards, that because a government needs a militia (this is not the local citizens militia, they were clearly talking about an organized army and navy) we need a means of self defense against that very militia. The ultimate check and balance. The freedom of speech is the ultimate check and balance to the "militia's" command structure.

    But this, I'm sure, will fall on your deaf ears; Belercous. Because you seem to think that our president has done none of these things to circumvent us. You believe that our president didn't marginalize our troops. You believe that our president didn't try to take away FOX's ability to report the news. You must also, I presume, believe that our president never voted to ban handguns in Illinois. You must believe that our president is like every other politician in office. An honest, caring, man who takes care of his constituents. One who takes care of his grandmother in Kenya as she lives on the edge of starvation in a shed not good enough for your lawnmower.

    Keep believing that our leaders are a good group of people. And keep believing that you will get your guns back after they take them away and melt them down. Keep believing this as did Hitler's and Pol Pot's constituients.
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2009
  15. Double D

    Double D Administrator Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Messages:
    10,675
    Location:
    North Florida
    I have said in previous posts that it is impossible to "reason" with certain people. This is in fact the perfect representation of that mindset. I hate to see so much effort go to waste.
  16. GMFWoodchuck

    GMFWoodchuck New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,369
    Location:
    Binghamton, NY
    Unfortunately, you are correct.
  17. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    While it might be impossible to "reason" with certain people, it is good exercise for us to do so here. Many of the points brought up here, on both sides, are presented in such a way that we can hone our thinking, preparations and arguments for the coming fights to keep and regain our rights.

    Good job, folks. Thank you.

    Pops
  18. Double D

    Double D Administrator Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Messages:
    10,675
    Location:
    North Florida
    Pops, while I do agree with you about debate being a good brain exercise, I have a hard time with the know it all additude and the "I will only respond if someone is on my level" mindset. While I have had a couple of small debates with a member or two, I will never try to take the stance that I am smarter than someone else or that they dont warrant a response. I have used some strong one sided language in a few conversations and I have also made a few attempts to reach out to some with the opposite views.
    I am not an expert on anything. I will never make that claim. I dont like it much when I feel like myself or others are being talked down to. Heck we all pull our pants up the same way. Im just sayin......
  19. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    DD, I understand what you are saying. However, by drawing him out we have made him "show his true colors" as it were. That is a good thing.

    Pops
  20. PharmrJohn

    PharmrJohn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2009
    Messages:
    975
    Location:
    Western Washington
    Ab*so*lute*ly. I posted my thought, sat back....and read the posts. And I have learned quite a lot from this. There are points on both sides, at least, it seems to me there is. I would post more.....but frankly, I know just about as much as I said in my first post. A cut and paste with, quite frankly, a pretty lame interpretation. But since it was all I had....I went with it.

    And while the reasoning part of it goes both ways, that is what a good debate is for. To strengthen each other's knowledge base.

    Thank you all for your posts. Rock on.......John.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Court Ruling: Waiting Periods a "Burden" on Second Amendment Rights Dec 20, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Texas House Gives Final Approval to Impressive Number of Pro-Second Amendment Bills May 8, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Will Roberts get a second chance at killing Obamacare? Apr 2, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum A duty to preserve the Second Amendment Mar 30, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Second American Revolution Feb 27, 2013

Share This Page