The Beauty of the Second Amendment - An Armed Citizen Saves A Police Officer's Life


#61

calibrated means under control.

carefully assess, set, or adjust (in other words…set to rules)

Here is what one of the most crazy of his time revolutionaries said:
“The great object is that every man be armed.” and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

there are several other quotes from our founding fathers and what they tell us is that NOT everyone should have a gun. That is ludicrous. They tell us variations of “everyone WHO IS ABLE” may have a gun. Someone must DECIDE who is ABLE.

I love how Conservatives attempt to cite the Constitution but refuse to acknowledge it was written by Progressives of their time who wanted a STRONG Central Government as evidenced by the Federalist Papers and by George Washington approving Alexander Hamiltons request for a Central Bank even though the Constitution did not specifically allow for one.

Because Hamilton had convinced Washington that the Federal Government had “Implied Powers”

your site did provide an excellently presented definition but the conclusion was not as strong and IMO the words of our Founding Fathers carry more weight than an academic and the reality is at the end of the day…that is the answer.

no right is given freely, every single one must be earned every day…if you kill someone you can lose your right to freedom, and even to life. if you yel FIRE in a theater you can lose your right to Free Speech. And if you cannot prove capable of safely possessing a gun you an lose that right.

that’s just the facts.

every right has qualifications.


#62

One of the most crazy? Please extrapolate further as to how he is one of the crazies? Was Thomas Paine crazy when he penned “Common Sense”? or maybe Patrick Henry when he said “I know not what others may choose but, as for me, give me liberty or give me death.”

Or maybe it was the radicals who spent their families fortunes and died penniless and alone to secure the freedom for you to speak so ignorantly about a cause that gave us the United States.

Shame on you Sir.


#63

LOL Patrick Henry was looked upon like John Adams, being too revolutionary even for the revolutionaries, he was the Ted Cruz, Rand Paul of his time…he was an Anti-Federalist and yes he was looked upon as a radical even in a group of radicals hence his anti-federalist stance.

John Adams at least knew it when he, Jefferson and Franklin among the team told Thomas Jefferson to go ahead and write the Declaration (m/l supervised by Benjamin Franklin) because he knew the others saw him as a radical loud mouth and would have more questions than if Jefferson just wrote it.

he opposed the Constitution…not shame on me my friend just an honest analysis.

they were patriots but they were human beings. Some were thoughtful, some not, some excellent speakers some firebrands,


#64

Hardly a Ted Cruz or Rand Paul. A passionate man who opposed a strong, centralized government is NOT a radical, but an ultra-pragmatist; considering the time from which he came from.


#65

Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.

Maybe times 5.

but since I am a supporter of the Federalist View so I hear what you are saying…

and I do really appreciate your point and defense of him. Certainly it took all of them to allow this nation to be.

well said my friend.

^5


#66

The point I’m trying to make here is that it took an ideology. That ideology is one of disobedience in the face tyranny. I am not one of those who believes the constitution to be an arbitrary political manifesto. It took our founders to look at ALL political philosophies and concur on the best system. That is to conclude the “radicals” outlook on how we should be governed.


#67

IMO there wasn’t a whole lot of tyranny.

the tea party was a revolt because Britain REDUCED the tea tax. Made tea CHEAPER for the colonists. the Tea Party was a fabricated event. There was no tyranny.

Now I am not saying I support British rule but in reality the revolt really came about because some people just figured out “hey, we can have all this for ourselves”

why not?

there wasn’t a huge oppressive situation in fact King George was backpeddaling to do anything to get the colonists to stay.

Heck the Boston Massacre the shot heard round the world was a misunderstanding and panicked afraid British troops lead by a well intentioned officer.

no one meant to kill anyone…the revolutionaires just saw an opening and they took it. and we are glad they did and it makes for great stories and it is a great story all of it 100%.

but lets understand it for what it was too…there was a bit of extrapolation and fabrication to make it happen. just like a relationship where one part wants to leave the other they will have real reasons and make up anything else they need to.

then once the war started all bets were off.


#68

correct but you forget to include the three pence per pound duty enacted by the Townsend act of 1767. Thats where we got the whole " no taxation without representation " slogan from.

Patently False


#69

It can be a mistake to assume that regulation is simply authoritarian, heavy-handed and arbitrary puritanism by stuck-up NIMBY stuff. Regulation properly represents a legal reaction to irresponsible, egocentric, a- or anti-social behavior that negatively impacts our lives- the unintended consequences that usually accompany the desire to make things better simply mean that regulation (laws) should be consistantly and constantly malleable and in process (as seen in our 4 year peaceful revolution tradition) to slowly either get things right for as many as possible- or to reflect a constantly changing context.

That is the ongoing complexity of the principles of Democracy and why it is We-the-People who should remain engaged in our socio-political national forum.

Rights? They may be gamed too. I don’t like being told what to do but that means I must take responsibility for my own actions- and I have little patience for those who don’t and then are the cause of the very regulations they complain about. Those regs stick in the craw of all those who are capable and put in the effort of running their lives within the confines of their society. Those confines are also the too often overlooked benefits of living in the, for our species, life-giving cooperation with others. Quite a balancing act, granted.


#70

The ideological movement known as the American Enlightenment was a critical precursor of the American Revolution. Chief among the ideas of the American Enlightenment were the concepts of Natural Law, Natural Rights, Consent of the Governed, Individualism, Property Rights, Self-Ownership, Self-Determination, liberalism, republicanism and fear of corruption.
-wiki

want to try again?


#71

Why did you highlight property rights?


#72

that was my point.

The Founding Fathers have various reasons for supporting the revolution but taxation w/o representation was only part of it what that meant went broadly into several related issues…there were many more reasons and big ones were “that they could have this for themselves” many owned property and many lost it all during the fight…but the ability to freely determine their own destiny and set laws protecting propertystrong text**** among them. The FF didn’t want the crown to have the power to take their land.


#73

All politics aside, can you please use commas?


#74

I try to…


#75

but since I am a supporter of the Federalist View so I hear what you are saying…

You are actually what the Federalists warned us about . . .

You are taking the words of the 2nd Amendment (upon which the right in no manner depends) and inventing conditions, qualifications and restrictions on the right from your politically motivated “interpretation”.

Your arguments are precisely why the Federalists fought against adding a bill of rights . . . Because no matter how the provisions would be worded, those desiring to usurp would twist and conjure powers where none was ever granted.


#76

Exactly right and for concrete proof of this look no further than the composition of the federal government that we have today. The reason the Constitution is so brilliant is because it is clear and simple. It’s just that none of our elected representatives seem to care much about it any more.