Beyond that if you look at the initial Militia Act, the purpose isI was thinking more along the lines of a lot of people like to hunt
wildlife and need guns to do so.
Yes, but the 2nd Amendmend is not about hunting. It's about being able to resist tyranny. Which is why the Left is to eager to explain the 2nd Amendment away.
Tracker1 wrote to Dr. What <=-
Beyond that if you look at the initial Militia Act, the purpose is completely clear. Every man of age (18yo) was required to own the most common firearm of the time along with some ammo. It was definitely not for hunting but for common defense. I don't think anyone involved in
the discussion of the second amendment had any inclination to tether it
to any government body, because at the time, it was obvious that has
that right... which is why it's defined as a *right* to bear arms.
Tracker1 wrote to Dr. What <=-
I was thinking more along the lines of a lot of people like to hunt
wildlife and need guns to do so.
Yes, but the 2nd Amendmend is not about hunting. It's about being able to resist tyranny. Which is why the Left is to eager to explain the 2nd Amendment away.
Beyond that if you look at the initial Militia Act, the purpose is completely clear. Every man of age (18yo) was required to own the most common firearm of the time along with some ammo. It was definitely not for hunting but for common defense. I don't think anyone involved in
the discussion of the second amendment had any inclination to tether it
to any government body, because at the time, it was obvious that has
that right... which is why it's defined as a *right* to bear arms.
TRACKER1 wrote to DR. WHAT <=-
I was thinking more along the lines of a lot of people like to hunt
wildlife and need guns to do so.
Yes, but the 2nd Amendmend is not about hunting. It's about being able to resist tyranny. Which is why the Left is to eager to explain the 2nd Amendment away.
Beyond that if you look at the initial Militia Act, the purpose is completely clear. Every man of age (18yo) was required to own the most common firearm of the time along with some ammo. It was definitely not for hunting but for common defense. I don't think anyone involved in
the discussion of the second amendment had any inclination to tether it
to any government body, because at the time, it was obvious that has
that right... which is why it's defined as a *right* to bear arms.
DR. WHAT wrote to TRACKER1 <=-
@VIA: DMINE
@MSGID: <609290C5.2051.dove-firearms@dmine.net>
@REPLY: <609175D4.501.dove-firearms@roughneckbbs.com>
Tracker1 wrote to Dr. What <=-
Beyond that if you look at the initial Militia Act, the purpose is completely clear. Every man of age (18yo) was required to own the most common firearm of the time along with some ammo. It was definitely not for hunting but for common defense. I don't think anyone involved in
the discussion of the second amendment had any inclination to tether it
to any government body, because at the time, it was obvious that has
that right... which is why it's defined as a *right* to bear arms.
Correct.
And on top of that, there's the Leftie propaganda that the Constitution **grants** us rights. It does not. It only calls out the fact that we have rights and that those rights existed before the gov't existed.
The people have all rights and, through the Constitution, grants the
gov't power.
Of course, Lefties want to pretend that none of this exists.
... Insanity is just a state of mind.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
= Synchronet = Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net:24 - Fredericksburg, VA USA
JIMMY ANDERSON wrote to TRACKER1 <=-
Not only that, the "RIGHT" existed BEFORE the constitution. The constitution just prevents the GOVERNMENT from infringing... Or is SUPPOSED to prevent it, but there have been more and more infringements over time... :-(
Tracker1 wrote to Dr. What <=-
I was thinking more along the lines of a lot of people like to hunt
wildlife and need guns to do so.
Yes, but the 2nd Amendmend is not about hunting. It's about being able to resis
tyranny. Which is why the Left is to eager to explain the 2nd Amendment away.
Beyond that if you look at the initial Militia Act, the purpose is completely
clear. Every man of age (18yo) was required to own the most common firearm of
the time along with some ammo. It was definitely not for hunting but for comm
defense. I don't think anyone involved in
the discussion of the second amendment had any inclination to tether it to any government body, because at the time, it was obvious that has that right... which is why it's defined as a *right* to bear arms.
Let us also not forget what the Founding Fathers thought about permanent, standing
armies. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a
people's] freedom” and “completely adverse” to the “spirit
of this country.”
Pretty smart guys, those Founding Fathers. They were able to see 200 years into th
future.
... The number you have dialed...Nine-one-one...has been changed.
Yes, but the 2nd Amendmend is not about hunting. It's about being able to resist tyranny. Which is why the Left is to eager to explain the 2nd Amendment
away.
All of that is true. IIRC, the Brits cannot own much that isn't considered a hunting arm. When I hear someone who is not 2A going on about how we shouldn't have guns that carry X or more bullets, I think of the Brits and believe I would rather have what we have than that.
In the grand scheme of things the difference between a hunting rifle
and an assault rifle is the not in the firearm itself, but the
intentions of the person aiming and pulling the trigger.
I don't know what it would take to eliminate the roots of violent
behavior,
SYS64738 wrote to MOONDOG <=-
Re: Breaking News
By: Moondog to Sys64738 on Tue Dec 14 2021 15:56:00
Encouraging biblical morality would be a good place to start.
Sounds good, but even most of us who follow the same book do not agree what each page says.
Complete agreement is not necessary. There is a general theme of
respect, kindness, and responsibility.
Complete agreement is not necessary. There is a general theme of respect, kindness, and responsibility.
Put God above all, and treat your neighbor as yourself. The rest is
just details. :-)
Complete agreement is not necessary. There is a general theme of respect, kindness, and responsibility.
Re: Breaking News
By: Sys64738 to Moondog on Wed Dec 15 2021 08:03:00
Complete agreement is not necessary. There is a general theme of respect kindness, and responsibility.
But why do those have to be inspired by religion? Respect, Kindness and responsibility are all admirable traits. I don't need a fairy tale to back t up.
Eric
K7ELH wrote to SYS64738 <=-
Complete agreement is not necessary. There is a general theme of respect, kindness, and responsibility.
But why do those have to be inspired by religion? Respect, Kindness
and responsibility are all admirable traits. I don't need a fairy tale
to back them up.
Complete agreement is not necessary. There is a general theme of respect, kindness, and responsibility.
But why do those have to be inspired by religion? Respect, Kindness and responsibility are all admirable traits. I don't need a fairy tale to back them up.
| Sysop: | Havok |
|---|---|
| Location: | The Villages,FL |
| Users: | 103 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 78:44:24 |
| Calls: | 533 |
| Files: | 4,560 |
| Messages: | 84,003 |