XPost: alt.politics.congress, alt.politics.corruption, alt.politics.economics
XPost: alt.politics.election, alt.politics.misc, alt.politics.obama
XPost: alt.politics.scorched-earth, alt.politics.socialism.mao,
lt.politics.trump
XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.conspiracy, alt.apocolypse
XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.infowars
XPost: alt.beam-me-up.scotty.there-is-no.intelligent-life.down-here,
alt.politics.guns
From: NOT-SURE@idiocracy.gov
On 6/27/22 10:25 PM, Jane Playne wrote:
> On Monday, June 27, 2022 at 9:57:50 PM UTC-4, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> Mitchell Holman wrote in
>> news:XnsAEC389CAB1740...@216.166.97.131:
>>> David Hartung wrote in
>>> news:0aCdnTxniLjQKyT_...@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> On 6/27/22 08:30, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> David Hartung wrote in
>>>>> news:H6udnc0s8PGnEST_nZ2dnUU7- WHN...@giganews.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/27/22 00:00, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> ,
>>>>>>> Jane Playne wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you think was the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you do think they envisionned a 12.7 machine gun at a thousand
>>>>>>> musket balls a minute.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some of us see minor qualitative differences between the weapons
>>>>>>> of today and the weapons of the second amendment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Weapons of the second amendment"? Wouldn't that be those weapons
>>>>>> that would be a soldier's standard equipment? Today in the USA that
>>>>>> would be the equivalent of an M4 carbine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> According to whom?
>>>>>
>>>>> In 1789 there was no limit on private
>>>>> ownership of any weaponry.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that what you want for us today?
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just so.
>>>
>>> Instead of having to shoot children
>>> individuallly you think your "law abiding
>>> gun owners" should just walk down school
>>> hallways tossing hand grenades into every
>>> classroom.
>>>
>>> Or just target each classroom from a
>>> distance with a grenade launcher.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milkor_MGL
>>>
>>>
>>> Is that what you want, Hartung?
>>>
>> Well, Hartung?
> .
>
> What you want; what Hartung wants; what I want is not the issue. The issue
is the US Constitution.
>
> Liberals, Hillary in particular, referred to the Constitution as a living,
breathing document. The conservatives took exception to that belief.
ACTUALLY, Hillary was correct; there have been 27 Amendments to the
Constitution.
>
> If you don't like the 2nd Amendment, stop wasting your time on this NG and
work towards amending the 2nd Amendment.
>
Sadly for Democrats, the 2nd Amendment doesn't create any RIGHTS.
SO removing it is only a small piece of the effort to then try to ban
guns... there are other parts that may prevent the bans that will have
to be removed. like the 13th which means that removing that so they
don't need due process to ban guns would simultaneously re-introduce
slavery to the United States because banning self defense can only be
done to a slave. A free man has the unalienable RIGHT to life and
liberty and so you'd have to then remove the RIGHT to life and Liberty
in order to remove the RIGHT to self defense and LIBERTY to not be
enslaved.... you see what is enumerated is there to point out what is
NOT enumerated and they are all linked and when you remove one
enumerated piece you don't change the over all purpose of the
Constitution which is to RECOGNIZE the many more RIGHTS that aren't
enumerated but still exist.
This is why Democrats HATE the Constitution, it's designed to keep us on
a path to freedom even when we stumble and do something stupid.
--
-That's karma-
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
