HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » A common question to both...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 03:56 PM

A common question to both sides...

...of this debate is the definition of the term "militia". A lot has been written on both sides of this issue concerning that definition. Underlying the idea that the militia be composed of and raised from the body of the people, is that same concept which Lincoln raised in the Gettysburg Address, that of "...government of the people, by the people, for the people...".


The Declaration of Independence proclaims that governmental authority is derived from the consent of the governed. Here in the US we accept that each individual is sovereign. By living here, we all participate in government. The judges, legislators and executives in their roles may be more involved with the day to day issues of government but they are not a separate class of individuals. Every individual, by his voice on issues to his neighbors, by his calls for change to officials, by the respecting of just laws and by his vote, is a an active part of the government.


A core expression of part of the concepts involved is expressed in this quote from JFK:

"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy… The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."



This government is a fair and democratic implementation of a representative republic. There is no facility within the law to recognize a right and concurrently limit that right from any group in general or certain individual without due process. The idea of accepting a right for only active militia members is so counter to the American spirit as to be an oxymoron.

118 replies, 11458 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 118 replies Author Time Post
Reply A common question to both sides... (Original post)
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 OP
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2012 #1
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #2
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2012 #3
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #4
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2012 #5
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #6
Hoyt Jan 2012 #7
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #8
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #11
Hoyt Jan 2012 #12
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #13
Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #58
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #60
Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #73
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #84
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #114
Spoonman Jan 2012 #87
Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #89
Spoonman Jan 2012 #90
Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #106
gejohnston Jan 2012 #108
Starboard Tack Jan 2012 #112
rl6214 Jan 2012 #14
Hoyt Jan 2012 #15
rl6214 Jan 2012 #16
Hoyt Jan 2012 #20
ObamaFTW2012 Jan 2012 #22
Hoyt Jan 2012 #24
ObamaFTW2012 Jan 2012 #28
rl6214 Jan 2012 #29
beevul Jan 2012 #40
X_Digger Jan 2012 #26
gejohnston Jan 2012 #18
Hoyt Jan 2012 #19
gejohnston Jan 2012 #23
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #27
ObamaFTW2012 Jan 2012 #17
Hoyt Jan 2012 #21
ObamaFTW2012 Jan 2012 #25
Hoyt Jan 2012 #31
ObamaFTW2012 Jan 2012 #32
Hoyt Jan 2012 #33
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #37
ObamaFTW2012 Jan 2012 #38
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #39
Hoyt Jan 2012 #48
ObamaFTW2012 Jan 2012 #51
Hoyt Jan 2012 #63
ObamaFTW2012 Jan 2012 #64
Hoyt Jan 2012 #65
ObamaFTW2012 Jan 2012 #82
ellisonz Jan 2012 #66
ObamaFTW2012 Jan 2012 #81
Spoonman Jan 2012 #41
ellisonz Jan 2012 #67
Spoonman Jan 2012 #86
ellisonz Jan 2012 #92
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2012 #76
gejohnston Jan 2012 #80
E6-B Jan 2012 #117
jeepnstein Jan 2012 #118
ileus Jan 2012 #9
LineLineReply ?
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #10
ellisonz Jan 2012 #30
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #34
ellisonz Jan 2012 #42
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #43
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #44
ellisonz Jan 2012 #46
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #47
ellisonz Jan 2012 #52
gejohnston Jan 2012 #55
ellisonz Jan 2012 #68
gejohnston Jan 2012 #70
ellisonz Jan 2012 #71
gejohnston Jan 2012 #78
ellisonz Jan 2012 #79
gejohnston Jan 2012 #85
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #56
ellisonz Jan 2012 #69
X_Digger Jan 2012 #72
ellisonz Jan 2012 #74
X_Digger Jan 2012 #83
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #88
ellisonz Jan 2012 #91
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #93
ellisonz Jan 2012 #94
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #96
ellisonz Jan 2012 #97
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #98
ellisonz Jan 2012 #99
X_Digger Jan 2012 #102
ellisonz Jan 2012 #103
X_Digger Jan 2012 #104
ellisonz Jan 2012 #105
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #113
gejohnston Jan 2012 #100
ellisonz Jan 2012 #101
gejohnston Jan 2012 #107
ellisonz Jan 2012 #109
gejohnston Jan 2012 #110
ellisonz Jan 2012 #111
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #45
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2012 #53
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #59
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #35
DWC Jan 2012 #36
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2012 #75
Hoyt Jan 2012 #49
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #50
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2012 #54
X_Digger Jan 2012 #57
Hoyt Jan 2012 #61
X_Digger Jan 2012 #62
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2012 #77
ellisonz Jan 2012 #95
DWC Jan 2012 #115
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #116

Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 04:29 PM

1. is there a question in there?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 04:31 PM

2. not in my mind

Should there be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 04:44 PM

3. you are asking for one's personal definition of the word militia?

what does the word militia mean to each individaul in this group.

Is that what we are addressing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 05:00 PM

4. While the militia...

...is the topic, it was my point to show that believing any right to be limited to a group, case in point being the militia, is entirely unamerican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 05:10 PM

5. but, in my mind

a militia can be a set with a subset of one. The rules for the set will apply to the subset. Therefore the rights are applicable to all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 06:00 PM

6. This is precisely my point.

Using a convention such as describing the militia as a subset of the people, necessarily describes an alternate, non-militia subset. The act of alienating the RKBA from the non-militia subset would be unamerican. The idea of equality is expressed in the founding documents and writings of the founders. How is it logical to conclude that a people who eschewed the social hierarchy of British society would not afford to everyone the same rights. How could someone even term a human attribute such as freedom of religion, the RKBA or the freedom of speech as a RIGHT and in the same sentence limit it away from the general population?

The Bill of Rights describes limitations on the government's authority over the people. Were the use of firearms within the strict pervue of the active militia only, the KEEPING and BEARING of ARMS would not be called a ***RIGHT***! Maybe a duty but not a right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 07:18 PM

7. Definition of "militia" is clear. And, it is not not a bunch of right wingers living in a compound.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 07:49 PM

8. Discounting....

...the double negative, elaborate a bit more, please, on what militia means to you, and a bit less on what it is not. While you're at it, please share what you think about a right possessed only by some of the people and not all of the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 11:00 AM

11. The definition of militia...

...as you say is very clear:

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms."

George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people."

Tenche Coxe: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Thomas Paine: "…arms…discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. …Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."


If you're wondering 'Who are the militia?', you can stop wondering; YOU ARE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 12:46 PM

12. Sorry, but you left out the "well regulated" part.


And you left out the definition most pro-gun folks were using earlier which says it is men between 17 and 45 years of age. Of course, when I asked the old guys if they were still carrying since they were over 45, complete "silence." I'd ask a similar question about women too, but suspect more silence.

Fact is, you and I are not a "well regulated militia."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 02:57 PM

13. Thank you...

...but the Founders, as I quoted, left out those qualifications as well. The Militia Act as amended in 1795 qualifies the group you mentioned as active militia members. There is nothing anywhere which disqualifies anyone from firearm ownership based on militia service.

Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #13)

Mon Jan 9, 2012, 07:33 PM

58. The founders were a bunch of smart white guys who owned slaves

They were not some kind of infallible deity. Neither were they prescient. If any were around today, I doubt very much that they would support carrying concealed semi-automatic weapons at random. First and foremost, they were all intelligent men. To connect them with the current Scalia/NRA interpretation of their intent is insulting to their intelligence and their integrity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #58)

Mon Jan 9, 2012, 08:13 PM

60. regarding the Founders

"The founders were a bunch of smart white guys who owned slaves" - They were in general intelligent. There has been speculation that John Hanson was a black man. Some of the founders did own slaves, but I find this indirect indictment rather ad hominem.

"They were not some kind of infallible deity." - No one said they were. Please address elements of law or government rather than impugning historical figures.

"Neither were they prescient." - I didn't say they were. They were very familiar with the results of abuses by government.

"If any were around today, I doubt very much that they would support carrying concealed semi-automatic weapons at random." - In the prior sentence you speak of the inability to predict the future, and now you make your own predictions. I predict you've switched to de-caf.

"To connect them with the current Scalia/NRA interpretation of their intent is insulting to their intelligence and their integrity." - It is left to you highlight and defend your interpretation of the Bill of Rights.

:cheers:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #60)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 12:27 AM

73. What does my use of the subjunctive have to do with prescience.

I didn't predict anything. I said "I doubt very much that they would support carrying concealed semi-automatic weapons at random." Hardly a prediction. Rather an opinion based on their proven intelligence and demonstrated ability to adapt to actual circumstances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #73)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 08:59 AM

84. Yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #73)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 10:32 AM

114. Well...

...to be more specific, this is all conjecture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #58)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 11:46 AM

87. Let me guess, you slept through history class?

 

"If any were around today, I doubt very much that they would support carrying concealed semi-automatic weapons at random." - Starboard Tack





“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” - Thomas Jefferson (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine

"The great object is that every man be armed." - Patrick Henry

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable ... the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference, they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - Geaorge Washington










"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" - Adolph Hitler

"Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with the view of confiscating them and leaving the population defenseless." - Vladimir Ilich Lenin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spoonman (Reply #87)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 12:27 PM

89. Let me guess, you slept through english comprehension.

Carry thy musket or thy flintlock for good exercise while taking one's constitutional walk,but leave thy glock at the mansion with thy slaves.

Were you quoting all your heroes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #89)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 02:22 PM

90. Feel free to continue

 

your blantant demonstration of ignorance to the facts of the subject at hand.

You are aware "pocket pistols" existed during this era, and were known to be carried by all my "heroes"

Speaking of heroes, wasn't it you that stated "First and foremost, they were all intelligent men."

I simply posted the words of those "intelligent men" so that you might better understand just how wrong your opinion is.

I guess you like the taste of your shoe leather.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spoonman (Reply #90)

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 10:06 PM

106. If only your "heroes" were around today

I have much respect for them and they were all exceptional men of their time.
I doubt any were talking about pocket pistols, but even if they were, they had a maximum of 2 shots from a weapon that was not noted for it's accuracy.
Pocket pistol. Gotta love that term

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #106)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 12:32 AM

108. the term has been around for

about 100 years, and they sold fairly well in Europe. From what I read, more so than here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #108)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 01:23 AM

112. About 100 years. OK

And the so called founding fathers were around when? I know it wasn't your post, but had to slip it in there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 04:25 PM

14. It has been well documented here what "well regulated" means and it is not what you think

 

Also there was once a time when women were not able to vote and were not considered to be equal to men as citizens so your question "about women too" is not a valid one.

Fact is, you are wrong about who a "well regulated militia" is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #14)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 05:11 PM

15. Documented by right wing gun groups? There are plenty of scholars who disagree


with such obviously flawed interpretations.

I think this site lays it out succinctly:
http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

In the future, we need to make sure the make up of the Supreme Court changes so that the next case has a chance of being decided correctly, rather than merely copying/pasting language endorsed by the NRA and right wing gun groups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #15)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 06:22 PM

16. Decided correctly in your mind is the way you want it, not the way the law really is

 

don't like it, too bad, it's settled law.

What are YOU doing to get it changed besides whining about it on the internet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #16)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 10:00 PM

20. And, the recent decisions haven't accomplished a think in Chicago or DC.


Guns are still restricted, notwithstanding supposed Supreme Court decisions that the "gun culture" keeps touting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #20)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 10:10 PM

22. That certain local governments fail to comply with the letter and spirit of court decisions

 

does not negate the value of those court decisions. It simply reaffirms the need for sanctions against those (in)subordinate governments who would thumb their noses at our system of justice. The citizens of Chicago and Washington D.C. are Americans, and share the same rights as everyone else in this country. They deserve to enjoy their right to be armed for their own defense with little government obstruction just as I do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ObamaFTW2012 (Reply #22)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 10:14 PM

24. Apparently the majority in Chicago and DC don't think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #24)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 10:23 PM

28. Good thing

 

our government exists to protect the interests of the minorities (like myself) against the bullying of the majority, huh? It sure would suck for the majority to be able to run roughshod over everyone else. Hurray Constitutional Republics!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #24)

Mon Jan 9, 2012, 12:54 AM

29. Chicago and DC don't control the nation

 

sounds to me like a bunch of anti-gun fringe zealots holding on by their fingernails when the rest of the nation is moving on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #24)

Mon Jan 9, 2012, 12:28 PM

40. "Apparently the majority in Chicago and DC don't think so."

How on earth did you pull out that conclusion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #20)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 10:22 PM

26. Lol, check this..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/01/AR2009090103836.html

Reluctantly, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty's administration set up a process through which about 550 residents -- now including yours truly -- have acquired a handgun. But as my four trips to the police department attest, D.C. officials haven't made it easy.


That was in September 2009 (three months after Fenty's new 'rules').

How many more since then, Hoyt?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #15)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 07:32 PM

18. they think Citizens United v FEC was decided correctly too

it does not mean that that they are under estimating the damage the ruling has on democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #18)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 09:58 PM

19. Well, at least you acknowledge that the SC screws up as they've done recently


over guns.

Hopefully, those who vote primarily on "guns" will not beat Obama in 2012, and Obama will get to appoint some reasonable justices to correct some of the damage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #19)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 10:14 PM

23. have fun with that

the SC is mostly based on precedent. Citizens United started with a margin note in the 19th century to Buckley v Vallejo to this.
there has never been a SC case supporting the collective theory, only reasonable restrictions are allowed. In US v Miller in 1939, the lower courts ruled NFA violated the 2A. Miller was a non decision that kicked it back to the lower courts. Since Miller was dead and no council for him was at the SCOTUS.
All Heller and McDonald said was bans are unreasonable restrictions (as predicted by the drafters of NFA, the reason why they went with huge tax and registration instead of a ban. They knew a ban would not stand up if challenged). Heller, like 1894's Texas v Miller (a different Miller violating Texas' handgun licensing law of the era) allowed ruled licensing is a reasonable restriction. The thing that I never understood about that is why Miller bothered to challenge the law. Having an unlicensed pistol in Texas was the least of his problems. He was a poor white guy (with a SO of color) that shot and killed a Dallas cop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #15)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 10:23 PM

27. Yes, the ACLU...

...does side against the USSC's decision in Heller. I must point out that the ACLU, as highlighted in the link you provided, does not take a position in the debate on gun-control. I further point out that they did not file a brief in Heller so perhaps you have an opinion supporting your position from a person or group having some recognized status within the actual case? Please let me know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 06:34 PM

17. When the situation warrants it,

 

we are obligated to step forward for militia service. When called to muster, we are obligated to perform in a disciplined and professional manner - "well regulated" in the founders' words. The 2nd Amendment was worded that way in direct response to the serious issue George Washington had with militiamen showing up to muster drunk, or fleeing in the middle of the night to tend to their crops, and general insubordination. It had nothing to do with "regulation" in the bureaucratic sense that so many anti-gun mistakenly believe.

Fact is, when you and I are needed for militia service, we are obligated to perform as a "well regulated militia".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ObamaFTW2012 (Reply #17)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 10:02 PM

21. We'll buy your interpretation for a moment -- then, leave your guns at home until called.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #21)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 10:19 PM

25. The defense of freedom,

 

in a broad sense, is the basis for having an armed populace. The militia serves that ideal in a collective sense, but the militia clause does not in any way devalue the need for being armed as individuals. Freedom can be threatened by foreign invaders, the tyranny of our own government, or the local drug gangs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ObamaFTW2012 (Reply #25)

Mon Jan 9, 2012, 06:31 AM

31. Well, 96% of population does not feel need to strap a gun on to venture out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #31)

Mon Jan 9, 2012, 07:19 AM

32. As long as they don't try to stop the other 4% (assuming your "96%" is accurate)

 

from exercising their right to do so, there is no problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ObamaFTW2012 (Reply #32)

Mon Jan 9, 2012, 08:08 AM

33. We have the right to do a lot of things, but shouldn't -- like carrying guns in public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #33)

Mon Jan 9, 2012, 11:49 AM

37. Whether or not you consider it something we should not do

 

is beside the point. If you believe you should not, then don't. Do not presume to believe you have the right to tell others what they should or should not do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #33)

Mon Jan 9, 2012, 12:09 PM

38. Says you

 

Your attitude is no different than the racists 70 years ago who would try to keep people like my grandparents from voting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ObamaFTW2012 (Reply #38)

Mon Jan 9, 2012, 12:14 PM

39. What i find to be humorous

 

is the arguments are virtually identical too. Mentally replace the word "gun" with "black" in any of the non-technical "arguments" and you'll see what I mean.

The sad part is, the pro-control crowd doesn't even realize they are advocating for a loss of freedom...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to We_Have_A_Problem (Reply #39)

Mon Jan 9, 2012, 04:48 PM

48. Once again, a pro-gunner trying to compare his poor, pitiful gun plight to THE Civil Rights Movement


You guys are shameless in your attempts to promote guns in society. Your plight ain't close to the Civil Rights Movement or that of others who have been truly discriminated against.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #48)

Mon Jan 9, 2012, 05:49 PM

51. I am not comparing the defense of my right to be armed in public,

 

which you shamelessly seek to undermine, with the plight of my PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS during the Civil Rights Movement. What I compared was your ATTITUDE to that of the racists MY FAMILY endured, as your argument is, in principal, shockingly similar.

You aren't discriminating against my right to be armed because you aren't in a position to do so. You are just a mouthpiece for an ideology of discrimination. In the 1960's, you wouldn't have worn a white sheet while burning a cross in my grandparents' yard, but you would have defended the cross burning to anyone who would listen.

Authoritarians make me sick. You're no different than the bible thumpers trying to beat the rest of America into Christian submission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink