These individual rights men inherit as human beings, as in Natural law, once were embraced by the liberal of the day. The right to defend oneself with arms is one of these rights. Madison's 2nd amendment did not invent the concept, it simply codify the right, as our right in the Constitution. I read that the modern liberal is more in favor of internationalism today. But I do not understand the reasoning for giving up individual rights. My goodness, even the right to defend oneself? Can anyone explain this with clear logic? Other interesting reading. https://theroadtoconcord.com/2014/0...atural-law-the-natural-right-to-self-defense/ Perhaps the failure to teach the young has more to do with it than anything else. "* Richard Henry Lee: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” Today a young woman of 20, 120 pounds or so, has no right to defend herself with force of arms? This is a most resent development, Completely new to our history. I really do not understand the logic?
A boat should be big enough to hold strawberries but not too big where someone could hide them from you.
I'm a little unclear how guns are a natural right, given that guns don't occur in nature. It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Enfield. barfo
Question of the Day: Do Gun Rights Come from God? http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ion-of-the-day-do-gun-rights-come-from-god-2/
You must read, But don't skip past Browning and colt. Adam is not enough, Enfield is too far. You missed the essence.
Those who are willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither. The lesson is the ones providing for security are going to strip you of your freedom. Look at the movies about A.I. the machines always conclude that humans are self destructive and therefore must be controlled. Liberals want to control how everyone acts and thinks. They are the machines. They think they know best and should be able to force others into their way of thinking. instead of allowing men the freedom to choose which rights they will exercise.
No, no no. You only got it half correct. Liberals want to tell you how to act, conservatives want to tell you how to think. We see a ton of examples every single day. You’re welcome for the clarification............
sometimes individual rights are abused.....look at Afghanistan....if your daughter is raped, the family will throw stones at her and maybe even kill her because they believe it's their individual right.....some may want to give that right up.....if an 18 year old gets kicked out of school and comes back with a newly purchased AR15 and kills 18 people....you rethink the laws that contribute to the situation....clear logic...what is better for society in the long run takes sacrifices at times that challenge the status quo...but from what I've read...you're not really interested in questioning that...just questioning those who consider alternatives to the status quo.
Thank you sheed for weighing in with something on the subject. I thought the paragon of the teaching profession, @riverman would step up and teach, but I see, he his off defending the lack a ability in simpler issues brought to his attention by @Denny Crane. I sort think at this point, the liberal agenda simply out weights the Constitution or any of the history behind it, at least in the liberal mind. It is more or less fuck the Constitution and that is my read. @Further comes the closest to intentionally implying the position.
You want to keep tagging me as if I really care whether you respect my views....move on....you're certainly a clickish old fart looking for a cheerleader.....
If we revisited the colonies in the late 1700's, we can observe a entirely different world. Human rights regarding a man's right to bear arms was dictated by lawlessness, insane numbers of animals, the white person's distrust of any race besides his own and the expectation you would live a short life. The Constitution was written for a class of privileged white men excluding women, immigrants, slaves and others that white men considered worthless. In fact, raiding parties from neighboring States was a hidden atrocity. New York vandals would invade North Jersey. Men had to ban together to ensure they had access to crude flint lock weapons. The British were entirely cruel and considered themselves above all the colonist population. Whoever wrote that opinion about modern liberalism yearning for internationalist status is saying nothing but his theory. People in this country are not going to give up individual rights. The government can take rights away but the individual fights for what they were granted or doesn't become involved in the subject due to their laziness. We all have a right to defend ourselves but it is packaged within the parameters of how far a person travels away from what they own and how the law would be enforced.
Oh I have rethought the logic. I do not see hundreds of years of history as the problem. The Problem was created very recent, much more recent than the introduction of the AR-15 in 1959. And the problem was enabled even more recent with the introduction of the Kill Zones in 1991. I really like to see problems addressed not agenda's.
Thank you for weighing in sir! I do not know if we agree, but at least we speaking on the same subject.