reply to post by Agrilid
What the heck are you talking about when you say "You can't expect a country that is 200 years old to still follow the basic laws it was founded it.
I mean this in the sence that as a nation evolves so does it laws."
Are you implying that other 'basic laws' as part of this document should be thrown out, such as freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, or freedom
of religion? Have those basic rights outlived their usefulness? How about a petition for redress grievances? Where else should we run a sharpie
through the bill of rights?
Why stop your sharpie there? Lets remove clauses that means you can be searched at anytime without a warrant. Hell, lets black out the part of the
Constitution that bans issuing a bill of attainder or ex past facto laws.
Oh yeah, that's right. We're "evolving" as a nation and those rights just aren't as important as they once were. That type of attitude is the
reason that every single one of those 'basic laws' I listed above are threatened, already lost, or in jeopardy of being lost.
The are JUST as important today -- if not more so, than when they were written.
I'll tell you where we are "evolving" into -- a federal dictatorship in which you have limited rights, or worse. Read 1984 a few times and be
ready for that boot print smashed into your forehead for all time.
Not to sound callous, but back then it was just not muskets. Most with this argument forget that it also included weapons such as artillery. Where
do you think cannons came from? The people owned them, and they are arguably far more destructive to life and property than a semi-automatic
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
Our founding fathers were right with this as history has shown us time and time again, even in this nation. This amendment was not put into place
with the bill of rights to protect hunting. It is protection FOR the people against a tyrannical federal government. Read it very slowly. For a
STATE to be secure and FREE, it is NECESSARY for people to keep and bear arms -- not optional. The Federal government CANNOT infringe on this right,
period, end of discussion.
Montana is within it's every right to tell the Federal government to go pound sand. That right was directed specifically States and to the people.
There is no ambiguity in that amendment and the Federal government has NO constitutional standing to enact such laws without a change to the
However, if you want to give up your rights and freedoms on a silver platter, then I implore that you -- not me -- to move someplace else outside the
purview of the Constitution in which you have no rights as a citizen. You want liberty and freedom? Then pick up a firearm and be ready to die for
your it -- even if that oppression comes against you in the form of your federal government.
As far as your comments later about a gun registry or background checks.
There was a nation in the 20th century that enacted such gun laws and gun registries, all under the guise of protection and peace. Later, that same
registry was used to disarm the entire populous against an aggressive and tyrannical government. That same nation later began a war of aggression
that killed millions of people in one of the worlds most violent wars. That nation was 1930's Germany.
That same propaganda used in Germany is being used on the populous today.
I leave you with this to ponder, because all your arguments on gun control will always be filtered towards "little temporary safety".
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
I agree with Mr Franklin. You deserve neither.