Originally posted by Ghost375
Perfect example of why there's no talking to you people.
"You have proof that Obama is not directly responsible for eroding our rights?"
This has nothing to do with the conversation!!
Your entire response degraded into some tirade against Obama, and trying to call me an Obama supporter, ha! And we aren't even talking about him! I
mentioned him in passing. He's obviously not the topic at hand.
The only thing worse than your guys' obsession with guns, is your obsession with Obama.
Realize how crazy you guys look and sound. It's beyond obsession at this point.
People can't even talk about limiting guns, that the founding fathers would never have dreamt were possible, without you all flipping out.
i'm perfectly rational, so i shall reply to you.
it IS a big deal, and i shall explain why, thusly...
Limitation is infringement. the second amendment, which is a part of the constitution/bill of rights, which is the supreme law of the land, very
clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It is very clear language. the right of the people(you and me) to keep(own), and bear(carry on one's person) arms(weapons, in this case, firearms)
shall not be infringed(limited, restricted, diminished, encroached upon).....that means neither the federal government, nor the
states/counties/municipalities/etc have any legal authority to in any way infringe upon our constitutional rights...
the right exists..it is up to the individual whether or not they choose to exercise it....this is where the argument comes in...those who do not
choose to exercise that right believe that those of us who wish to exercise it should not be allowed to...that's authoritarian, and stupid..
as to the silly argument regarding weapons the founding fathers never would have imagined....that is a stupid, because they KNEW that technology would
advance, and with better tech would come better weapons....the second amendment was worded in the way it was to ensure that the people were properly
armed and equipped, so they could not only defend themselves, but so that they could come together as a militia, in defense of their communities...
You see, these united states were never supposed to have a permanent standing federal army, the defense of the country was supposed to be the job of
are you starting to understand what i'm telling you? am i being sane and rational enough?
edit on 27-2-2013 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)