The thread was only quarantined when the conversation went to personal instead of topical...
I'd really like to read the Framer's explanation of the Bill of Rights. All I can find is various interpretations and opinions of "experts" and the courts.
Conditional. And the condition is that you can only exercise them without violating someone else's rights.
That is a very selective acceptance of the parts of 2A that are convenient to you. What if the right to bear arms is given only for the purpose of forming well regulated militias for the security of the state?
Exactly. In a civilized society we have to accept certain conditions or limitations on our "inalienable rights" to make it work. That was the point of Royko's column about things that go boom, or rat-tat-tat-tat.... for that matter.
What happened?
Did someone lose control over their emotions?
See lots more here: https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers
How does my ownership of a few guns violate your rights?
I have no problems with your ownership of a few guns so long as they do not result in death or injury to innocent people because you were careless in securing the weapons. I would expect that you as a law abiding gun owner would be in favor of regulations designed to prevent mass shootings.
I have no problems with your ownership of a few guns so long as they do not result in death or injury to innocent people because you were careless in securing the weapons. I would expect that you as a law abiding gun owner would be in favor of regulations designed to prevent mass shootings.
Assuming you are referring to the National Guard.......
I think you know. And if not, explaining it again probably won't help.
Not at all, but someone did call someone else out about such personal/emotional remarks rather than focusing on the topic.
I am violently in favor of laws against use of guns that result in "death or injury to innocent people". I am also in favor of laws against the use of automobiles that result in the death or injury of innocent people. I am a big believer that you are responsible for how you use any tool such that it does not endanger innocent people. But if someone breaks into my home and steals one of my guns and uses it criminally I consider that the exact same as if someone breaks into your car and uses it criminally. The criminal that stole it is the one responsible.
To summarize the primary motivation for gun rights to this point -
Rhino: Tofightprevent government tyranny and personal protection and I am also a proud deplorable
maxtog: For personal protection, with extra freak-out reserved for gun-free zones.
TurboJoe78: Cuz he's a proud deplorable.
gPink: ?? Befuddled statements about trolls and runaway horses?
It is unlikely that you will be held criminally liable for unauthorized criminal use of your property. But there is the matter of culpability. If the thief was able to get to your guns because you did not use a gun safe or other safeguards or was able to use my car in a criminal manner because I left the car unlocked and the key in the ignition, then we have a moral culpability to the crime. Perhaps you do not find such societal responsibility to be a reasonable expectation?
To summarize the primary motivation for gun rights to this point -
Rhino: To fight government tyranny.
maxtog: For personal protection, with extra freak-out reserved for gun-free zones.
TurboJoe78: Cuz he's a proud deplorable.
gPink: ?? Befuddled statements about trolls and runaway horses?
To summarize the primary motivation for gun rights to this point -
Rhino: To fight government tyranny.
maxtog: For personal protection, with extra freak-out reserved for gun-free zones.
TurboJoe78: Cuz he's a proud deplorable.
gPink: ?? Befuddled statements about trolls and runaway horses?
The insulting lead in to this is why I declined to follow sanmo's link. He's acting like a troll now. Sorry sanmo but you should venture into the Arena and we can have an honest discussion.
It is unlikely that you will be held criminally liable for unauthorized criminal use of your property. But there is the matter of culpability. If the thief was able to get to your guns because you did not use a gun safe or other safeguards or was able to use my car in a criminal manner because I left the car unlocked and the key in the ignition, then we have a moral culpability to the crime. Perhaps you do not find such societal responsibility to be a reasonable expectation?