By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 17 October 2008
Edit Thread
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Commando said:
What I am concerned about, is every other infraction against the constitution that nobody cares about and/or is in full support of.

What people need to realize is that in the United States we have the unaliable right to challenge our government via Petition and if that doesn't work, Violent Usurption. Yet no one cares and we let the government regulate our ownership/use of arms. What angers me is that nowdays the average American considers protest to be "Anti-American" and Fascism to be patriotic.

 

I agree. People have lost there way, and most don't care.

I remember seeing a female politician in Californian who wanted to ban automatic weapons hold up an AK47, and say "no one needs this to hunt a deer". She got an standing ovation.

The constitution does not give me the right to bare arms so I can hunt. I don't need it to kill deer. I need it to kill her if need be, or to kill any one in government who is "unjust". For that, I need the most powerful gun I can get. We are given the right to bare arms so we can uprise against an unjust government. It was put into place to keep government in line. When the people who we were given that right to protect us from, stand right in front of us and say "I want to take that away from you", and we cheer, something is very wrong in this country.

Oh, and I don't own a gun, nor do I wish harm on anyone. I just want to right to defend myself against my government.

 

Now as for some of the things here. I will not address them all individually, I will just make some blanket statements.

 

  • I don't care what color or what name Obama has. I just care that his is a socialist, and I hate his politics.
  • I gave over $2,000 in charities last year, and spent several days volunteering for "Habitat for Humanity". Far more then most here. To somehow claim that I want people do die in the streets because I find it unconstitutional is 100% inaccurate, and offensive. Anyone who knows me, knows otherwise.
  • I make far less then $250,000 a year, so it's not my demographic I am fighting for. I am not black, so when I fight for there civil rights, I am not in that group either. I care about all americans equally.
  • Every wealthy person did not become so by putting down the working class. Most became so from the working class.
  • Every corporation is not evil.
EDIT: I just re-read this, and it sounds like I feel I have the right to kill anyone who is unjust in government. That is not what I mean. What I mean is when Government as a whole becomes unjust, and we must rebel against it, I am given the right to own the tools to do so.

 

Were their automatic weapons when the Constitution was drafted?  How could the Founding Fathers have that in mind?  Should we be allowed to have missles as private citizens?  Those are arms.  How about nuclear weapons?  Those are arms.  Are you in a militia?  Those are the people who are allowed to have arms under the Constitution.

You are stretching the Constitution in a way YOU want it to be interpreted, yet you are bemoaning people who do the same thing.  That is the definition of hypocrisy.

 

I don't think you understood how miltias worked back then...

People joined miltias when times were bad.  Not when they were good.  Just how, if the government went wrong or something else went wrong... people would need to join a miltia after it actually went bad.

If things are already bad... you can't get a gun.

Therefore peopel have the right to bear arms so they can join a miltia when needed.

Also miltias back then weren't under the control of the state government.  They were just groups of people with guns that worked with the government.

Your looking at it from what state miltias are now.  Which isn't what they were then.

Hence people have the right to bear arms so that should they ever need to form a milita they can.

 

Agreed, but the militia thing isn't even the real point. 

He claims to understand the original meaning of the Constitution but then goes off and interprets other parts of the Constitution in ways that the Founding Fathers would have been completely unaware of at the time.  A rifle back then was moderately effective at best.  A person with a machine gun now could slaughter hundreds of people if there were no police or people with other weapons to intervene.

And how far can you stretch arms?  Missles are arms.  Nuclear weapons are arms.  How is that any different?  Hell, handguns barely even existed back then.

People who claim they aren't interpreting the Constitution often turn right back around and interpret in a way clearly out of the contemplation of the Founding Fathers.

 

Until you make an ammendment preventing these things.  Yeah.  You probably should be able to stretch it that far.

Not that anyone could really afford a nuclear weapon.  But still... things should be changed by the correct means.