The Founders were WRONG! Time to repeal the 2nd!

[mojo84]

Appeasement is not what we need, either. That approach has proven to be a failure.

Personally, I feel that the founders got it right in almost all respects. Especially when they said that when a government becomes destructive of the means for it's existence, then it is the right of the people to overthrow that government and replace it with a new one. Many folks at the time called them "radical nut jobs". But they persevered, and I am glad they did so.

All of us who have fought in wars can agree that it is a terrible thing that should be avoided if at all possible. But avoidance of that terrible thing is not worth giving up our freedoms. That price is just a bit too much, IMHO.

Soccerdad, Appeasement is not what my comment is suggesting. Don't twist what I say for the sake of argument. I am very confident none of them was looking forward to and excited about the "fight". Don't try to claim they were.

I didn't read anything in Soccerdad1995's comment that suggested the founders were looking forward or excited about fighting. What I read from the founders is exactly the opposite:

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
A DECLARATION...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I also see that the founders said it is not only their right, it is their DUTY to throw off such government.

I think the current evils are sufferable. I'm not happy about some of them, but I'll hedge my bets and hope that men smarter than me make the determination that they are no longer sufferable. If that time comes, God help us all. And when it is finished, nothing will be the same.

I didn't say he did. He is the one that went on the rant and brought up the Founders and tried to relate it to what I said about part of Sully's comment. While a battle may be necessary, it surely isn't something we should eagerly look forward to it as something that we "can't wait for". A civil war or rebellion is not equivalent to Christmas or our birthday.

Try reading the comments in context. However, I do appreciate you both for trying to give me a history lesson.

[mojo84]

A 2nd civil war would be disastrous; worse than almost anything else I can think of.

Worse than being imprisoned for possession of a AR15 clone, or a standard magazine?

Bring it on, I cannot wait to fight for the Free States of America

Did you overlook this comment or just accept it as being ok? I agree with the rest of the comment but I cannot support looking forward to it as if it some kind of exciting event. There is a difference between acknowledging something and being prepared than gleefully looking forward to it.

Soccerdad, Appeasement is not what my comment is suggesting. Don't twist what I say for the sake of argument. I am very confident none of them was looking forward to and excited about the "fight". Don't try to claim they were.

I think you are reading more into the comment than I did. I took it as an acknowledgement that he would not back down from the challenge, not a desire for the conflict.

The conflict here is caused by people who are trying to take away rights from people. I hate that we have people who want to take away our rights. I wish that people did not have that desire to oppress others in this way. I sincerely wish that we could all live in peace and harmony. I really do. But we simply can't stop all evil people from being evil just by wishing that they were different.

The reality is that there are bad people in this world. One of them gave a campaign speech yesterday where he publicly announced that he wants to take away the rights and freedoms of Americans. And that man currently has the sworn loyalty of the most powerful military in the world. So, as much as we all hate it, our choices may well come down to either some level of appeasement by giving up our rights (which will eventually turn into a complete and total abandonment of all rights) or following the examples of our forefathers and exercising our right to change our system of government. Let's all strive to avoid that eventuality if at all possible, but if it comes to it, then yes I welcome the prospect of a fight precisely because the other alternative is so, so much worse.

I read and took what he said as what he said. I am not the one that read more into it or attributed a different meaning to it.

Quit lecturing me about our situation and what we face. I have a full and complete understanding of it. The lecturing is not responsive to my comment and it isn't necessary. Most of not all on here understands.

[mojo84]

I will not suffer idiots and fools. This guy is both!

To whom are you referring?

[mojo84]

Bring it on, I cannot wait to fight for the Free States of America... or just have Texas secede and then I can patrol the Red or Sabine rivers.

This is the kind of comment that makes us all look like radical nutjobs. It definitely doesn't advance our cause by changing hearts and minds. It leads to further divisiveness and animosity and that is not what we need.

With respect, anyone for whom my comment would be taken as such would think the same of you.

To a rabid anti-gun liberal, you are clinically insane for even being interested in "instruments of death and destruction". The fact that you are a member of a forum that promotes owning and carrying hidden handguns that, in their view, can only be used to shoot blacks, gays, and children is all the evidence that they need that you are a nut.

I do not live my life, nor do I temper my posts, based on what some liberal will misconstrue my words to mean. They already have convinced themselves that all of us are insane, and nothing that we say or do will change that. You will never advance your cause with words on the Internet. You want to win hearts and minds, take them to a range. But even then, they may be "terrified" and have "short-term PTSD" after firing a gun.

Go do your thing and don't get hung up on how you are perceived by others.

Your comments mirror those of OCT and we know how effective they are and have been.

[Countryside]

The liberty for ALL to own guns takes liberty over the few who few who do not want people to protect themselves.

The liberty for all to own guns stands against the few who would want to murder them.

[cb1000rider]

AJSully421, I assure you that mojo isn't the guy you're looking for with all that "liberal" talk.

Tempering posts is perhaps appropriate in the context of civil debate and actually solving problems. I know that I've taught my kids that sometimes you have to have a little self-control before speaking. If you simply want to rant and express your feelings, perhaps that has value to you personally, but it's very unlikely to have a very positive outcome with a larger group. It's not likely to influence people and bring them around to your way of thinking.

Liberty is much more than gun ownership. A US president that would actively monitor and surveil American citizens simply based on their religious preference or ethic background - that doesn't sound like a person that values liberty or understands it very well.

There is no way that the founding fathers could have forseen the impact of 200+ years of technology... However, I think they did pretty darn well with that Constitution thing.

[AJSully421]

AJSully421, I assure you that mojo isn't the guy you're looking for with all that "liberal" talk.

Tempering posts is perhaps appropriate in the context of civil debate and actually solving problems. I know that I've taught my kids that sometimes you have to have a little self-control before speaking. If you simply want to rant and express your feelings, perhaps that has value to you personally, but it's very unlikely to have a very positive outcome with a larger group. It's not likely to influence people and bring them around to your way of thinking.

Liberty is much more than gun ownership. A US president that would actively monitor and surveil American citizens simply based on their religious preference or ethic background - that doesn't sound like a person that values liberty or understands it very well.

There is no way that the founding fathers could have forseen the impact of 200+ years of technology... However, I think they did pretty darn well with that Constitution thing.

Right, I was not calling Mojo a liberal... those would be fighting words in my book. I was pointing out that all of us who are gun owners are already viewed as being radical nutjobs by the anti-gunners, so no words of mine are going to change that.

I agree whole-heartedly with your post about liberty, and even the presumptive republican nominee not being well acquainted with it.

[Daddio-on-patio]

I read the article yesterday and considered our nations founding documents. Being in the medical field I found myself looking at them from a human anatomy and physiology perspective. My professor of A&P in college is a doctor and has been teaching for over 40 years. A classmate advised her that she had the 6th edition of the text book the syllabus described instead of the 8th edition. My professor advised her that she would be fine using the text due to human A&P not having changed for thousands of years. The founding documents are the heart, lungs, and blood of our government model. Our society has changed, yes, but what keeps me alive has not. My hair style has changed, but my heart still beats the same. My clothing style changed but air still goes in and out of my lungs. My firearm is now a repeater, but my blood still goes round and round. My food may now contain genetically modified ingredients, but my colon still excretes waist. My point is that the documents describe the fundamental existence of or nation just as our anatomy and physiology maintains our life. Some would argue that you can live without your appendix (read that as the 2nd Amendment). Yes, however that is not how the system was designed by the Creator. The whole without a part is no longer whole.

[AJSully421]

A 2nd civil war would be disastrous; worse than almost anything else I can think of.

Worse than being imprisoned for possession of a AR15 clone, or a standard magazine?

Bring it on, I cannot wait to fight for the Free States of America

Did you overlook this comment or just accept it as being ok? I agree with the rest of the comment but I cannot support looking forward to it as if it some kind of exciting event. There is a difference between acknowledging something and being prepared than gleefully looking forward to it.

Soccerdad, Appeasement is not what my comment is suggesting. Don't twist what I say for the sake of argument. I am very confident none of them was looking forward to and excited about the "fight". Don't try to claim they were.

I think you are reading more into the comment than I did. I took it as an acknowledgement that he would not back down from the challenge, not a desire for the conflict.

The conflict here is caused by people who are trying to take away rights from people. I hate that we have people who want to take away our rights. I wish that people did not have that desire to oppress others in this way. I sincerely wish that we could all live in peace and harmony. I really do. But we simply can't stop all evil people from being evil just by wishing that they were different.

The reality is that there are bad people in this world. One of them gave a campaign speech yesterday where he publicly announced that he wants to take away the rights and freedoms of Americans. And that man currently has the sworn loyalty of the most powerful military in the world. So, as much as we all hate it, our choices may well come down to either some level of appeasement by giving up our rights (which will eventually turn into a complete and total abandonment of all rights) or following the examples of our forefathers and exercising our right to change our system of government. Let's all strive to avoid that eventuality if at all possible, but if it comes to it, then yes I welcome the prospect of a fight precisely because the other alternative is so, so much worse.

I read and took what he said as what he said. I am not the one that read more into it or attributed a different meaning to it.

Quit lecturing me about our situation and what we face. I have a full and complete understanding of it. The lecturing is not responsive to my comment and it isn't necessary. Most of not all on here understands.

I understand what you are saying. When I say "I can't wait" it is basically my way of saying of "let's get this unpleasentness started so that we can get it finished and we can start enjoying the liberty that the Founders intended sooner rather than later... and while I am in my 30s, not my 70s".

I guess that line of my comment could be best summed up in the quote: ""If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." - Thomas Paine, 1780

[puma guy]

I will not suffer idiots and fools. This guy is both!

To whom are you referring?

Since I quoted no one I thought it would be obvious my post was in response to the original post and the idiot who wrote the article. If you think I would refer to or call some one on this forum an idiot and a fool you are wrong; I would not.

[mojo84]

I will not suffer idiots and fools. This guy is both!

To whom are you referring?

Since I quoted no one I thought it would be obvious my post was in response to the original post and the idiot who wrote the article. If you think I would refer to or call some one on this forum an idiot and a fool you are wrong; I would not.

Very well. Guess I had a guilty conscious.

[mayor]

Try reading the comments in context. However, I do appreciate you both for trying to give me a history lesson.

you're welcome.

[Jeff B.]

Simply discussing gun control gets a good percentage of the population hot under the collar, from both sides of the argument.

I think that Rolling Stone is engaging in a little "bomb throwing" to stir up those who they know would be adamantly against such a move. It's only my opinion, but I think that was a calculated move to elicit strong and to some, comments that could be perceived or painted as irrational.

Based on Mr. Cotton's wishes, I won't go into any long political diatribe. It'll suffice to say that I do believe that the two main social/political philosophies are as divided and hostile as at any time since 1861. I also believe that a move such as Rolling Stone advocates could well precipitate a severe and profound Constitutional crisis that would have a high likelihood of forcing portions of the population and the current nation to reject the legitimacy and authority of the Federal Government and our current political system.

When you boil it down, there is likely going to be even more animosity, anger and division than we've seen up 'til now. And, that's saying something!

Jeff B.