>I have a lot of experience in gov. related research and schooling and I've confirmed this with many professors. I've read the constitution and bill of rights; don't try to fool me.
I've read the Constitution, too. I've confirmed the fact (like I even need to) that any person can keep and bear Arms. Shall I re-post what I said last time about the usage of the term "the people" in the Constitution?
>- just because something applied in 1776 doesn't mean it applies today
Just because something applied in 1791 doesn't mean that it doesn't apply today. It applies today, just like the rest of the Constitution.
>The constitution and bill of rights gave white men the right to own slaves
I'd like to see the "right to keep slaves" clause, please. No, the Constitution does not give
the right to own slaves, it merely facilitates slavery.
>Do citizens possess these? no. Does the gov.? Yes. Mmkay, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't stand a chance
You're proposing a situation in which the WHOLE military is up against the people fighting for freedom and resistance to tyranny (remember, resistance to tyranny is obedience to God). That won't happen. Look at the military. Today, our military is largely conservative, just as our military usually is. It would be more like some of the military and some of the hardware with the civilians fighting against a partial military. Regardless, it doesn't matter whether you say we can win or not-- everyone said the colonists wouldn't win. They did. It was just a lot of civilians with dirty clothes, primitive weapons, and low spirits that defeated the well-armed British.
>Since when is the right to bear arms the most important right, and since when was it allowed to cancel out all my rights?
Your thinking is illogical. As soon as someone shoots you (assuming you're innocent), they have overstepped the bounds of their right to bear Arms and have violated your right to life. Just as all other rights in the Constitution, they end where others' begin.
>Whats more improtant the right of freedom and liberity or the right to have a opportunity to murder?
The right of freedom and liberty, hands down.
"They that would give up essential liberty
for temporary safety deserve NEITHER liberty nor safety."
I've already explained this one, too.
>The basic fundemental right of every person living on the globe is the right to life.
By having handguns you are infringing that right.
That's not true. I have handguns. Am I infringing on your right to life? Of course not. And if you attack me on the street and I pull out a gun, your right to life is gone. You attacked an armed person. You will die. The law backs me up on this one.
>Some of you are christains but you cant square the right to own a gun with your faith
Yes I am C
hristian. I read the Bible. The Bible tells us that we MUST fight oppression and tyranny. Being armed and believing in God go hand in hand. And how many times must I repeat this? Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God
>Can you honestly say that george washington if he came back for one day only, would be pleased by the hundreds of shootings?
of course no.
Of course not. I'm not pleased by shootings either. But both he and I would realize that there is a price for freedom.
>You would have got independence for sure, dont blame you, george third was a nutcase but the french helped you
Is someone still bitter about our independence?
>history doesnt lie and history can teach lessons
I'm glad you mention history. There is a saying about history-- those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. If we forget about the attempted disarming of colonists by the King (to more easily control them), we can make fools of ourselves and let the Government Almighty (
) disarm us to more easily control us.
It's true-- I will give up out of frustration on such topics as homosexuality, some foreign policy, and the environment, but I will never
give up when it comes to our basic rights as outlined in the Constitution and the perservation of our liberty.
Oh, Eric... If you're still reading this, I finally got the pic of the Glock subcompact .45 Auto (Glock Model 36) that I want to order...
Its got a 96 mm barrel, overall 172 mm long, and weighs 68 g (about 2.4 oz) without the full magazine, 570 g or about 20.1 oz with the magazine.
Its magazine only holds 6 rounds, but its a trade off for having a weapons small enough for a shoulder holster that won't be very noticeable. I guess carrying an extra magazine would be helpful in a situation which would warrant 12 rounds, but how likely is that... Can't wait until I'm eligible for the concealed pistol permit.