But you use the government to divide us. You can’t even let a wedding cake maker be.
I was thinking of buying a house on a lake. Maybe I’ll dock an aircraft carrier there if that’s the case. I already have an M2 mounted on my truck. As long as I keep taking my meds there is no need to worry.
1 Like
Or is it the baker who is being divisive and the government who wants equality?
That does nothing about the intent of the 2A. Which is all I’m arguing.
Did the Founders mention mental illness or felons?
What’s more divisive than using an armed government to dictate who I have to sell a damn wedding cake to? Of course you want to see the 2nd gone, or vastly weakened. You favor a powerful nanny state.
1 Like
Nope. Which isn’t an argument against the intent of the 2A…
1 Like
See, I actually favor amending the 2nd. But, I won’t pretend it doesn’t say what it says.
This is a stunning lack of imagination here. The day such a thing is actually needed will be very dark days indeed. Right now, no matter which ‘side’ is incharge, the system works sufficiently enough to keep the others in check within the system.
Should the system collapse, then it’s a whole other matter all together. History is rife with cautionary tales about this stuff. Everybody falls, eventually.
Our system works because we have money, lots and lots of money. Money everyone trusts and everybody around the world trusts. Even terrorists exchanges are largely done in dollars. Cuba runs on American dollars. When the money in your wallet ain’t worth the paper its printed on, then the shit will hit the fan.
No, a proclaimed principle answered a convenient military exigency - the round two of the conflict with the British Empire would have happened sooner if not for the French revolution…
Again, musket vs. musket. There wasn’t a clear technological distinction between “military” and “private” arms
On a side note, I really love when people breezily dismiss parts of the Declaration of Independence with the whole indignation over the British freeing slaves and references to “Indian Savages” as the product of it’s time - but the 2A, it’s supposedly written with the clairvoyance to see 250 years of technological advance in weaponry and societal changes …
What’s more divisive than viewing a fellow citizen as less of a person? That’s actually the plan of attack for tyrants.
I don’t think I ever expressed my views on 2A. My belief that most Americans, gun owners or not, would be unwilling to actually fight the military has nothing to do with how I feel about gun ownership and everything with how I feel about people.
1 Like
They are citizens.
I am impressed you can afford an aircraft carrier. I bow in humility, sir…
Technological advances should never amend the constitution through “clever” reading. Amend the thing.
I am not. It says what it needs to say, no more, no less.
I am for laws that keep lethal weapons away from lethal people, but not more than that.
I don’t think they could have foreseen a time when having sex with slaves would be seen as a bad thing.
I would imagine they didn’t even see it as infidelity…
What are you even on about?
You brought up the baker.
What the heck does that have do with being less of a person? What?