[TXplt]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Coeloptera

Not the way you'd think. Certainly not in a modern way. You've read Jefferson in the subject, right? When the Founders used the word "God", many of them did not mean the Abrahamic deity. "Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." That's from 1787, to his nephew Peter Carr. "The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" - Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom You know how people say freedom of religion also means freedom from religion? Not a new idea. I likes me some Tommy J., I does. Not really what a lot of modern Americans think, is it? See, some of them meant more of an unknowable, natural force. The Deists' "Watchmaker". Spirituality doesn't mean deity worship...ask any Buddhist. Jefferson and Franklin would shock the Evangelicals today with their views. - Coeloptera

Call it what you may--"modern" isn't really an issue I think (the concept itself is timeless); it's a belief in a higher power and a creator greater than yourself by any other name. This is what the founders believed in, and who they asked for blessing and assistance and guidance in their lives. It's a calling to mankind as well as a cause greater than yourself (and, as you well know, I don't believe you-know-who has this concept and/or fortitude within him). The constitution both prohibits a state sanctioned establishment/endorsement of religion as well as any law which prohibits the free exercise thereof (the free exercise thereof is the part "nanny state leftists" sometimes miss I think). In any case, as we move away from this and toward our selfish self-interests, I believe our country does and has suffered. Witness the dissatisfaction with life many have despite standards of living our great-great grandfathers couldn't have dreamed of. We have cars that cruise at 70 and top ends of 160 (the modern day Kia is safer, better powered, and has better handling than the most expensive Caddy from the 50's); can fly from the U.S. to Asia in 14 hours, and have medical procedures which can save the lives of people who would have been hopeless 50 years ago. Our infant mortality rate is very low. If we choose to, we can be innoculated against some dreadful diseases. No matter what our background, we have access to healthcare which would have been a pipe dream in the 40's. Our houses are large, cooled in the summer and heated in the winter (we don't even have to build a fire to do this if we don't want to, but can if we do), and the power generally always works--you wouldn't have seen that in the 30's. Yet these people who worship things remain unhappy in their lives, and our secular society (despite all these good things) is rife with strife and dissatisfaction. In the grand nanny-state, kids are oftimes being taught some pretty silly ideas and not allowed to grow up and experience life, yet they have vast resources and opportunities not present 100 years ago.

I can think of no other explaination.

[Coeloptera]

It could be cynicism you know.

It doesn't have to be belief in a higher power. Standards of living are viewed relatively by all people in all times. That's just how humans work. It doesn't matter how good you may or may not have it, what matters is how good you're doing compared to the highest and lowest echelons of your society.

Too many people seem to be thinking the higher echelons are speeding away too quickly from "average".

That and we all know our government, by and large, is not there to help us, or do much of anything but exert control of one sort or another, and that the great majority of people in government are there not to serve, but to gain.

Who wouldn't be a little depressed about that?

- Coeloptera

[tlarkin]

Quote:       Originally Posted by GlockMeister

tlarkin, why are you even a gun owner? Why do you bother to even own a gun? Just go and take everything you might have to your local P.D. and give them to them and go find yourself another hobby.

Ok, Mitch, Will do. I obviously don't deserve to exercise my right to own a gun, because my opinions differ from yours.

Quote:      

Our forefathers knew exactly what they were doing. They worded the Bill of Rights the way they did and included what they did to protect the people. The Bill of Rights isn't about and has nothing to do with the Government, it is for the people! If you'd bother to notice, they left no authority and no documents that would give the Government the ability to change some things. They did that for a reason. You need to go and read some of the many quotes by our fore fathers and get back in touch with reality. But if you can't stand by the 2nd Amendment 100% as it's written, then maybe you shouldn't be a gun owner? Oh, and by the way, I think there are a few others that should also find a new hobby as well. There are others whom I also wonder why they bother even to be a gun owner. I don't mean to be mean here, but this election could mean a point of no return for our 2nd Amendment rights and many other things.

Man, I can not believe that you would tell me not to own a gun because I don't solely agree with you. You are definitely a conservative for sure. You are plucking out what I am typing and acting like I have some agenda, which I don't. I don't think our rights should be messed with at all. What I am saying is that there is definitely a clear and cut difference between right to bear arms say 300 years ago versus now. Arms is a broad term. Technology advances, and arms advance. What happens 200 years from now when we don't even use conventional weapons any more?

I never once stated how it should be defined but when you leave it open and broad you leave it for debate. Our forefathers also knew that this country would change and which is why we have amendments to the constitution. I mean women and slaves had no rights, until they put it into the amendment. In fact it was only rich white men that founded this country and even had a right to vote to begin with. The poor working class didn't matter. If you can't progress then maybe you should look into yourself instead of judging others.

Quote:      

I DO NOT WANT TO LIVE IN A SOCIALIST COUNTRY AND IN MY OPINION, WITH OBAMA, THAT'S WHERE HE'S WANTING TO TAKE THIS COUNTRY AND WHERE WE'RE HEADING...

Why the all caps? You yelling at something? Shouldn't you calm down, no need to raise the blood pressure. After all I am just having a discussion, that is it.

Quote:      

tlarkin, here's some dam fine quotes from our fore fathers. I truly think you need to read them and think about their choice of words and what they're saying...

I am familiar with most of those quotes and I do read. I probably read more than the average American as well. I don't watch TV, in fact my TV gets zero channels and I do not have cable. I just watch movies on it and play the occasional xbox game.

I hate the 2nd Amendment got it, you're right (sarcasm btw if you couldn't pick it up) and what I get from you is you hate the first, or at least you hate my right to exercise what I want to say in a peaceful manner because you are telling me I am not worthy to own a gun. I am probably more responsible than a lot of gun owners, and I live alone, so there is no one here but me to ever touch them.

Oh, and calling Obama a socialist? Please, maybe you should read up on socialism a bit more. I think you have no idea what it means and to you it is just a dirty little word. While you are at it, go take a peek over at Switzerland. Great economy, great medical care, great eduation, very socialist based government, oh and everyone owns a fully automatic assault rifle in their home. Every citizen is required to keep it in their home in case their country goes to war so they can defend their country and them self.

For the record I am not a socialist either, but I am sure you will label me as one.

[GlockMeister]

I didn't say you don't deserve to own a gun or guns, but, I did say, maybe you shouldn't? And I didn't say anything about not agreeing with me. I did say something about or having to do with you not agreeing with the 2nd Amendment as it's written. I believe I said or I stated, why bother owning any guns at all if you don't agree with the 2nd Amendment 100% as it is. Has nothing to do with agreeing with or without me.

Don't start telling me what I said or meant based on the words I chose to say them. Or wait, what, are you physic also? Or um, wait, can you know what I meant then I, the one who wrote the words, simply based on my choice in words?

Again, I never said you don't deserve to own a gun or guns, just maybe you shouldn't. I never said anything about agreeing with or without me! I simply said, why do you bother and maybe you should find a new hobby. And if you're calling me Mitch because he told you or said something similar, well gee, maybe that should tell you something. Something like, wow, if two totally different people said similarly the same things, maybe it's just that noticeable or obvious that you're a little more anti-gun then pro-gun???

Oh AND THE CAPS WERE TO MAKE SURE YOU HEARD. LOL

Oh and, my blood pressure is fine, I know we're just having a discussion. Why so defensive, after all, as you said, it is just a discussion. LOL Breathe tlarkin, breathe...

[tlarkin]

No, no, no, no, no.....

I am not saying I disagree with the 2A. I am saying it needs to be less vague so people will STFU about it and get on with their lives. I think that everyone should be able to own weapons. I have no problem with that. I don't hold any illusions that our society would be more peaceful if everyone was armed like some people do. I mean this is America, where we resolve to violence pretty damn quickly compared to other nations. Gun control would never ever work in this country.

Guns are a technology and they have gotten way better over the years. They are also starting to evolve and when they are no longer weapons that shoot little lead and steel rounds, and become something else where does it end, and where do you draw the line? Obviously anyone can go out and buy a sword or a bow and arrow just fine, but a gun there is red tape. Why is that? What happens when guns are the technology used anymore? Will they consider this new technology to be "arms"?

What if they don't and the 2A doesn't apply to said new technologies because they aren't classified as arms?

[GlockMeister]

Well then I owe you an apology. And, unlike some, I can and am big enough to admit I misread and or misunderstood what you wrote, or that I was wrong. And, unlike some, I can and am also big enough to also openly apologize. I AM SORRY.

See, this goes to show, most things are just simple misunderstandings. I thought you were saying they needed to update the 2A based on the new technology of, in and with guns, to catch up with the times. Meaning you felt they should have certain restricions or add them to the @A because of those technologies. Can you see where I might have seen it like that? Anyhow, As I said, apologize.

Now to that, I'd say you can't let them add to the 2A for any reason. Because then they'll say, well, if we can add to it, then we can take away from it, and they will. Remember, the 2A and the Bill of Rights go together. I think it's also worded that neither or what's contained in either would ever be allowed to be used to deprive the people of either? Something like that I think?

And it only takes common sense for anyone with it as well as an open mind to see exactly who the 2A was written and provided for. The words chosen to write it are one way and another is to read those many quotes I supplied in that post for you, at the time. Whoops, Again, my bad. lol

But look at the words chosen. One comes right out and says that the militia is the people. There are others. But again, it simply takes common sense and an open mind. The problem is, people just don't want or feel the people deserve or should have firearms of any kind. So the do the things we've seen them do.

So I guess it just took me to use different words in my previous post to get you to say what you did to get me to realize I misread or misunderstood and for me to admit that. See, if our flipping politicians would just swallow some pride and do what's right we'd all be all the better ya' know?