SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: LindyBill who wrote (94409)1/9/2005 2:50:12 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (2) of 793817
 
I think it was automatic at the time to believe people had the right to arms.

Yes, I agree that it was automatic. It was a total non-issue.

The founders put language about religion and quartering soldiers in people's homes in the constitution because those were issues at the time. Guns were not an issue. Therefore it makes no sense that they would have come up with a whole amendment to protect our right to own guns any more than they would have done so to protect our right to own hats or shoes or tobacco. Total non-issue. It would be pointless to have an amendment to protect our right to own guns or shoes.

In any case the argument will never cease. It has a "pacifist" basis on the left. They believe weapons are inherently evil.

So, there are people who believe that weapons are inherently evil. So what? There are people, too, who believe that eating meat in inherently evil. But that doesn't stop the rest of us from enjoying a kabob or a buffalo wing. This contortion of the second amendment is shameless manipulation.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News