That is incredibly untrue. I have yet to ignore arguments for gun control. I support gun control measures. Feel free to search my posts.
It is amazing how short some peoples' memories are in a debate about the 2nd amendment.
Shooting at Dallas Protest - 5 police killed
- Thread starter Carolina Red
- Start date
It is amazing how short some peoples' memories are in a debate about the 2nd amendment.
In Minneapolis the cop was hispanic
Let's take Aristotle, he also believed in slavery, I can sit here and look back and see he was wrong but I can also understand in the context of his world how he might believe that, he doesn't have that same privilege towards our world.
To be fair, in the Zimmerman case CNN made a Hispanic man white.
And the man who wrote "all men are created equal" owned slaves. That doesn't take away from the power of the Declaration of Independence.
It may do to minority Americans.
It's fascinating reading a pro gun argument as someone who has grown up in the UK. I don't think I've met a single person who agrees with it.
The argument seems completely bonkers to me, but it's still interesting.
The argument seems completely bonkers to me, but it's still interesting.
They can think less of the man all they want, I am disappointed in Jefferson myself because he did not free his slaves... that does not take away from the words he wrote in that document.
Back in 2003 I was engaged to an American girl, and her dad took me to a shooting range where I had to fire a Groch (spelling) and a magnum 45, and about three other pistols in order to prove to him that I was capable of looking after the home I was potentially protecting in the future. Needless to say I never hit the target once LOL. It was fun to do target practice, but the thought of having firearms in the home, was freaking scary. Eventually I started to question whether it was right to own a gun, and the whole Iraq war etc, and it was like I spat in Reagan's face. Good times, but I'm happier in the UK.
I believe the 2nd Amendment has been illegitimised, or bastardised.
And you're entitled to that opinion.
Christ that reads like a really bad plot from a chick flick, but with a bad ending
sorry you had to go through that 
But the words should be questioned and debated, that is how we decided that the 'equality' Jefferson endorsed was wrong and we moved on from it.
You can keep the 2nd amendment, but you can only bear water pistols, that seems fair.
Is the 2nd amendment clear on what constitutes arms?
You don't believe that a man can rise above his personal shortcomings and write something that is true and applicable throughout the ages despite of them?
It's illegal to buy a bazooka in the US. There's no reason not to raise the bar to other kinds of arms.
The point of the 2nd Amendment was to allow citizens to fight back against Governments should they become oppressive. The problem is that modern armies are so advanced now, it makes gun ownership totally pointless on that score. The Amendment should really be revoked.
The point of the 2nd Amendment was to allow citizens to fight back against Governments should they become oppressive. The problem is that modern armies are so advanced now, it makes gun ownership totally pointless on that score. The Amendment should really be revoked.
The man kept over 500 slaves during his lifetime. Paid large amounts of money to slave owners as compensation & continued to own slaves while serving in the White House, even though he claimed all men were created equal and this is a 'personal shortcoming' ??
Black people were known as 3/5ths of a man as part of the constitution how is any of that true?
He advocated to free slaves, but continued to have them. He was a hypocrite who's been romanticised.
you know what, never mind.
No it's not...
Did you miss the part where I said Jefferson as a man disappoints me because of his history as a slave owner or did you just want to vent?
If you're asking me if I believe in blind faith then no of course not. The interpretation and application as we have seen with the evolution of equality is what is important. The words of the second amendment have evolved that they are no longer applicable with modern society in the traditional sense and need to be reinterpreted for the benefit of the people as a whole.
I'm really not sure where you just went there, but basically I'm making the point that a man doesn't have to be perfect to write something that is true.
Considering your whole point was about the words in the document and the validity of them. By him continuing to own slaves despite his declarations, it is not just hypocritical but it validates the argument that the words written by those men in that document are outdated & should be amended.
You're aware that I'm discussing "all men are created equal" right? The quote is from Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
And for the record, Jefferson argued for the abolition of slavery in the Constitution, he just lost the argument.
No logic in this debate just people letting their hatred, blindness, and emotion over-rule their thought process.
I know it was from the declaration of independence, the constitution was still signed with black people counting as 3/5ths of a man.
He argued for the abolition of slavery, but continued to have them even when his peers freed theirs. Like I said the man's a hypocrite and the original words of the constitution however relevant they were at the time (thats a different debate to be had) need to be amended.
But like I said earlier, Americans & their guns.
People shouldn't forget though what precipitated the shootings. I am not condoning the attack in Dallas but the Police and Justice system need to do more to prosecute the police officers that are involved in shooting innocent people. I watched both shootings of the previous two days before this shooting and have the police officers that shot the two black men been arrested? Other numerous shootings by police have had the police officer involved go free and not being sent to prison.
I am interested to see Trevor Noah's take on the Dallas shootings although I don't see anything on YT yet but here is his take on the two shootings the previous two days.
Never mind his take on Orlando and America's gun laws. How true.
On a lighter note, here's his take on Hillary and Donald.
I am interested to see Trevor Noah's take on the Dallas shootings although I don't see anything on YT yet but here is his take on the two shootings the previous two days.
Never mind his take on Orlando and America's gun laws. How true.
On a lighter note, here's his take on Hillary and Donald.
Last edited:
From what I've read, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the bastardisation of the 2nd Amendment went something like this...
George W. Bush is elected president. Ted Olson and Miguel Estrada worked on the legal team representing GW in the Gore v Bush case concerning votes in Florida and, in effect, who was going to be President. GW won, made Olson Solicitor General and tried to get Estrada on the judiciary of the Court of Appeals for the DC circuit. The democrats philibustered him for over 2 years and Estrada eventually withdrew, and so GW nominated Tom Griffith instead, who was slipped in under the Gang of 14 deal.
Edit: Continued (following computer glitch)...
It was Griffith (included in "The New Republic"'s list of Washington's most powerful, but least famous, people) who ruled in favour on appeal of a case ("Parker v DC") on behalf of six claimants over their constitutional right to bear arms. This was a truly momentous decision. The case was really about "Robert A. Levy v the 2nd Amendment". The mayor of DC's petition for a re-hearing was dismissed (by the same DC Court of Appeals), and the District of Columbia appealed to the Supreme Court. This is exactly what Levy and his six chosen plaintives wanted. They were after the 2nd Amendment all along. Only now did it become "DC v Heller", and a situation in which a ruling in favour of DC and support of previous interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would overturn the ruling of Thomas B. Griffith, one of "Washington's most powerful, but least famous, people".
I've discussed the merits of that decision in isolation elsewhere, but it is important, I feel, to see it in context.
Someone said Tanks are fine.
Last edited:
1) Jefferson didn't sign the Constitution. He was in France during the Convention.
2) While Jefferson may be a hypocrite, you've still not shown how that should take away from the absolutely true statements he made in the Declaration of Independence.
3) I will not apologize for defending a document that protects rights. You want to ask me about gun control? Go ahead. I'm all for gun control. You want to ask about removing rights that the government didn't create but merely protects? Take a hike.
1) Your argument for the bastardization of the 2nd Amendment fails to explain how it was perfectly legal and constitutional for individuals to keep and bear arms from 1789 to 2008 (when Heller was decided).
2) I said tanks are legal to own because that is a fact. They are.
And I'm saying nothing is eternally true, interpretation and application changes and therefore so does the meaning.
That's simply false.
And yet the truth has evolved and changed throughout history, sometimes discarded, sometimes reinterpreted.
1) From what I've seen, they have not yet been arrested.
2) I too am interested to see his take on Dallas. I think he's done a fine job in replacing Stewart.
I liked his take on America's gun law(Orlando shooting video) too. I think he is doing well too.
And yet it is false that "nothing is eternally true".
Give me some then
So did I. What the GOP is currently doing in Congress to block the gun control legislation that's been put forward is absurd.
Rape is wrong
2+2=4
Last edited:
Of course I agree and hold that to be true. The interpretation and application of that truth isn't settled in the modern world let alone in history though.
Doesn't matter. Its interpretation throughout history does not make it any less or any more true.
If something is true, and the entire world doesn't believe it, it is still true.