stop bringing up the founding fathers in gun arguments

[Tarathiel]

except that like if the government ever did get tyrannical(more tyrannical i should say, if ever there was a time for revolution its now, but what ev). your guns would mean jack shit, they would bend you over with a predator missile and shove it right up your ass.

[Hitchens]

I really don't see why the views of people who had no concept of an urban society should be treated as sacrosanct.

I mean hey, if you want to slap the beliefs of men who's vision of America was nothing but neat little squares of farmland onto contemporary society, that's cool. Just don't act so surprised when some are a little skeptical.

[vaylorie]

Originally Posted by Hitchens [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I really don't see why the views of people who had no concept of an urban society should be treated as sacrosanct.

I mean hey, if you want to slap the beliefs of men who's vision of America was nothing but neat little squares of farmland onto contemporary society, that's cool. Just don't act so surprised when some are a little skeptical.

You. Are. A. Moron. Thanks.

[Hitchens]

Originally Posted by vaylorie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You. Are. A. Moron. Thanks.

I appreciate your reasonable rebuttal and hope to engage with you again in the future.

[Faron]

Originally Posted by Tarathiel [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

except that like if the government ever did get tyrannical(more tyrannical i should say, if ever there was a time for revolution its now, but what ev). your guns would mean jack shit, they would bend you over with a predator missile and shove it right up your ass.

Ok, but the transition from a peaceful government/people relationship to having the government launch predator missiles at the people doesn't happen over night. An armed public means that it will never even get close to that. The other cutesy response I see a lot on here is that guns won't help when they are banned and an Abrams tank shows up at my front doorstep - also a scenario that's not realistic.

Originally Posted by Hitchens [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I really don't see why the views of people who had no concept of an urban society should be treated as sacrosanct.

What makes you think they had no concept of urban society?

I can't speak for others, but I don't think it's sacrosanct either. If it must be changed it should be done through the proper channels - large majority of Congress + ratification by a large majority of the states - not by executive decrees as VP Biden has threatened.

[patriot1776]

Originally Posted by Hitchens [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I really don't see why the views of people who had no concept of an urban society should be treated as sacrosanct.

I mean hey, if you want to slap the beliefs of men who's vision of America was nothing but neat little squares of farmland onto contemporary society, that's cool. Just don't act so surprised when some are a little skeptical.

There were still major cities and the founders vision of America wasn't for every neighborhood to look the same.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Hitchens [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I really don't see why the views of people who had no concept of an urban society should be treated as sacrosanct.

I mean hey, if you want to slap the beliefs of men who's vision of America was nothing but neat little squares of farmland onto contemporary society, that's cool. Just don't act so surprised when some are a little skeptical.

They've certainly been deified by some, but that doesn't mean the other extreme is valid, either. The vision of the Founding Fathers has set a foundation for American government for over two hundred years; it is not irrelevant today.

The point of the matter doesn't really change with time, with technology, or with society. The point of the Second Amendment is that a person has a fundamental right to defend himself, and the government does not have the right to revoke that capability. It's a matter of independence, of self-determination, and yes -- of thwarting tyrannical government. Red Dawn isn't coming, and if the government wants you dead, you're dead. But government going door to door to pull minorities and political dissenters out of their homes to be shot, as happened in multiple countries under multiple regimes in 20th century Europe? That's not happening with a well-armed populace.

Does that mean that everyone should be allowed to purchase napalm at Walgreens? Of course not. The specifics are very much an open discussion, one that has unfortunately been dominated mostly by extremists.

But it's far too simplistic to point to murder rates and say 'hey, they're doing it right, lower murder rate'. We could decrease our murder rate by banning guns, sure. We could also increase our life expectancy by banning soda -- and motorcycles. The question becomes one of liberty and the scope of government.

[Tarathiel]

where do you think the big bad army would get an army to shoot at american civilian's anyways, i know quite a few people in the military and im pretty confident that if shit hit the fan they wouldnt be siding with the government

[Tarathiel]

big bad government* stupid fucking rnf and its stupid fucking no editing, at least gimme 30 secs to check my grammar and spelling fuck

[Rikimeru]

Originally Posted by EvilMallet [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

founding fathers were profiteers who wanted to break off from the british to avoid taxes, and they lived in an era where owning a gun was your only method of protecting yourself and getting food.

Those men supported your right to bear arms because it meant you were very likely to kill some redcoats.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” - Thomas jefferson

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it. -Thomas Jefferson

one of the key founding fathers of our nation would disagree with you.