Biden Plan to End Online Ammo Sales

[Tiredofthebickering]

This just baffles me. I am so glad that the folks that fought the American Revolution did not try and contribute to a more nuanced conversation.

I bowing out of this conversation. I like and respect the vast majority of you folks and I can feel my blood pressure rising...

Different times, different situations. If you feel your situation is comparable, do what they did. Flee to a new country, take up arms against your former tyrannical government, declare personal independence, fight a long and bloody war (don't forget to win), and start from scratch. Or, recognize that they did all of that heavy lifting granting us the freedom to have a more nuanced conversation.

 

[VikingsGuy]

it is obvious and well documented as to why that Amendment was originally put in The Bill of Rights. It wasn’t because the colonists wanted to go shoot a deer and it wasn’t because the colonists were worried about there neighbor stealing their wagon.

Actually, there are many writings of the time that showed the various state delegations involved in drafting, and state legislatures/conventions that ratified, disagreed on necessity and purpose of a right to bear arms. Some specifically called out the right to a firearm to take game, others specifically referenced personal security, some referenced a personal right to defend against tyranny, others viewed it narrowly as allowing states to form state regulated militias to stand against the federal govt but not to include a band of self-appointed rebels (even in the face of their own recent history), others wanted to protect all of these rights, and others who wanted to block federal regulation of arms but fully supported state regulation of arms (this was more than a century before the Bill of Rights was applied to the states at all on any topic). It would be nice if history was as clean as you suggest, but the written record of our Founding Fathers does not match this preference.

We are struggling with the same discussions as our Founders, there was very little unanimity amongst them on most topics. I wish we would have not washed away the richness of their debate, disagreement and historic compromise in the course of forming a national identity following the civil war and again under the stresses of 2 WWs, a great depression and the battle against segregation - it is not serving us well as we face into the challenges we have ahead.

 

[Tiredofthebickering]

This is exactly what I've been thinking on the topic. I used to staunchly believe that guns were the only freedom that mattered, but there are absolutely people living happy/ fulfilling lives in other countries that do not share the same firearms ownership rights that we do.

I'm starting to suspect that if we want to avoid going the way of England we as gun owners are going to have to contribute to some more nuanced conversation than "from my cold dead hands."

I should probably reply to agree with someone as well . . .

This is partly why I struggle to see eye to eye with some others on the topic and why I may come across as not 100% in support of some versions of 2A reading. I am a hunter. I am a gun owner. But neither of two things are the bedrock of my identity. If they were removed I would be deeply saddened and probably slightly unhappy for the remainder of my days. But I have other, higher, priorities in my life that have a great defining impact on who I am. I will move on and live a happy, fulfilled life either way.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I was thinking about this on the drive to work this morning, and while it isn't related to the OP it is to where this discussion has wandered.

Do you think your freedom is based on you owning guns or _______________?

I personally don't think my safe of small arms is doing a damn thing to keep me free. But my overall support and believe in the US system of government from the Federal to the City/County level along with my willingness to abide by the rule of our collective laws is the foundation on which all of my freedoms are based. So when someone says better vote for a 2nd A candidate if you want to be free, I'm just not buying it, I would much rather support a candidate that works to support our systems, even if that means correcting its flaws, than someone who.... let's say is trying to undermine the entire election process, or lying to the public about our own safety (at a national level).

Even if our personal assessments lead us to voting for different folks, I fully agree with the principles you lay out in this great post.

 

[Shangobango]

Different times, different situations. If you feel your situation is comparable, do what they did. Flee to a new country, take up arms against your former tyrannical government, declare personal independence, fight a long and bloody war (don't forget to win), and start from scratch. Or, recognize that they did all of that heavy lifting granting us the freedom to have a more nuanced conversation.

Totally missed the point of my post.

Have a nice day.

 

[LWC55]

This just baffles me. I am so glad that the folks that fought the American Revolution did not try and contribute to a more nuanced conversation.

I bowing out of this conversation. I like and respect the vast majority of you folks and I can feel my blood pressure rising...

It is just newspeak for giving up one's rights voluntarily.

 

[Shangobango]

It is just newspeak for giving up one's rights voluntarily.

Precisely.

 

[Tiredofthebickering]

Totally missed the point of my post.

Have a nice day.

You compared two wildly different times and scenarios and make your point. I found your point to be irrelevant based upon your apples to oranges comparison.

 

[VikingsGuy]

It is just newspeak for giving up one's rights voluntarily.

Our Founders did nothing but compromise across dozens of nuanced topics. I respect that, then as now, reasonable people can reach different but still reasonable conclusions, but I do not get how people can base their "reason" and views on such an abbreviated version of our history. An abbreviated narrative that was created years after the Founders were dead. I am not talking about bashing America, I don't accept the "America was founded on evil" spin at all, but even setting aside the recent culture wars on the topic, our Founders elegantly compromised with a great sense of nuance. In my opinion, to not understand this is to disrespect their great work and the great nation they established.

 

[Shangobango]

You compared two wildly different times and scenarios and make your point. I found your point to be irrelevant based upon your apples to oranges comparison.

Have a nice day.

 

[Irrelevant]

If you have allowed your government to become a Libya or a Syria by continuing to back anti democratic (little d not big D) policies to the point where you need to take arms against your country then you have already failed to protect your freedom.

 

[Shangobango]

Our Founders did nothing but compromise across dozens of nuanced topics. I respect that, then as now, reasonable people can reach different but still reasonable conclusions, but I do not get how people can base their "reason" and views on such an abbreviated version of our history. An abbreviated narrative that was created years after the Founders were dead. I am not talking about bashing America, I don't accept the "America was founded on evil" spin at all, but even setting aside the recent culture wars on the topic, our Founders elegantly compromised with a great sense of nuance. In my opinion, to not understand this is to disrespect their great work and the great nation they established.

The Bill of Rights was what came from their compromise. As far as I am concerned that is where the compromise ends.

 

[Tiredofthebickering]

My wife and I have nuanced conversations on the regular. Sometimes it means that I give things up, sometimes it means that she gives things up (of course, many will comment about, "BUT THE GUN CONTROL GROUP ISN'T GIVING ANYTHING UP!!"). That's what makes our marriage work. Nuanced conversation is necessary to peaceful existence. Nuanced conversation is necessary to raise our children to be functional adults that contribute to society with (hopefully) fewer flaws that either of use. Nuanced conversation is necessary to understand the life experiences of my friends that were born a different class, a different color, or a different nationality. Nuanced conversation is necessary to understand how people with similar backgrounds, and overall similar experiences, can have two perfectly valid, strongly held opinions on the same subject.

 

[rwc101]

The Bill of Rights was what came from their compromise. As far as I am concerned that is where the compromise ends.

So scrap all the following amendments?

 

[Shangobango]

So scrap all the following amendments?

Do the following amendments alter the first 10?

 

[Irrelevant]

The Bill of Rights was what came from their compromise. As far as I am concerned that is where the compromise ends.

So you don't believe in amendments 11-27? Slavery... Black/brown people's right to vote...Woman's right to vote....limits on presidential terms...

 

[FI460]

The Bill of Rights was what came from their compromise. As far as I am concerned that is where the compromise ends.

That's simply not the case. Never has been and never will be.

The framers, through their nuanced conversation, put in place a system to change things by granting congress the authority to create laws, by creating a judiciary, and by creating an amendment process.

 

[rwc101]

Do the following amendments alter the first 10?

You're avoiding the point. They all involved further compromise.

 

[rwc101]

Never mind. I'm not getting sucked into this.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Do the following amendments alter the first 10?

The 14th made a monumental change to the Bill of Rights by extending those right to all humans in the US and for the first time applying them to state and local governments as well - definitely something none of the Founders considered in the day.