Why Some on The Left Hates Guns (party affiliation, illegal immigration, violent crime)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can not paint that with one brush, some do not under stand guns, once they do they change, some don't believe in violence even in the case of defending your life. Some think that only gov. entities should have them, and do not trust the public. Its the one major place I disagree with the left. That and immigration.
The people who hate guns or want them to be restricted/banned have virtually no knowledge or experience with fire arms and therefore are unfit to even talk or debate about them. They should not be allowed to make laws about them either, as was the case in the Great State of California and the '' Ghost Gun '' nonsense.
actually that is 1/2 the obama statement, its guns and bibles he does not like. he speaks for the masses of course-- his guards all have guns.
the poor folk --they dont like you, your, weapons nor your beliefs. they dont like it that you got money, pretty women, nice houses and cars all of which enable you to put some distance between you and them.
any way that they can switch places with you, then that is appropriate and just in their eyes.
did i miss something?
It isn't, nor was it ever intended to be a "living constitution." That idea was invented by "Progressives," who found the Constitution was a stumbling block to their concept of government. I believe (if memory serves me) that it was Woodrow Wilson who first described it as a "living document." That idea was picked up and has been taught in liberal academia ever since, but it's a false notion.
The Declaration, and the Constitution are timeless. It does not matter what you might "like to think" of the founders. They intended it to serve for all time, as written (or as amended, per Article V). It was crafted with utmost care, and worded in such a way so as to make it's interpretation clear (and we have the Federalist Papers to aid understanding).
That must be why they were so careful to avoid the problem of corrupting their young folks by stipulating age limits in the 2nd amendment so 10 year olds would not be expected to bear arms.
The rest of the constitution was so carefully "crafted with utmost care" so as to avoid that prospect in all things such as consummation of alcoholic beverages, marriage at age of ten or to your first cousin, to ability to enter a tavern and order a drink.
Oh wait...... they didn't foresee any of that did they? So I guess all those laws prohibiting such things are just Liberals tampering with a perfect document.
The expectation for common sense to play a part in the interpretation of their "crafted with the utmost care" document was perhaps correctly assumed at the time of writing but too lofty a premise for todays retarded populace.
Well, that's novel. I hope you were being facetious.
Not really; careful reading would glean many tracts with remarkable resemblance to the Magna Carta.
They weren't Rhodes Scholars or members of Mensa after all, simply well spoken politicians and you've been scammed by way too many of them over many decades to not have an intimate understanding of the breed............or perhaps not.
As to their belief in any religion: how many of them owned slaves again?
How can you"burn" a living, ever changing constitution?
The most common way is by saying that "general welfare" means, essentially, "anything". Despite the fact that the constitution specifically says that any power not delegated to the federal government is reserved for the states, they simply say that since the government is empowered to make laws and levy taxes for the general welfare that means that the government can do anything that might be good for people. So while the constitution was intended as a document to specify what the federal government can do, liberals instead interpret it as a document authorizing the government to anything it wants as long as that thing isn't specifically denied. That's how the left burns the constitution. That's how we have 17 trillion dollars in debt. That's how we have the federal government deciding what health insurance you can and cannot have, what cars you can drive, what food you can eat, what energy you can use, what you can build on your own land, what people you can hire, where you kids can go to school, etc. None of that stuff is powers given to the federal government by the constitution, but liberals engage in all of it. It is a direct violation of the 10th amendment. But all they do is claim each and every one of those things is for the "general welfare" and then presto it's fine and dandy.
Quote:
I like to think that the founding fathers weren't so set in their ways, that even they "themselves" couldn't see a point in time where what they thought to be "truth" might be debated.
Of course. That's the reason for amendments. Can you point me towards the amendment allowing the federal government to run a social security system? A core curriculum? Health insurance exchanges? They put a method of amending the constitution in there for precisely what you're talking about. But does the left use this method? Nope.
How can people hate guns by trying to make sure those with mental illnesses don't get get them?
Do you really want people that see demons and hear voices to have access to assault rifles?
Exactly. I don't hate guns, I hate the idea of Maximum Guns. People who defend the gun rights of lunatics who are known to be violent, who run into schools and start blasting away, who stockpile weapons because of nutty conspiracies, who point at them at federal workers to "defend" some nut who won't pay his taxes, and insists that he doesn't recognize our government while flying American flags, who fire on black kids because they're listening to loud music, who fire at other gang members, or perceived Gang members like Hadiyah Pendleton, and who run around shooting at people because they're cops or relatives of cops...and for that matter, of wild, over aggressive cops.
Responsible gun owners, most of us are fine with. But groups like the NRA push for irresponsible, violent gun ownership, which is not. I'm fine with most people have them for protection (not that smart, but okay), or for hunting (around here, many of the hunters donate the meat to food shelters, which is great), but I also think it's perfectly reasonable to discuss gun safety as a health concern, and that is a single gun store is a major source of illegal firearms being used for murder, then that should be investigated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
