The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

Seggy said:
That is part of it sure.

Notice the part about that the founders felt men shouldn't campaign for pubic office. Wonder what they are thinking about today's electoral landscape.
Click to expand...
Oh, I saw that. Just didn't want to muddy the waters further.

To the matter at hand, the DD of the FEC disagrees with your assertion that the FFs didn't trust the public. Care to respond to posting inaccurate information to bolster your claims, or is he wrong too?
 
Cptnchia said:
Oh, I saw that. Just didn't want to muddy the waters further.

To the matter at hand, the DD of the FEC disagrees with your assertion that the FFs didn't trust the public. Care to respond to posting inaccurate information to bolster your claims, or is he wrong too?
Click to expand...

If the Founding Fathers trusted the public fully, why didn't they let women vote? Why didn't they let slaves (who were usually black) to vote?
 
Seggy said:
If the Founding Fathers trusted the public fully, why didn't they let women vote? Why didn't they let slaves (who were usually black) to vote?
Click to expand...
So if I understand what you're saying correctly, you're trying to draw a parallel between the paradigm shift of who should be allowed to vote and the single shot rifle to the modern day "assault rifle." Correct?

And you still haven't answered the "an example" Walmart question btw.
 
milleR said:
So if I understand what you're saying correctly, you're trying to draw a parallel between the paradigm shift of who should be allowed to vote and the single shot rifle to the modern day "assault rifle." Correct?
Click to expand...

No.
 
milleR said:
So if I understand what you're saying correctly, you're trying to draw a parallel between the paradigm shift of who should be allowed to vote and the single shot rifle to the modern day "assault rifle." Correct?

And you still haven't answered the "an example" Walmart question btw.
Click to expand...

Still hasn't answered how it's constitutional to demand a competence test to use your second amendment right but not to exercise any other either.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lawman said:
Still hasn't answered how it's constitutional to demand a competence test to use your second amendment right but not to exercise any other either.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

When written, the Constitution didn't allow women to vote and allowed slavery. Wouldn't you say that those are the rights that should have been included if the document is so perfect when originally written?
 
Seggy said:
It makes complete sense. You just don't want to hear it.
Click to expand...
What? What makes complete sense? What am I not hearing? You're saying the right to vote was incomplete when it was written and the right to bear arms was incomplete when it was written. What am I missing? The founding fathers never envisioned women or minorities voting and they never envisioned "assault rifles" just as they never envisioned the "internet" or "blogs" or "Facebook" yet we're supposed to juxtapose their thoughts based on your biases?

Edit: and you STILL haven't explained your silly Walmart "example". Care to address that?
 
milleR said:
What? What makes complete sense? What am I not hearing? You're saying the right to vote was incomplete when it was written and the right to bear arms was incomplete when it was written. What am I missing? The founding fathers never envisioned women or minorities voting and they never envisioned "assault rifles" just as they never envisioned the "internet" or "blogs" or "Facebook" yet we're supposed to juxtapose their thoughts based on your biases?

Edit: and you STILL haven't explained your silly Walmart "example". Care to address that?
Click to expand...

I have explained all of this, you just don't want to hear it or you can't understand it.
 
Seggy said:
When written, the Constitution didn't allow women to vote and allowed slavery. Wouldn't you say that those are the rights that should have been included if the document is so perfect when originally written?
Click to expand...

No you don't get out of what you said you want with that tired old deflection.

You want a qualification test to use and possess a firearm.

Argue the constitutionality of the same kind of test being applied to voting which is protected by the same document that you keep criticizing.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lawman said:
No you don't get out of what you said you want with that tired old deflection.

You want a qualification test to use and possess a firearm.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Argue the constitutionality of the same kind of test being applied to voting which is protected by the same document that you keep criticizing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

While I don't agree with them, voter ID laws are in place in a lot of states. You tell me why they should be constitutionally allowed.
 
Seggy said:
I have explained all of this, you just don't want to hear it or you can't understand it.
Click to expand...
You haven't explained a thing. You've posted op-ed pieces, responded to almost every post with a "no, YOU'RE wrong" and basically taken the same stance across the board which is "I'm right because I have a different opinion and you don't like it."

And I'm still waiting on an explanation of your Walmart example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top