Huh? My feelings were never hurt. I thought they were being disrespectful pieces of shit, nothing more.
Printable View
You need to take off those rose-colored glasses, man. The people who founded this country were only against the oppression and subjugation of themselves. Slavery isn't the one and only exception. This country was founded on destroying the Native Americans and continually herding them onto ever shrinking reservations. This country was founded on treating immigrants of every stripe as second class citizens at best, and a plague on our population at worst. Which is why...
...we need to stop trying to govern the functioning of our country based on whitewashed principles and the ideals of the fucking 1700 and 1800's. If the founding fathers were still in charge, we wouldn't have a national army that, even if half of them defied the government and joined "the resistance," would still be able to put down any group of any people that they wanted to. This isn't a world where fighting the government means riding your horse to a field and forming a line, it isn't a world were fighting the government means you and your resistance buddies name yourselves after some cool animals and go all Wolverines on everybody, it's a world where fighting the government means satellite surveillance and drones strikes and tactical missile strikes and bunker busters. And what I'm not a big fan of is supporting your freedom fighter fantasies over doing the only thing we can do to help stop thousands upon thousands of people from being murdered every year.Quote:
When things like this are taken, or given away as some would prefer it, they aren't given back. The more a populace is disarmed and thus weakened, the stronger the hold a government has over it's people. So, no, I'm not a big fan of just handing more power to the government and I don't think they would be, either, if we're really talking about guys from the 1700s. Those guys stood for liberty. They fought for liberty. The laws they put in place were there to support liberty. You're trying to dissect a very limited portion of a much larger ideal in order to dismiss something that I honestly think would be quite contrary to what they wanted.
They do end when it is determined they pose an (arbitrarily determined) level of risk, though. You aren't allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater. You aren't allowed to bear nuclear arms. You aren't allowed to murder someone because God told you. If you ever step into the real world, you'll find out things are a lot more complicated than "I HAVE RIGHTS!"It may interest you to learn that neither our legislative nor judicial systems operate on precedent at the highest level. Both the Congress and the Supreme Court are free to behave in a way that expressly contradicts prior behavior - this is kind of the point of both bodies.The President is part of the government. hthQuote:
Which is why I never agree to any kind of limitation as lawful because it is a slippery slope and the Left is pushing us down it all the time. Giving an inch so to speak is still an inch further down the slope.