A little perspective on the chance that you will be a victim

so you don't think children should be able to hunt or train for the olympics?

 

From an early age, in other Countries, I hunted, cooked, used fire and firearms, here now in this day and age, the preoccupation, is this Uber safe society that takes away anything not 100 % safe, and this is nonsense.

Life is not safe.....

Cesare Beccaria, in the year 1764, wrote the Essays on Crime and Punishment...

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction.

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty--so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator--and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?

Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve to rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree. "

 

BS...

 

Stop feeding the trolls and they will die.

 

The Constitution has been thoroughly corrupted and undermined by the government, and handed a rubber stamp by kangaroo courts and quislings like you.

Well, don't worry. Someday you might find your way. You need to get that case of cranial/rectal inversion you've got reversed first, but after that....

 

which is an opinion you are entitled to.

ok. in the meantime, I will continue educating you on constitutional law.

 

You bring nothing to the table, and I've forgotten more about Constitutional law, history, and intent than you're ever going to know.

 

Sure, explain it to him in terms of physics.

 

why? Physics has nothing to do with constitutional law.

 

Not long ago that was your standard answer... an unexplained one.

 

regarding inherent danger of full autos.

The discussion between him and I is constitutional law.

 

No, we ultimately followed his opinion.

 

Again I may just be arguing semantics but are you suggesting that a gun, an inanimate object, has inherent danger?

 

The hidden motive in your discussion is to distort history on the founding fathers’s intentions to spin their what their thinking was on the purpose of the 2A. Thus, your assertion the founding fathers, as a group, supported the institution of slavery ignores both the history of how the constitution was drafted, the strategies for facilitating the creation of a new country, the discussions of the FF, the simple, demonstrable fact, that in the Constitution were the seeds that ultimately ended the institution, and in the immediate aftermath of it’s ratification also provided the mechanism for ending slavery when some northern states modeled their constitutions from the one ratified for the country, and in fact abolished it in their states. To ignore that, is to advance an arguement dishonest ‘or ignorant’ of it’s history so you can try to spin the meaning of the 2A.

 

Guns talk to and persuade people to do bad things, don’t you know.

 

Then actually demonstrate that such is indeed known by myself to be false.

 

It has been explained, time and time again, how such is not the case. There is no inherent danger in fully-automatic firearms in general that does not exist with other firearms, and certainly not in newly manufactured ones.

 

You own slaves? Lol

 

Silly response. GW, was conflictedcwith the slavery question, but over his life grew to believe slavery should be ended....

http://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/the-only-unavoidable-subject-of-regret/

What many don’t understand is, under law, in Virginia, and many other states at the time, there were limited legal avenues for granting emancipation of slaves... a will being among them...

In the article above, the scheme concocted by Lafayette and GW is an interesting tidbit I had forgotten.

When looking back to the FF one the question of Slavery and the Constitution there is a failure to understand the issue in the context of the time; abolition was considered a radical idea, and ending slavery was supported by some of the FF, but they were focusing on solidifying concensus for creation and participation in a new Republic, one where the wealthiest states, the southern states were dependent on slavery were essential to the formation of a country and had to be convinced to join. The question of slavery was a wedge that could have prevented the country from forming under the Constitution, a constitution that ultimately sowed the seeds to end the institution, something that would not have happened if a compromise hadn’t been achieved (still, there were provisions created to end slavery by 1800 or at least In early 1800’s). Few understand how difficult the issue was at the time and generally criticize the FF for not doing what seems, when viewed in the context of the 20/20 morality we now ascribe to. Still, the formation of the government, and the Constitution began to build a coffin for slavery, something often overlooked by detractors. Many of the FF knew the ending the institution was going to be difficult and likely to be a long process rather than a radical change. This is obvious when reviewing the Federalist papers and correspondence at the time. That ending slavery had the potential to destroy the union of states was a shared concern by many, one not unfounded as the Civil War attests to. Still, that they moved ahead with the first priority (creating a new republic) and building the Constitution with the provisions to ultimately end slavery made it possible.
In regard to GW, the link above notes,

Indeed. Simple statements and denigrating the FF through the lens of the evolved morality and the distortion of dishonest spin objectives discounts the difficulty and the magnitude of both the creation of this country and the Constitution that has been the vehicle that helped it to be sustained.

 

Oh so conflicted that he refused to free his slaves. Oh....such conflict. Lol

 

By the way he did free them. He found a way.....after his death. Lol

 

Yes

 

Why do you insist on posting things you know to be false?

 

Already have

 

But this is false. I’ve repeatedly shown it as false.