The founding fathers didn't write the 2A for hunting

Zoso

unsung wrote:

Smellyman wrote:

I think it should only be muzzle loading guns as the founders envisioned.

that wouls sure cut down on killing sprees.

I'm good with that. Let's get rid of the internet and cell phones too. I doubt that they had that in mind when writing about free speech.

internet, cell phones don't kill anyone.. either does free speech.

unsung

Words have caused war, sir.

catefrances

unsung wrote:

catefrances wrote:

youre the one who said children should be better behaved.

Sorry but you brought up the stick and child. I was merely following your initial thought in case it went somewhere.

my apologies if what i was saying was too subtle to grasp.

Zoso

unsung wrote:

Words have caused war, sir.

no one talking to another person DIRECTLY kills anyone.. me saying anything to you can't automatically kill you.

markin ball

The FF were smart enough to know the constitution may need to adapt from time to time and that they were not all wise and all knowing of all events and circumstances throughout eternity. They put the instructions in there on how to change it for goodness sake. How does the citizenry defend itself from the federal governments nuclear weapons, biological and chemical agents, etc? The 2A is practically irrelevant. I think if the FF where writing up the constitution today they would seek to provide more realistic mechanisms against tyrrany.

fife

unsung wrote:

fife wrote:

unsung wrote:

See I have a issue with us making any change to anything to be like other countries.

Do you mind explaining why?

It's one thing to take the best ideas and incorporate them, someone mentioned benchmarking. It's another to do something just to get in line. What's good for Iran may not be good for Canada, etc.

well that is a change from what you wrote before. Of course what is good for Iran may not be good for Canada but at the same time some things that are good for Canada might also be good for the USA, would you not agree?

JimmyV

unsung wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

unsung wrote:

Trying. Being Libertarian isn't as popular as I would hope.

Honestly, the candidate you champion in your avatar bares some responsibility for that. Had he chosen to run a third party campaign as a Libertarian he would have not only given his voters an alternative but also brought countless new voters into the fold. I was greatly disappointed by his decision to enter the Republican primary and then "suspend" his campaign, particularly since he is retiring from Congress anyway.

Actually it is widely thought he did not do that so he wouldn't spoil Rand's 2016 run. Let's be honest this country has a corrupt two party system that can more than likely only be fixed from within.

Oh, I absolutely agree that he did not run in order to preserve his legacy son's future prospects. But I do find it distasteful that he built this political brand based on being an independent voice only to try and shift its focus to helping a son who has shown much more interest in towing the party line. Had Ron Paul run as a Libertarian he would have all my respect. But the way he chose to go out really tarnished him in my eyes. Was a much bigger fan in 2008 than in 2012.