I think I should explain WHY I'm a Civil Libertarian

[Troglodyte]

You are trying to equate this with gun control? That's funny. There is a constitutional right to bear arms. That is sacrosanct. They don't have that in China, Cuba, and North Korea, you idiot. There is no constitutional right to do illegal drugs.

The people who wrote the 2nd Amendment didn't know what illegal drugs were. They also didn't know what an automatic assault weapon was either. So what's your point?

 

[Steel Not A Player]

The people who wrote the 2nd Amendment didn't know what illegal drugs were. They also didn't know what an automatic assault weapon was either. So what's your point?

If you enforced all the current laws on the books from drugs to guns to stat rape laws, you'd basically have to arrest every one of the signatories to the Constitution. Most of them carried firearms of one sort or another, alot of them did snuff or opium and even cannabis, and Sally Hemmings was like 15 when Jefferson started in on her.

We have too many laws. But people want to "feel safe". They prefer the superficial appearance of security to the tangible reality of liberty.

 

[DBS1970]

The people who wrote the 2nd Amendment didn't know what illegal drugs were. They also didn't know what an automatic assault weapon was either. So what's your point?

The Rifled flintlock musket that we defeated the British with was found in nearly every home in the 13 colonies. It was a state of the art military weapon of the time. I think the founders understood the necessity of the citizens having military grade weaponry to keep them on equal footing with the government.

 

[MT~Forged]

See Colorado. Now they have one in eight kids over 12 smoking weed in the last month. Bottom line is that there are drugs that need to be illegal, and laws have to be enforced. Let's see how this experiment works out for Colorado. I suspect it will be bad. Some freedoms just don't work in a society. I suspect that drugs is one of them.

I do not believe it is LEGAL for underaged kids to smoke weed, just like it is also illegal for them to smoke cigarrettes. Don't see anyone trying to take on RJR.

 

[EdReed4Prez]

The Rifled flintlock musket that we defeated the British with was found in nearly every home in the 13 colonies. It was a state of the art military weapon of the time. I think the founders understood the necessity of the citizens having military grade weaponry to keep them on equal footing with the government.

Also pretty sure the first shots of the revolutionary war were fired over the defense of cannons. Those cannons were owned by civilians.

 

[MT~Forged]

Also pretty sure the first shots of the revolutionary war were fired over the defense of cannons. Those cannons were owned by civilians.

I believe that it really was the private ownership of the powder for said cannons. You can also be sure if there were weapons like we have today, they would have approved of them.

 

[Confluence]

Charles,

FWIW, if you look it up, you will find that the addictiveness of both alcohol and nicotine to be greater than that of pot. You will also find that usage under the age of 25 is not recommended by any respected science that I've seen.....for any of the them.

And if you look really hard at straight line statistics about deaths related to abuse or overuse of pot and compare that to alcohol or nicotine, well, you'd be amazed. Alcohol poisoning/OD kills many, many kids each year, cigarettes cause innumerable health issues and pot causes.......munchies?

It doesn't matter because you won't believe me. I was in your position just over a year ago. Then I had need to do much research. It is really stunning if you allow yourself some time to think beyond that which the guvmint and big pharma and the DEA wants you to believe. But that won't matter until you actually have a reason to figure it out for yourself. I figure I was about 12 months late. I hope that you are more timely than I was.

 

[Troglodyte]

The Rifled flintlock musket that we defeated the British with was found in nearly every home in the 13 colonies. It was a state of the art military weapon of the time. I think the founders understood the necessity of the citizens having military grade weaponry to keep them on equal footing with the government.

You completely missed my point which was the founders of the constitution would need brought up to speed on many fronts over the two centuries before they could intelligently weigh in on this debate. It's silly to refer to them.

For all we know they would urge that use of drugs be prohibited while on horseback and allow for men to whip their wives with a switch should they be caught using drugs or guns without
supervision.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

You completely missed my point which was the founders of the constitution would need brought up to speed on many fronts over the two centuries before they could intelligently weigh in on this debate. It's silly to refer to them.

For all we know they would urge that use of drugs be prohibited while on horseback and allow for men to whip their wives with a switch should they be caught using drugs or guns without
supervision.

WTF?

 

[JupiterBnG]

I'll go out on a limb and say Troglodyte's main opposition to gay marriage is all the people that will want to marry their dog next.

 

[Troglodyte]

I'll go out on a limb and say Troglodyte's main opposition to gay marriage is all the people that will want to marry their dog next.

Where do you get that? No opposition to gay marriage here. I do oppose Rick Santorum who creeps me out.

 

[JupiterBnG]

Where do you get that? No opposition to gay marriage here. I do oppose Rick Santorum who creeps me out.

I figured since you were using the cockamamie "we would have to explain cell phones to the founding fathers before they could understand the implications of the Constitution today" argument, you were of the "take it to the illogical extreme" variety.

Carry on.

 

[Troglodyte]

WTF?

Translation for you:

They didn't have a clue as to what illegal drugs, automobiles, AK47s or women's rights were (for starters) They would be totally foreign to them. It's stupid to try to interpret what their opinions would be regarding them.

 

[Troglodyte]

I figured since you were using the cockamamie "we would have to explain cell phones to the founding fathers before they could understand the implications of the Constitution today" argument, you were of the "take it to the illogical extreme" variety.

Carry on.

Cockamamie and illogical is comparing flint stock rifles to modern day assault rifles and 18th century society to modern day society and drawing conclusion as to what the founders of the constitution would think if they were alive today.

But people like to believe what they want to believe....

 

[JupiterBnG]

Translation for you:

They didn't have a clue as to what illegal drugs, automobiles, AK47s or women's rights were (for starters) They would be totally foreign to them. It's stupid to try to interpret what their opinions would be regarding them.

But they knew what swords and clubs were that were used hundreds of years earlier, and knew that the guns and cannons they had at the time were considerably more dangerous and lethal than those older weapons, and it's reasonable to assume that they also understood that technology would be further advanced 200 years later, even if they couldn't imagine to what extent. If they had any doubts or fears about that, they were smart guys who were pretty forward-thinking for their day, they would have put some kind of limitation on it.

 

[Troglodyte]

If they had any doubts or fears about that, they were smart guys who were pretty forward-thinking for their day, they would have put some kind of limitation on it.

Uh...NO! You cannot put limitations on something you cannot begin to fathom.

I'm sure they would be outraged with the NSA and TSA until they were informed of the events of 9/11. Then they would likely pause and think about it.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

It's stupid to try to interpret what their opinions would be regarding them.

I'm sure they would be outraged with the NSA and TSA until they were informed of the events of 9/11. Then they would likely pause and think about it.

Yeah, we take you seriously at this point.

 

[JupiterBnG]

Uh...NO! You cannot put limitations on something you cannot begin to fathom.

Sure you can.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear muskets, shall not be infringed.

 

[Troglodyte]

Sure you can.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear muskets, shall not be infringed.

So they limited it to muskets? The NRA is gonna be pissed!

 

[JupiterBnG]

So they limited it to muskets? The NRA is gonna be pissed!

You're a moron. I showed you how they limit it in the face of uncertain future developments. You limit the language to what is currently known. If there's some future development, then the politicians of the time amend the Amendment if they think it's prudent. That way, as technology advances, "the right of the people to keep and bear muskets" can become "the right of the people to keep and bear rifles" or "the right of the people to keep and bear shoulder-mounted anti-tank weapons" or "the right of the people to keep and bear ICBMs."

 

[Troglodyte]

You're a moron. I showed you how they limit it in the face of uncertain future developments. You limit the language to what is currently known. If there's some future development, then the politicians of the time amend the Amendment if they think it's prudent.

Sorry, so "muskets" was not your interpretation of what was meant by "arms" rather an example of how they could have put limitations on the 2nd amendment.

My point is that the definition of arms is considerably broader today than it was 200+ years ago.

 

[Stainless]

I have a tank, and it's full of marijuana. Actually it's a ziploc bag, but the founding fathers wanted it to be a tank.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

My point is that the definition of arms is considerably broader today than it was 200+ years ago.

Is it possible for you to consider that they used the word "arms" vs. "muskets" intentionally? That they were bright enough to know that weaponry would evolve? That their intent then would be the same now, that we have the right to defend ourselves, with arms, period? As has been mentioned, limits can be placed through other means. They intended not to put limits on the 2nd Amendment. Brilliantly.

 

[JupiterBnG]

Sorry, so "muskets" was not your interpretation of what was meant by "arms" rather an example of how they could have put limitations on the 2nd amendment.

My point is that the definition of arms is considerably broader today than it was 200+ years ago.

And my point is I believe that to be purposeful. When you're concerned about the possible future rise of a cruel dictatorship, you don't generally constrain the People as to how they can overthrow said dictator. Just as they wouldn't have limited the people of their time to bows and arrows, knowing that the government could avail themselves of guns and cannons, why would they limit future generations to using those same guns and cannons against weapons they could not possibly fathom?

 

[Steel Not A Player]

I interpret "arms" to mean personal weapons, i.e. small arms. People in those days did own cannons, though.

War was very different then. Having small arms meant you could protect yourself from the government. It doesn't mean that in the age of smart bombs, drones and cruise missiles. When Old Ironsides comes rolling down main street, you're punkass AR-15 ain't about to do **** about it.

The right to bear arms means the right to protect yourself and your family in the modern age. That's that right life that is quoted in the Declaration of Independence. There is no good reason to ban or even limit ownership of small arms, given their prevalence throughout America. The people who want to ban/limit gun ownership are the same as the people who want to band drugs: they see gun owners/drug users as "them". And we never care about "those people" as much as we care about "us".

At some point you'd think that the gay rights people would see the gun people as fellow human beings and vice versa. Both sides seeing the other as just wanting to live their version of the America dream, and get out of each other's way. But it keeps not happening, and that's what frustrates me the most.