FOWL Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 No of course not. This message board was much more mild than stuff I've seen elsewhere, it was this air of gloating that he had died. Using his name in the news as a springboard into discussing views on guns is totally fair game, it is the celebratory joking nature that really irks. Whatever you believe about guns and personal freedom, I think Heston deserves more respect than that if you actually look at what he stood for throughout his life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOWL Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 The right to bear arms was secured and kept in the US to ensure freedom. If you have a public fully armed, the government can't successfully enact martial law and take over. The founding fathers were very clear about this matter. Maybe you think governments are great and don't carry out mass exterminations of their own people occasionally, maybe you think it is useless to fight back, but that is the reason for holding weaponry like that. Noone argues that type of weaponry is for hunting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AD Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 The right to bear arms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOWL Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 Wow! And all this time I never knew how people could talk about "interpretations" of something that was so clearly written. I was SOOOO wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phishtaper Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 The founding fathers were very clear about this matter. [and] Wow! And all this time I never knew how people could talk about "interpretations" of something that was so clearly written. I was SOOOO wrong! the second ammendment to the US constitution is one of the most debated revisions in history. it's meaning has never been "clear". at the time of its creation, it was strongly debated and its inclusion in the bill of rights was neither unanimously understood nor fully ratified. it's meaning and interpretation have been debated and challenged ever since, especially the term "militia" in various evolving social contexts over the last 200 years, and exactly what "bear" and "arms" mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timouse Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 when the US constitution was written, they were dealing with muskets.pour powder in.drop a ball or shot in.tamp down.fire.repeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOWL Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 This is very true. There were a few of the authors against it, but the majority were very clear in their documented comments about the importance of a citezenry being armed against their government. It appears to me however the the wording in the bill of rights in conjunction with the constitution is about having state run militias to protect against a powerful federal government, as the whole concept of America was to have power concentrated locally, with the freedom to travel to another area if you didn't like what was going on in your region. Either way I still feel free humans have the right to utilise and carry weaponry. But you are right, upon rereading it, it isn't very clear at all without looking up what the founding fathers had to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOWL Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 The right to bear arms was always very clear to me, but then AP went and cast doubt in my mind. I had NO IDEA the founding fathers were into genetic engineering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now