doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com An advantage to being a Democrat?

Does that mean that the quotes that are referring to Free Speech, Freedom of the Press, Religion, et al no longer are pertinant to present day situations? Does is also mean that the 10 Commandmants meant naught since times have changed since Moses carried them down from the Mount oh so many years ago? Me thinks not, in both cases.

The deprivation of various civil rights by both Republicans and Democrats in times of conflict or national emergency is usually for some identified public interest reason and usually results in some level of positive result, however meager. However, the deprivation of second amendment rights, usually by Democrats, is very seldom for a public interest reason and almost never results in any identifiable positive result. In my own paranoid mind, I concur with many other gun owners that such anti-gun efforts are for the purpose of making life miserable for the "opposition". Such selfish motives have resulted in the loss of countless elections to public office for the Democratic Party. I don't know how so many anti gun people can have such deadly accuracy in shooting themselves in the foot. If they gave up the gun ban mentality, it is obvious to me that they would never lose another election as long as we are a two party system. In today's world, their ridiculous attitude about personal accountability wouldn't be enough to cost them even the most minor of elections. In my opinion, losing the gun grabbing mentality would be a win win situation for the Dems, but they just don't get it.

Steve, the sources cited are "pertinent." of course. Each is used for many purposes. Your country fought a civil war with each side quoting biblical and legislative precepts. Ditto the civil rights struggle 50-60 years ago. Your Moses reference is considered in theological and philosophical circles under myth and metaphor, rightly or wrongly, however valuable as underpinning of Western civilization.

My activism taught me that results are always more satisfactory by speaking to our own truths, knowledge and experience on public issues than reaching into the old quote toolbox. It's better to speak of contemporary icons, to their examples of courage, intellect and leadership, to something tangible as well as an ideal, to unite people in the pursuit of worthwhile goals.

King, times may change, but freedom does not change.

King, Precedent is important in the rule of law. The meaning of the Second Amendment has been drawn into question by the anti-gun forces and a big part of proof is precedent. How did the framers of the Constitution mean for certain things to be interpreted? While in the minds of those who wrote the Bill of Rights, the meaning was clear because of their contemporary context, words are parsed over the years and bent to the meaning of those who desire to define the Second Amendment as pertaining only to the National Guard. When the other writings of the authors of the Constitution provide the context within which it must be interpreted, then those words have tremendous value, regardless of their age.

David, I agree with your view in the sense that there are few absolutes these days, and precedents are important.

JM, the general notion of freedom doesn't change but its meaning depends on what you think of your circumstances and where you live.

Freedom to the majority of Iraquis or those in poverty or on the other side of a presidential veto may consider sovereignty, independence and self-determination differently.

Democratic societies struggle continually to balance values in the name of freedom. It's no easy job i.e. gun control, same-sex marriage, religion in schools.

The Constitution means today at least what it meant when it was written. It can be and has been modified through the amendment process when it was found to be lacking. That is what the 10th Amendment is for. If you don't find it here, the question goes back to the states and the people. The authors were saying they expected the document to not satisfy every future question and when it didn't satisfy, here is the mechanism to modify the document to address the issue. Very elegant. Anything other than this is rule by whim or decree.

For all you who believe that the Constitution is a "living document" with "living rules" think about this scenario: We are in a very high stakes poker game and all the money we have in the world has been bet and we show the cards. You have three of a kind and I have a pair. However, I also have a .357 magnum Ruger loaded with Gold Dots that I have just put on the table with the hammer cocked and I state clearly to you that because we are now playing with "living rules," my pair beats your three of a kind.

Get the point? The Constitution is a document with rules that mean what they meant when it was written and a process to amend those rules should they not fit the way we now live. It is not a place for activism.

It isn't that I'm not paying attention, I am. However, doesn't it bother anyone that the gun grabbing is just an attempt to harrass and inconvenience "us" and not any legitimate attempt at improving public safety? That fact really bothers me. The same effort directed at improving public safety would probably result in some positive result. But they just want to take your guns away without any thought of improving the quality of life in this country. I can't believe they're still at it.

Michael, what do we mean by a liberal or newly conservative Supreme Court, if activism isn't part of it?

Eightbore, what we see as harassment they see as improving the quality of life. It rankles in the same way the pious claim to know what's best for me.

Canada has no Jefferson, Madison or Lincoln but Parliament is sovereign, majority rules. Power rests in the cities. Few pols stick their necks out for us.

The concern and compassion by elected officials from both parties for "Regular Joe' is sooooo overwhelming. In fact, I'm going to sob now.