[Sonart]

.

Quote by: brien I merely quote TJ. "Unalienable rights... endowed by our creator" was a phrase coined by TJ. Try keeping up Sonart.

Yeah, so??? You still brought up God, not me. That's all I was telling Osborn. How does that call for the snarky response?

Quote by: brien These aren't rights which are specifically indicated as such in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment specifically says: "the right to keep and bear arms." I am not familiar with the amendment that spells out a right to travel, the right to health care, etc. Straw dogs here, Sonart.

The right to feed your family isn't an inalienable right endowed by our creator??? The right to shelter for your family? To medical care for your family? To travel where and when you see fit?

The point you're obviously missing is that there's a certain arbitrariness to what's a God given unalienable right. Who determines what's an inalienable right? And how did owning a firearm become more important than any of the above?

And since your answer is "rights which are specifically indicated as such in the Constitution", then why are all of you whining when the rules indicated in the Constitution determine that the 2nd Amendment means something totally different than what you think it means.

Quote by: Osborn My replies were as ridiculous as your questions.

What, that being among the most violent societies on earth is just fine, because the Darwinian nature of unrestricted freedom drives people to it???

Sure, Osborn, that sounds like a lovely society... whatever you say.

Quote by: Osborn And then, you may want to explain why none could succeed, demonstrate how you arrive there, and put forth some reasonable evidence and explanation for arriving at that point.

Sorry, I miswrote... no armed insurrection can ever be ALLOWED to succeed. But to that point, I'm still waiting for an example of an armed insurrection against and within the United States - from its founding to the present - that has been allowed to succeed.

Quote by: Milton Ah, but the deaths you have alluded to thinking are the most egregious, the accidental deaths of children, are a primary focus of the anti-gun establishment. Face it, automobiles produce more accidental deaths than even people misusing guns.

Face it yourself... as a percentage of the amount of time they're in use, automobiles are vastly safer than guns. It's like saying domestic dog bites are more numerous than mountain lion bites, therefore, taken individually, dogs are more dangerous than mountain lions. It's a false comparison....

...and you know it.

Quote by: Milton Yep, and hammers hammer nails, and staplers staple staples.

Yes, they do. And neither are designed to kill people.

Quote by: Milton An "interpretation" well after the SCOTUS had been stacked with ideologs who passed the litmus tests of their Liberal appointees.

Doesn't matter, Milton... that's your gripe to live with. The Constitution made perfectly clear how Presidents are to be elected, how the Supreme Court is appointed and what the function of the Supreme Court is. Tough beans if 200 years later the result doesn't happen to conform to your 18th century view of how the world should be.

Quote by: Milton Many of us would argue that it's the Liberal teaching institutions that produced the real harm.

Yes, I'm sure you would. Take that and a buck fifty and you can get a cup of coffee.

Quote by: Milton Perhaps then, you would care to explain the language where they allude to the citizens having the right to remove, or throw off tyrants in their own government?

And perhaps you can show where the Constitution gives you that right. The 2nd Amendment says, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep...", not "It being necessary to throw off tyrants in their own government, the right to keep... etc.".

The Declaration of Independence, as I keep saying, was not a legal document. It was a list of grievances and a declaration of intent... an international press release declaring the colonies intent to leave the British Commonwealth. Of COURSE it alluded to a right to throw off tyranny. But once again, the Constitution makes no allusion whatsoever to that "Right", because no legitimate government can allow an armed insurrection against them to succeed, and that included the government created by the very founders who espoused rebellion when it suited their purpose. Once their own government was formed, neither Washington, nor Adams, nor Jefferson, nor any of the signers of the DOI would have allowed rebellion against THEIR governments to succeed, and obviously made no provision in the Constitution to facilitate such rebellion. To the contrary, one of the enumerated duties of the "Well Regulated Militia" was specifically to "Put Down Insurrections".

.