And the madness continues

[Wonky3]

I never thought anything of the sort. And yes, you do butt in sometimes.

Its a public forum. Wonky, butt in whenever you want, you have my permission.  See how easy it is, I just did it.

Yep, that's true. However, Wonky's all growed up and doesn't need anyones permission.

Funny how that works...I AM all growed up, but the learning process never seems to end. Why, just the other day when Mrs. Wonky ask if her butt looked big in "these" jeans, I say yes. See what I mean? 

I've often been critical of foks posting so that it makes The Topic "jump the tracks" and I don't want to be guilty of that too often. So, it was good to be reminded. 

Whatever: I think we are learning that in our now intimate little group there are the ranters who all too often jump on Topics and steer them to thieir own agenda. I guess we can deal with it, learn to steer it back, or just go with the flow. 

At the very least, good to have direct but pilot exchanges of stuff going on here that need attention. 

Done and done! 

[tvguy]

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting or even protecting your home.  It never was.  It was all about protecting citizens from a tyrannical government such a Britian.  We had just fought a Revoluntary War.  Tyranny was on their minds and the top of their list, hence the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  And you can't say the Founding Fathers couldn't envision weapons evolving and being more deadly.  They were evolving even back then.  Stop trying to re-write history.

This isn't directly related to your ongoing discussion but I'd like to ask....

Is hunting and protecting your home with a gun not protected by the Constitution? Or just not by the 2nd Amendment?

Don't know Cuzz. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I'd bet we are protected in securing our homes from intrusion and hostilities. 
And it cracks me up to read all the comments here about the 2nd amendment. Scholars have been debating the language for over a hundred years and can only agree that is was hastily and poorly written. So, the Supreme Court had no choice but to except it "as is" and rule as such. 
And there is not a chance in hell that it will ever be rewritten or amended in any way as long as the NRA is alive and well.

GOOD, because NOTHING is wrong with with the way it's written right now.

[Wonky3]

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting or even protecting your home.  It never was.  It was all about protecting citizens from a tyrannical government such a Britian.  We had just fought a Revoluntary War.  Tyranny was on their minds and the top of their list, hence the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  And you can't say the Founding Fathers couldn't envision weapons evolving and being more deadly.  They were evolving even back then.  Stop trying to re-write history.

This isn't directly related to your ongoing discussion but I'd like to ask....

Is hunting and protecting your home with a gun not protected by the Constitution? Or just not by the 2nd Amendment?

Don't know Cuzz. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I'd bet we are protected in securing our homes from intrusion and hostilities. 
And it cracks me up to read all the comments here about the 2nd amendment. Scholars have been debating the language for over a hundred years and can only agree that is was hastily and poorly written. So, the Supreme Court had no choice but to except it "as is" and rule as such. 
And there is not a chance in hell that it will ever be rewritten or amended in any way as long as the NRA is alive and well.

GOOD, because NOTHING is wrong with with the way it's written right now.

You might be the last to know. And no need to shout.

[tvguy]

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting or even protecting your home.  It never was.  It was all about protecting citizens from a tyrannical government such a Britian.  We had just fought a Revoluntary War.  Tyranny was on their minds and the top of their list, hence the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  And you can't say the Founding Fathers couldn't envision weapons evolving and being more deadly.  They were evolving even back then.  Stop trying to re-write history.

This isn't directly related to your ongoing discussion but I'd like to ask....

Is hunting and protecting your home with a gun not protected by the Constitution? Or just not by the 2nd Amendment?

Don't know Cuzz. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I'd bet we are protected in securing our homes from intrusion and hostilities. 
And it cracks me up to read all the comments here about the 2nd amendment. Scholars have been debating the language for over a hundred years and can only agree that is was hastily and poorly written. So, the Supreme Court had no choice but to except it "as is" and rule as such. 
And there is not a chance in hell that it will ever be rewritten or amended in any way as long as the NRA is alive and well.

GOOD, because NOTHING is wrong with with the way it's written right now.

You might be the last to know. And no need to shout.

I don't agree with everything that comes from the NRA.
But if they are what's stopping anyone from re writing the constitution then I need to join up and start sending them money.

[Cuzz]

This isn't directly related to your ongoing discussion but I'd like to ask....

Is hunting and protecting your home with a gun not protected by the Constitution? Or just not by the 2nd Amendment?

Don't know Cuzz. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I'd bet we are protected in securing our homes from intrusion and hostilities. 
And it cracks me up to read all the comments here about the 2nd amendment. Scholars have been debating the language for over a hundred years and can only agree that is was hastily and poorly written. So, the Supreme Court had no choice but to except it "as is" and rule as such. 
And there is not a chance in hell that it will ever be rewritten or amended in any way as long as the NRA is alive and well.

GOOD, because NOTHING is wrong with with the way it's written right now.

You might be the last to know. And no need to shout.

I don't agree with everything that comes from the NRA.
But if they are what's stopping anyone from re writing the constitution then I need to join up and start sending them money.

Jeez, the current Congress couldn't agree on what's for lunch let alone rewriting the Constitution. I think we're pretty safe on that score.

[Wonky3]

Don't know Cuzz. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I'd bet we are protected in securing our homes from intrusion and hostilities. 
And it cracks me up to read all the comments here about the 2nd amendment. Scholars have been debating the language for over a hundred years and can only agree that is was hastily and poorly written. So, the Supreme Court had no choice but to except it "as is" and rule as such. 
And there is not a chance in hell that it will ever be rewritten or amended in any way as long as the NRA is alive and well.

GOOD, because NOTHING is wrong with with the way it's written right now.

You might be the last to know. And no need to shout.

I don't agree with everything that comes from the NRA.
But if they are what's stopping anyone from re writing the constitution then I need to join up and start sending them money.

Jeez, the current Congress couldn't agree on what's for lunch let alone rewriting the Constitution. I think we're pretty safe on that score.

We have changed our constitution often. When written, black people were not considered citizens, if human. Only whilte men "with property" could vote. Women could not vote. Senators were not elected by popular vote but by the state legislatures. So, we amended the document, and in other cases our Supreme Court ruled to interpret what amounted to changes. (Roe vs. Wade was decided on a privacy issue) 

But the second amendent is a safe as a virgin in the tower. 

And still, most constitutional scholars report it as written in haste, not only poorly worded, but even the punctuation is bad. 

Joined the militia recently?   

Not to worry. Our right to own guns, lots of 'em, and many differnt types, is sacred and safe. I wonder in the Founders thought for a moment there would be so many nut jobs running amok with guns, shooting into crowds of innocent children and other defensless people? 

Still...the Supreme Court has spoken...it's clear an posted on the walls. 

I hope "they" never take away our guns. I hope some original thinker will someday devise a plan that will alllow us to keep our guns, but also find ways to make sure guns can't be used as they now are in sensless acts of violence.

[Hugo]

Wonky. It is a good thing that you have let us know the great wisdom that comes from your voracious reading regimen. Please use that unique skill that only you possess, and read this.

https://www.agirlandagun.org/discoveries...ther-side/

[Wonky3]

Wonky.  It is a good thing that you have let us know the great wisdom that comes from your voracious reading regimen.  Please use that unique skill that only you possess, and read this.

https://www.agirlandagun.org/discoveries...ther-side/

 "The "great wisdom" that comes from your voracious reading rgimen" 

Hey Hugo, it's not nice to make fun of old guys. 

It's true I read a lot. It's also true I read too much "mind candy" and if you look back on my many posts here over the years you can see a clear lack of wisdom. Wise folks don't lash out and then have to beg forgiveness for insulting others. I've done that. More than once. 

But, I did read the posted link you provided. First things first: When we offer up this kind of stuff, it's always the source that is important. "Girl With A Gun" is one young woman's list of opinions and whlle I respect her right to voice her views, they are in the end only her agruments. She may, in fact, have good and important things to say. But, she is "preaching to the choir" and fails to break any new ground in this long ongoing argument.

For instance, she starts by saying:" In 1651, Thomas Hobbes wrote that free people consent to give up their individual rights in order to establish a political community, i.e., civil society, which establishes laws so that everyone can enjoy security. Although simplistic, this theory supports the following arguments for gun control:"

Now, I'm no scholar, and while I've read Hobbes I have not studied his writting and don't claim to be a student of his (or any) philosophy. I only know he was a very important voice in "The Enlightenment". 


Gun girl suggests "this theory supports the follwing arugments for gun control". Well...I doubt gun control in the mid 1600's in rural England was a big concern of Hobbes. Still, Gun Girl could, I guess, use his thougts about the need for a political community and extrapolate the need for saftey and therefore "gun control"...but it's a stretch and the rest of her thesis are 2nd hand arguments that have been offered up time and again. 

My own view: I think you (everyone) have the right to own and keep guns. I don't understand the need for guns like the AR-15, but the courts are clear that you have the right to own them. So, it's not imporant that I don't "understand the need", the law is clear and IS the law. 

I'm also aware of all the pain, suffering, and death that are the result of stupid, irresponsible, and often mentally ill people killing not only other individuals but large groups of people. And all too often the instrument is a gun of some kind. 

So, I think I'm in favor of "some kind" of "gun control". I have no idea just what that would look like. But, I think if we had a resonalbe national debate we might come up with somthing that would prevent at least some of the needless killing of innocents, including small children in class rooms. Hobbes did, after all, suggest that while we should be relucant to give up individual freedoms that a "political society" would require the need to provide safety for citizens of a civil society. 

But I think you knew what my response would be, and baited me. Fair enough: This is a forum, and a perfect place for these kind of debates. At some point, however, we should be discussing ways we can reach consensus and not just proving, over and over, our own beliefs. 

...And round and round we go.