Ubiq
I think you are proving the point rather then negating it
The founding fathers created the second amendment, not for hunting, not even for personal protection but for the purpose of keeping government in check. Which is obvious, because after all, the founding fathers went to war to throw off their government. Now I happen to thinking that our founding fathers were immoral and got people killed for no reason. The British government was not as oppressive as the american history books would have us believe. (nod to NE and the British Empire which had been very good to the american colonies)
That said this dis-ingeniousness from Liberals is typical on the subject. The purpose of a mandated militia/gun ownership in the constitution is obvious. The twisting to push a narrative is also obvious. For a conversation to have a validity there needs to be an acknowledgement to both sides having a point. The liberal POV is that any republican who feels entitled to own a gun is evil. That is hardly an acknowledgement to the legitimacy of ownership. Namely the constitutional right due to governmental checks and balances (not a jewish value but a legality that would need addressing, which will only happen if people feel their POV is being heard) and the right to protection (a jewish value) and the belief of personal responsibility (guns don’t kill, people do-also a jewish value)
Menu