General Discussion

letemrot

(184 posts)

23. I don't trust them..

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:48 PM

Dec 2012

But those are direct quotes from the founding fathers;supporting that they believed Citizens should be able to defend themselves from the tyranny of government. Why is using their words to address a 'question' that you raised, 'a talking point.' There are a great number more quotes... would you like some?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

52 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Gun Control Now - Fact Driven Rant [View all] yellerpup Dec 2012 OP

Where are the facts? ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #1

I have a hard time wrapping my head around yellerpup Dec 2012 #3

I'd actually EXPECT tham to do precisely that. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #8

Why sure, after losing so many lives in the Revolution yellerpup Dec 2012 #31

The idea, I believe, was to have a well armed and responsive populace letemrot Dec 2012 #34

You seriously thing they wouldn't have protected the very method they'd just used? Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #40

Here you go.. letemrot Dec 2012 #17

Everyone have the same talking points to share? yellerpup Dec 2012 #20

I don't trust them.. letemrot Dec 2012 #23

I called it a talking point because yellerpup Dec 2012 #25

Oh you have.. letemrot Dec 2012 #26

Are there any regulations you feel would be acceptable yellerpup Dec 2012 #29

I am sorry.. Your post wasn't about the founding fathers? letemrot Dec 2012 #32

Then alert on me if you feel I done you wrong. yellerpup Dec 2012 #35

and I didn't respond to the op. letemrot Dec 2012 #39

I didn't ask a question in that post either. yellerpup Dec 2012 #42

Oh ok..,. letemrot Dec 2012 #43

The founders had just finished sarisataka Dec 2012 #24

Background to the "well regulated militia" .... Toronto Dec 2012 #5

FP 29 was a treatise on how best to maintain the militia.. so? X_Digger Dec 2012 #6

I believe you have to take it within the context of the language of the amendment Toronto Dec 2012 #7

I can't see 'ensures' as a valid substitution.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #9

You ignore the fact that the right to bear arms Toronto Dec 2012 #10

Commas and semi-colons when there *were* no rules of grammar at the time? X_Digger Dec 2012 #11

The first English grammar, Pamphlet for Grammar by William Bullokar, Toronto Dec 2012 #13

Not a fan of 17th and 18th century literature, I take it? X_Digger Dec 2012 #15

In defense of himself (self, family, home) and the State. yellerpup Dec 2012 #18

All are valid exercises of the right, yes. (protection of self, family, home, state) X_Digger Dec 2012 #19

Nope. n/t yellerpup Dec 2012 #21

Sigh.... Toronto Dec 2012 #28

Thanks for your contributions to this thread. yellerpup Dec 2012 #30

My pleasure - I also appreciate sanity... Toronto Dec 2012 #33

Yes, I think the time is now. yellerpup Dec 2012 #37

I am not afraid to go to the mall, or send my kids to school letemrot Dec 2012 #44

I salute your bravery. yellerpup Dec 2012 #45

Well then just live.. letemrot Dec 2012 #46

The kids at Sandy Hook went to school on December 14th yellerpup Dec 2012 #47

I am glad you are not afraid... letemrot Dec 2012 #49

Then you missed my point yellerpup Dec 2012 #50

Yes BobbyBoring Dec 2012 #51

Time for change. yellerpup Dec 2012 #52

Ignoring of course that the Congress had NO power to re-create a new militia. jmg257 Dec 2012 #22

Doesn't the existence of the National Guard Toronto Dec 2012 #2

I believe we are covered yellerpup Dec 2012 #4

No. letemrot Dec 2012 #27

Yes. Zoeisright Dec 2012 #38

Actually it does not.. letemrot Dec 2012 #41

The State Military Reserves have developed Toronto Dec 2012 #48

You forgot the FACT that the Militia Laws passed by Congress in support jmg257 Dec 2012 #12

Yes, and the State Militias eventually evolved into the National Guard Toronto Dec 2012 #14

Luckily - otherwise the Militia declaration would have more merrit, and jmg257 Dec 2012 #16

K&R smirkymonkey Dec 2012 #36