General Discussion

TPaine7

(4,286 posts)

73. What in the world are you talking about?

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:45 PM

Dec 2012

We were talking about the laws of the founding era. I did not pledge allegiance to the laws of the founding era, in fact I said some of them were unconstitutional. But we were talking about the laws of the founding era.

My noting that you are trying to change the subject to laws passed well after the founding era is not the same as my necessarily approving of all founding era laws, constitutional or not at the time.

As far as my being 3/5 of a person, Thomas Paine defintely opposed that along with slavery. He didn't, however, oppose self-defense or the personal right to keep and bear arms. In other words, he agreed with me on slavery no less than he agreed with me on bearing arms.

No one is trying to have anything both ways; that is a figment of your imagination.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

97 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What I Fear, What Made Me Drag my Feet on Gun Control: Brady-Style Gun Control [View all] TPaine7 Dec 2012 OP

Thank you for your thoughtful post.nt kelly1mm Dec 2012 #1

Alas, when I hear terms like “reasonable” “common sense” and “sensible” coming out of the mouths of villager Dec 2012 #2

Too bad so many dragged their feet while continuing to promote more guns. Hoyt Dec 2012 #3

I promote rights, not guns. TPaine7 Dec 2012 #5

George Wallace and Strom Thurmond used to say crud like that. Hoyt Dec 2012 #8

And a defense of unchecked gun proliferation, at this point, is about as historically astute villager Dec 2012 #26

I agree with you. nt Mojorabbit Dec 2012 #18

By your own admission, those "rights" were never intended to apply to self defense Major Nikon Dec 2012 #25

Pls check out post 38 nt TPaine7 Dec 2012 #43

I'll go with justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer Major Nikon Dec 2012 #45

The guys I cited WROTE the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment is constitutionally correct TPaine7 Dec 2012 #46

And the people I cited were the most liberal justices at the time Major Nikon Dec 2012 #47

There is no need to ignore anything, and Scalia wasn't born when the Framer's wrote the 14th TPaine7 Dec 2012 #50

It all boils down to your opinion Major Nikon Dec 2012 #53

I thought the Republicans had all of the climate change deniers... TPaine7 Dec 2012 #57

So anyone who disagrees with Scalia is equivelant to a climate change denier? Major Nikon Dec 2012 #66

LOL! TPaine7 Dec 2012 #70

Why would you support a Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #80

"or modification." I haven't really thought the details through, but modification of the Second TPaine7 Dec 2012 #81

Do you have any idea Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #82

I'm confused. You spoke in your last post about "sport shooting enthusiasts." TPaine7 Dec 2012 #84

Assault weapon competitions Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #87

"Weapons of war do not belong in the hands of private citizens, period." TPaine7 Dec 2012 #88

Okay. Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #89

No, solutions must be rooted in reality. Amending the Constitiution would actually achieve your TPaine7 Dec 2012 #90

Have you had a discussion yet Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #91

You can license the person instead of the weapon, and require record keeping. TPaine7 Dec 2012 #92

I think that most people have said that... Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #93

I think you mischaracterize the debate... TPaine7 Dec 2012 #94

No, I don't think I mischaracterize anything. Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #95

Of course... TPaine7 Dec 2012 #96

See how easy that was? Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #97

This message was self-deleted by its author bongbong Dec 2012 #4

300 million guns in the US. Are we safe yet? neverforget Dec 2012 #6

No, of course not. Lets have a few million more. baldguy Dec 2012 #12

+1 ellisonz Dec 2012 #61

They sure worked well protecting Lanza's Mother...Didn't they? world wide wally Dec 2012 #76

Hence you have the modern day NRA Glassunion Dec 2012 #7

I'll take the 1920s NRA. nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #10

They actually "supported" the Brady Bill IIRC. Glassunion Dec 2012 #22

For somebody using Thomas Paine's name as a handle nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #9

The founders meant militias, nor people. So you want original intent, that's what they meant RantinRavin Dec 2012 #13

Did you learn about dependent clauses in HS English? nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #14

Federalist 29 is not the only one RantinRavin Dec 2012 #16

Still the historic context is militias and distrust of a standing army nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #17

Please interpret another constitutional provision of the era. TPaine7 Dec 2012 #38

I hate to point this out buddy nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #54

I thought Democrats—Democrats on DU at least—were not rooted, intellectually speaking, TPaine7 Dec 2012 #55

I recommend you read the editorial nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #56

"We fought a civil war. I just hope we don't have to fight another one." TPaine7 Dec 2012 #58

Yes you are on DU nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #62

the poster hasn't 'screamed' or 'pounced' at all. he gave a well-grounded calm argument. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #69

I'm with Thomas. k2qb3 Dec 2012 #23

That's nice. But he was also aware nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #24

Gun control laws should be common. "No discharge of weapons in town" (except in legitimate defense) TPaine7 Dec 2012 #44

i am sorry you feel that nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #48

1934 laws are beside the point, the point being laws of the founding era—the era of Thomas Paine nt TPaine7 Dec 2012 #71

Ah a certain founding father nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #72

What in the world are you talking about? TPaine7 Dec 2012 #73

Thomas Jefferson nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #83

I prefer to think like a person living in this century and looking ahead to next. Hoyt Dec 2012 #34

Like DC did before Heller? TPaine7 Dec 2012 #59

I'm with JA Democracyinkind Dec 2012 #79

And I am with both... TPaine7 Dec 2012 #85

I read it that way too. Democracyinkind Dec 2012 #86

How very magnanimous of you. sadbear Dec 2012 #11

It is them who want more guns. nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #15

You have no idea how magnanimous I am. TPaine7 Dec 2012 #37

So when Occupy decides to carry openly their weapons, you will finally take them seriously. madinmaryland Dec 2012 #19

It seems to me that the strongest gun rights supporters were most eager to give up other rights Fumesucker Dec 2012 #20

You are lumping everyone in with NRA supporters. Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #28

Gun owners allowed the NRA to become their public face, so be it Fumesucker Dec 2012 #33

Do you accept the Brady Campaign as your public face? nt TPaine7 Dec 2012 #60

I don't have a problem with it Fumesucker Dec 2012 #67

Ok then, you are properly grouped with those who think the pre-Heller DC legal regime TPaine7 Dec 2012 #74

So, do you or do you not agree with the old DC legal regime? nt TPaine7 Dec 2012 #36

Do you have any idea why Brady gave DC a B- , GeorgeGist Dec 2012 #21

They were not strict enough, I guess. nt TPaine7 Dec 2012 #39

Excellent post to point out this aspect of guns. I'm a woman living alone. I know. nt Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #27

Why is it nearly always the barely literate that invariably insist that their interpretation of Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #29

Is your question rhetorical, or are you going to explain the thinking of the barely literate to TPaine7 Dec 2012 #35

My apologies. n/t Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #63

Accepted. nt TPaine7 Dec 2012 #65

All I ask TPaine is that you take "attack by SOA" out of the equation. Loudly Dec 2012 #30

I don't think so. Machine guns can be heavily regulated and even banned per Heller. TPaine7 Dec 2012 #42

So, you are one of those that thinks that by carrying NashvilleLefty Dec 2012 #31

Yes, I believe in magic. And shooting guns out of someone's hand was the subject of the OP. nt TPaine7 Dec 2012 #40

So in summary you are an RKBA absolutist. Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #32

Are you a Brady absolutist? Do you believe that DC's gun laws were too permissive for an "A"? nt TPaine7 Dec 2012 #41

You want know what I fear? Tommy_Carcetti Dec 2012 #49

I also fear that, though obviously not as much as you do. TPaine7 Dec 2012 #51

What some people want is for mass shootings or home invasions to never happen. Jennicut Dec 2012 #52

Thanks for a thoughtful, rational post. nt TPaine7 Dec 2012 #64

yes, the devil's always in the details. one reason i'm leary of new regulations is because so HiPointDem Dec 2012 #68

I thought DC's strict GC laws predated Brady? hootinholler Dec 2012 #75

What "made" you drag your feetl? Did you mean what "makes" you drag your feet? merrily Dec 2012 #77

I support, and have supported, several ways to prevent crimes like the recent shooting. TPaine7 Dec 2012 #78