Are stricter gun laws, BANS coming to the land of the free?

[wango]

Is the point of your statement that when you push something too far, too hard and for too long, drastic responses are possible?

That maybe, just maybe, the government of wokeness backing the fuck off and letting people live thier lives the way they want might be a good idea?

That maybe respecting people individual liberties and beliefs might be better than ramming it down thier throats?

Imagine that.

There was no point other than bringing up another member’s post regarding the ownership of nuclear weapons. And per a book that is in fact a book (we don’t like the idea of banning books do we), nuclear weapons were used as a threat and as a weapon. So maybe that “seed of an idea” has already been planted and can be grown into reality. A frightening idea.

[Hughinn]

There was no point other than bringing up another member’s post regarding the ownership of nuclear weapons. And per a book that is in fact a book (we don’t like the idea of banning books do we), nuclear weapons were used as a threat and as a weapon. So maybe that “seed of an idea” has already been planted and can be grown into reality. A frightening idea.

More frightening, is why anyone would want to do that?

What could push it that far?

[wango]

More frightening, is why anyone would want to do that?

What could push it that far?

You can’t be sure of an individual (s) reasons, can you? I mean seriously, how could I say exactly why or why not someone did or will do something? I can’t profess that. But, present them with ideas as to how to possibly react to a given set of circumstances with a possible outcome? Literature and now the “media” can be very powerful in its potential influence. That’s my intent of the word “frightening “. Is your interpretation the same as someone else’s? Is your response going to differ?

So many variables to consider. Freedom of thought and speech is a beautiful yet difficult ideal to “manage”, particularly as the population of different ideologies continues to expand.

Not to diss the founding fathers, but could they really have imagined applying their ideals to this current situation?

[Hughinn]

You can’t be sure of an individual (s) reasons, can you? I mean seriously, how could I say exactly why or why not someone did or will do something? I can’t profess that. But, present them with ideas as to how to possibly react to a given set of circumstances with a possible outcome? Literature and now the “media” can be very powerful in its potential influence. That’s my intent of the word “frightening “. Is your interpretation the same as someone else’s? Is your response going to differ?

So many variables to consider. Freedom of thought and speech is a beautiful yet difficult ideal to “manage”, particularly as the population of different ideologies continues to expand.

Not to diss the founding fathers, but could they really have imagined applying their ideals to this current situation?

Even the idea of"managing" freedom of thought and speech is a contradiction of those ideas themselves

And yes. They did imagine it. Otherwise they wouldn't specifically have called for an armed population. They wanted specially for the people to be able to protect thier freedom of speech and thought against being "managed" by despotic authoritarian regime's, like the democrat party today

That was thier specific intentions when they wrote "shall not be infringed". It couldn't be clearer. The second amendment was made to protect the first. Because the push to irradicate the second amendment is all to make it possible to "manage" the first. Thereby squelching the possibility of mobilized and organized dissent. And eliminating a government of the people. Because mobilized and organized dissent eventually becomes : a rival to power.

Democrat leadership does not want any rival. Hence the coordinated attack on the first two amendments. While simultaneously convoluting election processes to the point of ridiculousness.

[wango]

Even the idea of"managing" freedom of thought and speech is a contradiction of those ideas themselves

Totally agree and that is perfectly stated. However, I just was familiarized with something called 8chan, where almost everything is allowed. But even there I was given the impression that content was still “managed”

And yes. They did imagine it. Otherwise they wouldn't specifically have called for an armed population. They wanted specially for the people to be able to protect thier freedom of speech and thought against being "managed" by despotic authoritarian regime's, like the democrat party today

That was thier specific intentions when they wrote "shall not be infringed". It couldn't be clearer. The second amendment was made to protect the first. Because the push to irradicate the second amendment is all to make it possible to "manage" the first. Thereby squelching the possibility of mobilized and organized dissent. And eliminating a government of the people. Because mobilized and organized dissent eventually becomes : a rival to power.

Democrat leadership does not want any rival. Hence the coordinated attack on the first two amendments. While simultaneously convoluting election processes to the point of ridiculousness.

I think that you are robbing the founding fathers of the ability to evolve their beliefs over time and to be able to modify their statements in response to progress. I’m guessing that there was a great amount of compromise in the making of those documents and some regrets of many of the individuals in having made those compromises. These were imperfect men, capable of errors, not Gods. To say definitively that they could foresee all future changes and create a perfect document? That would be improbable to me.

[Hughinn]

I think that you are robbing the founding fathers of the ability to evolve their beliefs over time and to be able to modify their statements in response to progress. I’m guessing that there was a great amount of compromise in the making of those documents and some regrets of many of the individuals in having made those compromises. These were imperfect men, capable of errors, not Gods. To say definitively that they could foresee all future changes and create a perfect document? That would be improbable to me.

While I see where your coming from Wango. I have to totally disagree with you in this matter. And I must, in principle respectfully reject your notions on the matter entirely.

While technology and circumstances can change, basic human interactions between individuals and groups does not. And is not so much different now, than from the days of the cro magnon and neanderthal. Political theories and interactions haven't changed much since the days of egypt and Rome. Philosophy, government and humanity is not much different today than in days of aristotle and Socrates. And while the forefathers may not have forseen certain technology, they did certainly see the prospects and different possible paths of humanity.

In regard to your assertions of "regret" "compromise" and beliefs "evolving" , I must also disagree absolutely and entirely. But respectfully. Because I do see what your trying to say, but...

These are the same men that said "give me liberty, or give me death". And wrote that a government should fear it's people, not the other way around.
These men signed a declaration of independence that would have certainly been a death warrant, should thier struggle against all odds be lost. They did so with cool deliberation and forethought, placing the value of personal liberty above any notion of security, safety or compromise.

I don't think any reasonable man, could take the words of such men, either spoken or written, to mean anything other than exactly what they say.

The beliefs, values and convictions of those men, nor thier intentions cannot reasonably be doubted or questioned by any sensible person. They're amazingly clear and concise. One could disagree with what they believed based on ones own opinions. But they left no doubt as to what they thought. These men did what they said, and said what they meant. And they did not speak or write in parables or riddles, but in plain English.

Our own convictions however is another story.

If our forefathers didn't forsee one thing, it was the total emasculate nature of what we'd become. I imagine could they see today the things we've allowed our government to do, they'd roll over in shame. If they could look upon our delusional concepts of "equality" and "democracy", they would certainly look away with disgust. The ability of our society to make our young american men capons is truly something I'm certain in my heart the forefathers would utterly detest.

But, that's just the opinion of what many would call an uneducated (by default that also means un-indoctrinated) man, with callused hands and grease under his fingernails. But I'm an American. And there really is no question as to what our forefathers meant in thier intentions. The only question is whether or not we posses the fortitude to honor those intentions in our own modern times. And that's it.