Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Joeh" data-source="post: 2134757" data-attributes="member: 18680">I can get on board with this.  I know that many people, at least my age, tend to think that because of the legal jargon thrown around by the politico's that their basic understanding/reading of the constitution isn't how it is supposed to be, when in fact it is just the opposite.  Agree here as well.  Everything I've read and found has pointed this direction, despite what the SCOTUS or any other political prowess has forced on us.  It appears to me, after my short research on the subject, that those in favor of gun control appear to be addressing the second amendment in such a fashion that being part of 'a well regulated milita' is the only thing that grants the immunity to infringement.  This, in my reading, isn't how it should be.  The subject of 'shall not be infringed' is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the necessity of a well regulated milita.  The well regulated militia that protects the state is predicated on the notion that the citizens right to bear arms cannot be infringed upon by the federal government.  At least that's how I read it. This is the only thing I can't get on board with, and it's merely based on the example presented.  Despite my disgust with the TSA and congress' general attitude towards the people of the country, flying, particularly by privatized corporations, is not a right but rather a privilege.  You know what you're getting when you buy that plane ticket, it's all there in the fine print.  No one forces you to travel that way.  Does it suck that the most convenient way of traveling long distances is to accept violation of civil liberties?  Sure.  But, you don't have to do it.  Just as I would never put my name to a legal document I hadn't completely read over, as to know the terms I'm accepting, I don't buy plane tickets thinking that I won't be violated on the way to the gate.  Should that be how it is?  In my opinion, no, but I don't get to make the rules.  Also of note on this point is whether or not the federal government should have any business interfering with privatized business in this manner.  Since this isn't a government matter, the choice of traveling by flight, why is the safety and security of the passengers not the responsibility of said private organization?  Interesting point.  It appears to me that somewhere along the way, we the people have lost control of what is ours.  We've resigned to the notion that we are 'too busy'  chasing the 'American dream' to worry about whether or not the national debt is growing, or whether or not we should deploy military powers policing the planet.  Most people give these ideas a small thought, if any thought at all, because they don't see the direct impact it has on them.  It only ever matters to people now, when it directly affects their daily lives.  They also don't care for your opinion on their political choices or their lives, unless they need your vote to help them succeed in their mission.  We've become a consumerist society, and we consume only that which we think 'betters our lives', whether that's through media propagation or other medium.I read an interesting blog post from an individual a few weeks ago, <a href="http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/the-post-in-which-i-piss-off-everybody" target="_blank">here</a>, that is fairly relevant to this discussion.On a different track, it has always amused me that the notion of 2nd amendment rights is split, politically, the way that it is.  It appears to me that liberals should be the ones fighting for LESS gun control, and more individual gun rights.  Yet, here we are. Strange how things have come to be isn't it?  Unfortunately, the world has run out of places to develop new countries and governments.  There isn't anywhere else left to go if you decide you don't like the way any of the world governments operate.</blockquote>

Verification