Speaking coherently is a natural development you are born with. I guess being a member of the press is an extension of that

Nobody is born religious... Not sure im allowed to elaborate on that

A natural development? The right to self defense is a natural development. You’re trying real hard to justify your initial claim. None of the things that I said are things you’re born with but you’re still defending it.

---

You can defend without a gun...unfortunately people holding guns regularly makes people lose the right to live. Thats why gun ownership is a silly right. However at the time it made sense but constitutions should be fluid and ever changing to reflect society.

Put it to the people at least.

---

You can defend without a gun...unfortunately people holding guns regularly makes people lose the right to live. Thats why gun ownership is a silly right. However at the time it made sense but constitutions should be fluid and ever changing to reflect society.

Put it to the people at least.

If you had Americans vote on whether to change the constitution to ban guns, it would fail miserably. Besides, how would you enforce that if it did pass? Are you gonna go door to door and round them up? That sounds like the actions of a police state. It would also be a guaranteed way to start a civil war. I know that I would refuse to give up something I purchased legally whether there was a buy back program or not. I would equate that to stealing and people should steal from me at their own risk.

---

I shouldn't need a background check to exercise my rights.

Speaking for the rest of humanity, we want you to be checked out.

I don't care.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You can defend without a gun...unfortunately people holding guns regularly makes people lose the right to live. Thats why gun ownership is a silly right. However at the time it made sense but constitutions should be fluid and ever changing to reflect society.

Put it to the people at least.

You seem to think people are different now while bemoaning that they are still the same. People are evil, always will be.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Speaking for the rest of humanity, we want you to be checked out.

I don't care.

We do and you're out-voted. That's how a democracy works.

---

I don't care.

We do and you're out-voted. That's how a democracy works.

lol

funny... that's how democracy works...

I suppose let's put it to a national vote
worked so well for the left last year lol

---

I don't care.

We do and you're out-voted. That's how a democracy works.

Well, we aren't a democracy so it doesn't matter how it works. 

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

We do and you're out-voted. That's how a democracy works.

Well, we aren't a democracy so it doesn't matter how it works. 

Explain?

---

Well, we aren't a democracy so it doesn't matter how it works. 

Explain?

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

"In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters."

What are they teaching the children in schools these days?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You can defend without a gun...unfortunately people holding guns regularly makes people lose the right to live. Thats why gun ownership is a silly right. However at the time it made sense but constitutions should be fluid and ever changing to reflect society.

Put it to the people at least.

And you can speak without doing it in public. You can also write things down without criticizing the government. You don't have to pray with other people, either.

Sure, I can defend myself without a gun, but I can't defend myself from every attack without one. In the same way that you can exercise your 1st Amendment in limited ways, I don't believe you're OK with limiting that one like you are the 2nd Amendment.

---

Well obviously because the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment is silly. Just like the amendment with prohibition was.

Ps you should probably by missile defence systems if you need protection from tyrannical government

---

You can defend without a gun...unfortunately people holding guns regularly makes people lose the right to live. Thats why gun ownership is a silly right. However at the time it made sense but constitutions should be fluid and ever changing to reflect society.

Put it to the people at least.

As someone else already said, they could put it to the people and it would fail.

And as a female who doesn't have the brute strength to defend myself against a male attacker, I much prefer a gun thankyouverymuch. I am not going to be raped or beaten to death if I can help it. My preferred method would be to beat them unconscious with a baseball bat if someone tried that, but again, lack of brute strength has me at a disadvantage. 

I primarily own a firearm for defense. Someone comes into my home they can take my stuff but I will defend myself if they come after me. I don't conceal carry but that's mostly because I haven't found a sidearm that I like and can actually conceal. I could open carry but IMO that brings unwanted attention. And again, for defense. Because of my husband's chaotic work schedule I have to do a lot of things on my own. I don't often find myself in places or situations where I feel threatened, but in this day and age you can't even go to church without getting shot/killed. So, as long as there are armed people out there with malicious intent I will own a firearm and there is nothing anyone can say that will change my mind. 

And until you have been a victim you won't understand the need for defense. Been there, done that, won't allow it again.

---

You can defend without a gun...unfortunately people holding guns regularly makes people lose the right to live. Thats why gun ownership is a silly right. However at the time it made sense but constitutions should be fluid and ever changing to reflect society.

Put it to the people at least.

As someone else already said, they could put it to the people and it would fail.

And as a female who doesn't have the brute strength to defend myself against a male attacker, I much prefer a gun thankyouverymuch. I am not going to be raped or beaten to death if I can help it. My preferred method would be to beat them unconscious with a baseball bat if someone tried that, but again, lack of brute strength has me at a disadvantage. 

I primarily own a firearm for defense. Someone comes into my home they can take my stuff but I will defend myself if they come after me. I don't conceal carry but that's mostly because I haven't found a sidearm that I like and can actually conceal. I could open carry but IMO that brings unwanted attention. And again, for defense. Because of my husband's chaotic work schedule I have to do a lot of things on my own. I don't often find myself in places or situations where I feel threatened, but in this day and age you can't even go to church without getting shot/killed. So, as long as there are armed people out there with malicious intent I will own a firearm and there is nothing anyone can say that will change my mind. 

And until you have been a victim you won't understand the need for defense. Been there, done that, won't allow it again.

I'm a male but I share your feeling about being able to defend myself.  I'm not a big guy to begin with and I've gotten "up there" in age a bit.  There is no way that I would be able to fight off a 20-something or 30-something year old attacker physically.

I am also an avid shooter and enjoy shooting the different weapons that I have acquired over the years.  When ignorant people question if I "need" a "military style" rifle my answer is no, I don't but it's something that I like, I'm comfortable with and enjoy shooting.

Does an archer "need" a certain bow or certain arrows?  I would guess not.

Does somebody "need" a collection of knives, swords, bayonets, etc.?  My guess would be no.

My point is that people have firearms for whatever reason and the freedom and choice of what type of firearm is a great thing.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Well obviously because the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment is silly. Just like the amendment with prohibition was.

Ps you should probably by missile defence systems if you need protection from tyrannical government

Do you think the initial interpretation of the 1st Amendment meant Facebook, internet, television, and others? 

Are you arguing that semiautomatic weapons weren't included? The Founding Fathers encouraged the use of cannons on private ships, knew about weapons that fired far quicker than muskets, and they didn't forbid these weapons in the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment isn't for defense against attack anyway. It's for defending yourself from a tyrannical government. The Founding Fathers wanted the people capable of destroying tyrants if necessary. The personal defense aspect is kind of like a bonus included in the amendment.

Also, if you think missiles are all they need to prevent an uprising, you're sorely mistaken. If that's all it took, then we wouldn't have spent nearly 2 decades against primitive nut jobs riding horses in the dessert.

---

Well obviously because the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment is silly. Just like the amendment with prohibition was.

Ps you should probably by missile defence systems if you need protection from tyrannical government

Do you think the initial interpretation of the 1st Amendment meant Facebook, internet, television, and others? 

Are you arguing that semiautomatic weapons weren't included? The Founding Fathers encouraged the use of cannons on private ships, knew about weapons that fired far quicker than muskets, and they didn't forbid these weapons in the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment isn't for defense against attack anyway. It's for defending yourself from a tyrannical government. The Founding Fathers wanted the people capable of destroying tyrants if necessary. The personal defense aspect is kind of like a bonus included in the amendment.

Also, if you think missiles are all they need to prevent an uprising, you're sorely mistaken. If that's all it took, then we wouldn't have spent nearly 2 decades against primitive nut jobs riding horses in the dessert.

He's another person's subject, freedom is beyond his understanding.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

So you are more free because you can carry a gun out of fear of being attacked?

Im happy as a subject then thanks!

---

So you are more free because you can carry a gun out of fear of being attacked?

Im happy as a subject then thanks!

You seem to paint those of us that carry a gun as crazy, fearful, lunatics.

I'm not scared I'm going to die every day. It doesn't effect my happiness. I'm more free because I have the option of stopping any threat should the situation arise.

---

So you are more free because you can carry a gun out of fear of being attacked?

Im happy as a subject then thanks!

Good for you.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Maybe the answer is corporations sacking employees who carry own guns. That would be alright by you as companies are allowed to behave as they wish with employment contracts.

---