Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Horoscope Fish" data-source="post: 183880" data-attributes="member: 13090">While I think they would marvel at the technology I think they were smart enough to know that just as cap and ball rifles were a huge technological leap over bows and arrows and just as bows and arrows were a huge technological leap over wooden clubs; that one day, something would be a huge technological leap over cap and ball rifles. Were colonial civilians limited to wooden clubs or bows and arrows? No, they were allowed to own the technology relevant at the time. If you look at the Constitution as written by the founders it's about two things: reiterating the rights of the people (not granting rights, mind you; the Constitution does not GIVE anyone their rights, it affirms what some rights are) while defining/limiting the power of the government. As an example, the Second Amendment doesn't say, &quot;All men shall have the right to bear arms&quot;; it says &quot;the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.&quot; One sentence implies a specific right is being bestowed - like a pat on the head - the other affirms an existential right the government has no power to take away because rights are inherent by virtue of our humanity; they are not doled out to us at the whim of a benevolent government. And lastly, you're right... This is probably best discussed in another forum.......</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Horoscope Fish, post: 183880, member: 13090"] While I think they would marvel at the technology I think they were smart enough to know that just as cap and ball rifles were a huge technological leap over bows and arrows and just as bows and arrows were a huge technological leap over wooden clubs; that one day, something would be a huge technological leap over cap and ball rifles. Were colonial civilians limited to wooden clubs or bows and arrows? No, they were allowed to own the technology relevant at the time. If you look at the Constitution as written by the founders it's about two things: [I]reiterating[/I] the rights of the people (not granting rights, mind you; the Constitution does not GIVE anyone their rights, it affirms what some rights are) while [I]defining/limiting[/I] the power of the government. As an example, the Second Amendment doesn't say, "All men shall have the right to bear arms"; it says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." One sentence implies a specific right is being bestowed - like a pat on the head - the other affirms an existential right the government has no power to take away because rights are inherent by virtue of our humanity; they are not doled out to us at the whim of a benevolent government. And lastly, you're right... This is probably best discussed in another forum. [COLOR="#FFFFFF"]......[/COLOR] [/QUOTE]

Verification