I know nothing about guns other than owning several and serving in combat arms in the Army for 20 years.
Sarcasm.
Well, then you should be able to field strip and reassemble an AR-15. That's a little more than nothing. At least you know which end makes the "bang" sound, right?
Yes. That and how to qualify as expert with the M-16, M1911A1 and some others.
Drlee wrote:
The fact that is legal is even more preposterous.
Blackjack said: It's not just legal, it is a constitutional right. So you find George Washington, Samuel Adams, James Madison, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Alexander Hamilton, and Ben Franklin preposterous? Good to know... Do you still call yourself a conservative?
The answer to this could be quite long. I will go with the easier route. I disagree with them on a great many things. Slavery is the easy one. Just as gun owners in a reasonable future might bemoan the loss of their parent's right to own certain firearms, as a conservative, should I bemoan the loss of my forefathers right to own people? They most certainly did.
Drlee has some identity issues in my opinion. Basically, he claims to be a conservative and yet he disagrees with essentially all of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America.
That depends on a couple of things. For example I do not believe that they included the words "a well ordered militia" for no reason at all. I totally believe in what Jefferson wrote:
"We have always a right to correct ancient errors and to establish what is more conformable to reason and convenience." -- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1801. FE 8:82
"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:41
"[The European] monarchs instead of wisely yielding to the gradual change of circumstances, of favoring progressive accommodation to progressive improvement, have clung to old abuses, entrenched themselves behind steady habits and obliged their subjects to seek through blood and violence rash and ruinous innovations which, had they been referred to the peaceful deliberations and collected wisdom of the nation, would have been put into acceptable and salutary forms. Let us follow no such examples nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself and of ordering its own affairs. Let us... avail ourselves of our reason and experience to correct the crude essays of our first and unexperienced although wise, virtuous, and well-meaning councils." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:41
The notion that the constitution is a living document, carefully crafted to encourage its change when necessary, IS the conservative position. It is the very definition of 'original intent'.
May I remind our gentle reader that the right to bear arms was not part of the original constitution. From March of 1789 until December of 1791 there was no such right. Going back we can see what the founders thought of a "well ordered militia" as under the articles of confederation the states were not allowed a standing army but were required to "keep ready a well trained, disciplined and equipped militia".
If the age of the document is the determinant to what is "conservative" then the second amendment is just the result of some Johnny come lately howling democracy.
This is no longer regarded as 'conservatism' these days, which presents guys like DrLee with a problem - does he continue voting Republican in the age of Trump and "alternative facts", or does he acknowledge that the world has changed around him and change what he calls himself?
The world has changed but I refuse to allow these shit birds to claim the title 'conservative' and clothe themselves in what they wish to call "original intent".
Clearly they don't really believe it anyway as both parties attempt to redefine original intent through their supreme court appointments. My personal opinion is that had the founders seen our modern society, and the way that the very nature of firearms had changed that they would have no problem carefully controlling them. Proof? Ok.
After the ratification of the constitution,
free blacks in many states were prohibited from owning firearms. The founders were fine with this. So the right to keep and bear arms by citizens of the US was never universal. Further.
How about them believing in a difference between military and hunting firearms. Well they did in Virginia where they passed a law that read that free blacks were not allowed to, ""to keep or carry any firelock of any kind,
any military weapon, or any powder or lead..."
So they were not adverse to that distinction either.
It would be simply wrong to paint my opinions as contrary to original intent and therefor not conservative. Clearly, with regard to the right to own arms, my assertion that control by the states or federal government of who and what citizens might own is the original position.
Now lets talk about women voting.