If this was your thesis you didn't defend it well. When the founders wrote the second amendment it was to provide a defense for our country and to counter the threat a despot would have by using a freestanding to suppress his citizens--such as King George had done with the colonists. The original intent was to have as small a free standing army as possible and use a well trained citizen's militia to defend the country. That's the whole purpose behind the second amendment--provide defense for our country and by it's presence, to prevent government from overstepping it's boundaries. We, however, have one of the largest freestanding armies in the entire world and if a despot were to turn it on the citizens, even armed, we wouldn't stand much of a chance against it. This is because our militia is comprised of a bunch of yokels, over weight ex military types and military wannabe's, who only in their dreams could their AR-15's be effective against a well trained, FIT, and armed military.

And I would agree that arms were essential for a citizen militia but we've turned to the worlds best equipped military for our defense and with today's arms a militia wouldn't stand much of a chance if that army was turned against it. If you truly believe in the second amendment then we need to scrap the bulk of our military and form a well trained militia, that drills regularly--I believe the Minute Men drilled once a week--form a chain of command that reports to local/state elected officials and be ready to act at a moments notice. That was the original intent of the second amendment, an intent we turned against centuries ago...

Oh, I would have to disagree. By your argument a redneck could refuse service to a minority or the baker could tell a homosexual to go fuk himself. If the federal government doesn't protect our rights who's going to? Are we suppose to whip out our pop guns and demand service? Government has to provide a balance between one group of citizens and the other. Loki has a right to his gun BUT we have a right not to be threatened by it. A baker has a right to his religious views but he doesn't have a right to extend them over homosexuals. This is why no one should be allowed in public with anything that threatens the general public and this is why if someone opens a business it's with the understanding that they are there to serve ALL of the general public. The problem we have is that government has been cowered by the right into NOT doing its job--and if business or even the states were allowed to do it I can't imagine the chaos...

Oh, I would have to disagree. By your argument a redneck could refuse service to a minority or the baker could tell a homosexual to go fuk himself. If the federal government doesn't protect our rights who's going to? Are we suppose to whip out our pop guns and demand service? Government has to provide a balance between one group of citizens and the other. Loki has a right to his gun BUT we have a right not to be threatened by it. A baker has a right to his religious views but he doesn't have a right to extend them over homosexuals. This is why no one should be allowed in public with anything that threatens the general public and this is why if someone opens a business it's with the understanding that they are there to serve ALL of the general public. The problem we have is that government has been cowered by the right into NOT doing its job--and if business or even the states were allowed to do it I can't imagine the chaos...

And your use of logical fallacies is endless. If that doesn't cause you to cower in shame why should a misspelling cause someone else to. In grading a paper a misspelling would get a red slash or (sp) through the word. The constant use of logical fallacies would cause a red slash through the entire paper...

Prowess in spelling is nothing compared to prowess in logic. Your use of ridicule of others spelling gives you esteem amongst your peers but your arguments are trite, ineffectual, and laughable to everyone else. And as I've said before Loki--you are the very best conservatives on this board have to offer. That's what makes all of this so very, very sad...

Your go to is an ad hominem--in fact you seldom have a conversation without the use of one. Anytime you use an argument with a number in it you tend to use statistical fallacies--that is your numbers might be correct but don't necessarily apply to the debate--an example would be the debate of mass murders by semi auto weapons and you throw in the number of murder committed with a knife; interesting but how does it apply? When discussing minorities you tend to use hasty generalizations and I'm sure the list goes on but since it's been so long since you've made the slightest attempt at a debate I don't remember them all...

If this was your thesis you didn't defend it well. When the founders wrote the second amendment it was to provide a defense for our country and to counter the threat a despot would have by using a freestanding to suppress his citizens--such as King George had done with the colonists. The original intent was to have as small a free standing army as possible and use a well trained citizen's militia to defend the country. That's the whole purpose behind the second amendment--provide defense for our country and by it's presence, to prevent government from overstepping it's boundaries. We, however, have one of the largest freestanding armies in the entire world and if a despot were to turn it on the citizens, even armed, we wouldn't stand much of a chance against it. This is because our militia is comprised of a bunch of yokels, over weight ex military types and military wannabe's, who only in their dreams could their AR-15's be effective against a well trained, FIT, and armed military.

And I would agree that arms were essential for a citizen militia but we've turned to the worlds best equipped military for our defense and with today's arms a militia wouldn't stand much of a chance if that army was turned against it. If you truly believe in the second amendment then we need to scrap the bulk of our military and form a well trained militia, that drills regularly--I believe the Minute Men drilled once a week--form a chain of command that reports to local/state elected officials and be ready to act at a moments notice. That was the original intent of the second amendment, an intent we turned against centuries ago...