Originally Posted by toro1
I'll start of by stating I am an independent and hold both parties in equal disdain as they both have myopic viewpoints on how things should be run.
That being said, I find the progressive approach to be much less palatable to my life. It is very perplexing to me that you (the OP) are OK with general government intrusion, but are now concerned with one aspect of that intrusion. For me, and it looks like many others, that unacceptable intrusion level started a long time ago and is accelerating in all aspects of life. Why do you feel the need to have government tell you how to live any aspect of your life? You can make the same decisions on your own without their interference, and that allows the rest of us to make the right decisions for ourselves.
From my perspective your are trying to remove a unsightly growth that bothers you, when the fundamental problem is the patient has cancer that needs to be treated. I do not disagree with your stated goal, but for most of us, the people that vote for progressive candidates have enabled the cancer and we feel the cure needs to go much deeper than just the addressing gun issue.
Relative to the 2a issues, I am all for changes that will protect the public from the loonies, but the latest crop of bills does nothing that I am aware of to stop any future violence. It is also very disturbing to me that the progressives are willing circumvent/ignore the Constitution when it fits their agenda. This should scare every American citizen as it is clear they do not think it applies to them and they will do whatever they need to do to get their way.
On a final note, I would also like to see where you draw the line on what should be allowed under the 2a. I know I am not aligned with a majority of the people on the right, but think it is a reasonable question for you to answer since you started this thread.
First off, I have not shared any of my other political beliefs, so you have no idea where I stand on any of them. As this is predominently a 2A thread, I would prefer to keep it that way. And, I have answered the "question" several times. Apparently that answer is unacceptable being as how it keeps getting asked. So, here is my understanding of 2A : I believe that it was written with the individual soldier/citizen in mind. That said, any arms that can be safely operated and/or transported by one singular individual should be allowed. I also believe that those arms must be physically operated by the individual, and not placed in some area to go off at some later time. I believe that the citizenry should be at least as well armed as a paid soldier, but do not believe that anyone should have, or need, some level of WMD's. I also believe that their are classes of weapons that should be prohibited. Such as biological or radiological weapons including inhalants like mustard and nerve gasses, and weapons that fire unconventional ammunition like glass shards. I could go on, but I hope that this answers this seemingly gnawing question. If not, God knows that I tried.