Originally posted by Toad
Overall, it looks like when pressed for a real argument you can't really muster one. When the wrongness and obviousness of your attitude and claim is challenged, you're too proud to back off.
[/B]
So is this why none of the scholars in this thread attempted to answer the questions in my last post? And preferably without cutting and pasting from others biased published ideological positions.
Better yet I don't understand why the posters against the 2nd amendmant aren't willing to speak in plain language and state they don't want anyone to have guns but the government because they are afraid of the .01% chance they might or someone they know might be killed or injured over the span of their lifetime. And this concern to them out weighs any law or original human right other than their own personal safety.
The government is always interested in gaining more control of it's monitary source and their activities. Individual human beings must first filter concepts through their own feelings, fear of personal death and injury historicly being one that has caused one group to do anything necessary to control the activities of another how ever unjust the focus even in the face of the targeted activity being lawful.
Anyone willing to address this posting?