The Grand Narrative of the past few centuries goes something like this: from religious authority to secular authority, from agriculture to industrial, from rural to urban, from local to global, from periphery to center, from decentralized to centralized, from low-density energy to high-density energy (from wood to coal to oil/natural gas), from industrial to communication technology, from gold to fiat currencies, from linear to non-linear (complex/fractal), from local scarcity and high cost to global
Thinking aloud, so to speak...
There is a mindset prevalent among the politically interested that seem to segregate 'theory' from 'reality', as if to suggest these things are mutually exclusive, and that a focus on the former produces, or otherwise indicates, an aversion to the latter. Thus, this mindset tends to celebrate a regard for the latter while rejecting the significance of the former. I submit that this is an erroneous, and perhaps even a destructive mindset.
Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom
Originally Posted by Vanguard101
Lol at all the options Gunny listed. I'm interested in weapons primarily in case of a foreign invasion, defending property (home/land/etc), marksmanship, and maybe for a collector's item as well.
Well, there are some cross-purposes here where different weapons are better suited to different ends. One of the reasons the AR-15 is so popular is that it does everything well, but nothing spectacular. If you are looking for one weapon to do ALL of that, you are probably looking at an
Originally Posted by donnay
Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34
This^^ Knowing the Constitution makes for interesting trivia, but that's about it. In the real world, it's all irrelevant fluff. (I'm still waiting for someone to take up my Constitutionalist Challenge, btw. Perhaps someone at infowars is interested?)
Originally Posted by Christopher A. Brown
Originally Posted by boneyard bill
But I have already pointed out that the meaning of free speech in the constitution, given the legal meanings of that day, may not have anything like the libertarian meaning applied today. So relying on the constitution, insofar as one would apply the "original intent" doctrine at least, may not be a very good safeguard.
With respect to arguing it from a natural law point of view, I agree that what you are attempting here fits into that category, but I am suggesting that