Colorado sheriff says new state gun laws won't be enforced

[SabbathWolf]

.... The constitution was based on compromise and once that compromise is gone, so is the true meaning of the United States Constitution.

When the Constitution says that something is a right, It should not be denied, nor used as barter regardless of whether you believe in that right or not.....

This whole statement makes no sense to me Albert.

When the Constitution says something is a RIGHT...then it is a RIGHT.
Period.
The Constitution was not based on compromise at all. It laid out very specifically the inalienable RIGHTS we have that cannot legally be messed with.
That's not a compromise.
Maybe I am just missing your point?

 

[Justin]

So by your own words, you are saying it is OK for any law official to pick and choose what laws they wish to enforce. Does that right remain true regardless of how heinous the crime may be? So much for the United States Constitution and the laws that were based on it, eh.

Trying to compare Apples to Oranges has always been a losing battle. If anyone doesn't believe me, just try using it in a court of law. Using scare tactics will drive far more people away from ones cause than an intelligent well thought out campaign.

The biggest problem I see with most 2A proponents is the fact that instead of using a rational plan of action, they try and use the apples to oranges approach or scare tactics.

Just my thoughts, In this case they may just get me in trouble because I told them to a moderator.

Way to fail to actually address any of the questions in my previous post.

 

[zxcvbob]

Who are you talking to? I think Albert left in disgust (or confusion; it's hard to tell) hours ago.

 

[JRH6856]

The Constitution was not based on compromise at all. It laid out very specifically the inalienable RIGHTS we have that cannot legally be messed with.
That's not a compromise.
Maybe I am just missing your point?

In Albert's defense (for a change) he has a point. The Constitution was a radical document. When the Articles of Confederation proved to be too weak, a convention was called to modify them. Instead, the Convention produced the Constitution and an entirely new form of government for the United States. It was controversial and there was a lot of resistance to it. The framers (Federalists) felt it was fine as written, but the opposition (Anti-federalists) felt it gave too much power to the federal government (or general government as it was called) and insisted it needed a Bill of Rights. When there was a danger it would not be ratified, a compromise was reached and in exchange for Anti-federalist support for ratification, the Federalists agreed to add a Bill of Rights in the form of amendments.

 

[HOOfan_1]

In Albert's defense (for a change) he has a point. The Constitution was a radical document. When the Articles of Confederation proved to be too weak, a convention was called to modify them. Instead, the Convention produced the Constitution and an entirely new form of government for the United States. It was controversial and there was a lot of resistance to it. The framers (Federalists) felt it was fine as written, but the opposition (Anti-federalists) felt it gave too much power to the federal government (or general government as it was called) and insisted it needed a Bill of Rights. When there was a danger it would not be ratified, a compromise was reached and in exchange for Anti-federalist support for ratification, the Federalists agreed to add a Bill of Rights in the form of amendments.

Even after it was ratified though, there wasn't any more compromise in politics than there are today. Jefferson hated Hamilton, and pretty much ended his friendship with Adams.

When someone is being stridently contrarian it's hard to have compromise or understanding.

 

[JRH6856]

^^^Still, without compromise on the Bill of Rights, there would not have been ratification and no Constitution.