New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Why the left is all wet on the second amendment

justoffal

Senator
The left of center insists that the second amendment is not an indivicual protection. If not then what is it?

This makes no sense at all. If the right to bear arms is limited only to government approved troops then what happens when the government becomes the enemy of the people????.... which is exactly what we are seeing right now. Bovard's Leviatihan is alive and kicking and it has a hairy eye on those pesky little people out there who might have ideas of freedom.

Then of course if the second amendment is only for Militias.....that doesn't work either because any Militia that organizes and then arms itself will quickly be crushed by the much larger Militia maintained by the government.

So in a sense the second amendment only works if it is an individual right. The problem of course is that once the various branches of governent have been co-opted by Leviathan the only place to turn for constitutional protections is the place that no longer wants the second amendment on the books. This is one of the most compelling reaosns to see the word People as the coven of the kitchen table. The basic , tax paying, family unit.

Either way dissent equals treason and treason equals dissent at this stage of Leviathan's growth and existence.

JO
 
Last edited:

justoffal

Senator
Yeah...that one is getting tired...

I mean if you have none of your own thoughts why bother?

It will be the democrats that you will need to be armed against BTW...they will be in the forefront of taking what you own.

JO
 

oicu812

"Trust, but Verify"
The left of center insists that the second amendment is not an indivicual protection. If not then what is it?

This makes no sense at all. If the right to bear arms is limited only to government approved troops then what happens when the government becomes the enemy of the people????.... which is exactly what we are seeing right now. Bovard's Leviatihan is alive and kicking and it has a hairy eye on those pesky little people out there who might have ideas of freedom.

Then of course if the second amendment is only for Militias.....that doesn't work either because any Militia that organizes and then arms itself will quickly be crushed by the much larger Militia maintained by the government.

So in a sense the second amendment only works if it is an individual right. The problem of course is that once the various branches of governemtn have been co-opted by Leviathan the only place to turn for constitutional protections is the place that no longer wants the second amendment on the books.

Either way dissent equals treason now.

JO
the supreme court agreed with you.
 

OldGaffer

Governor
what happens when the government becomes the enemy of the people????.... which is exactly what we are seeing right now
Nutbag alert!! You [Unwelcome language removed] NRA shills and your drama queen rants against sane gun control, it is not like you were a majority or anything. Form your militia groups so the FBI can keep closer tabs on you and punch out your lights on day one of your [Unwelcome language removed] insurrection. Of course, all this talk will go away if you ever elect another douchebag republican , the likes of Shrub, McRage and RMoney, trot out another loser and watch his nuts get crushed in 2016.
 

freyasman

Senator
Nutbag alert!! You [Unwelcome language removed] NRA shills and your drama queen rants against sane gun control, it is not like you were a majority or anything. Form your militia groups so the FBI can keep closer tabs on you and punch out your lights on day one of your [Unwelcome language removed] insurrection. Of course, all this talk will go away if you ever elect another douchebag republican , the likes of Shrub, McRage and RMoney, trot out another loser and watch his nuts get crushed in 2016.
Damn, OG; calm down! LOL you're gonna have a stroke....
 

Mr. Friscus

Governor
OG by far presents themselves as the most hateful, spiteful, angry poster on here.

Nothing more than insults and 3 rotating images.

has been on ignore for a bit.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Nutbag alert!! You [Unwelcome language removed] NRA shills and your drama queen rants against sane gun control, it is not like you were a majority or anything. Form your militia groups so the FBI can keep closer tabs on you and punch out your lights on day one of your [Unwelcome language removed] insurrection. Of course, all this talk will go away if you ever elect another douchebag republican , the likes of Shrub, McRage and RMoney, trot out another loser and watch his nuts get crushed in 2016.

I'm not an "NRA shill." I'm an NRA Patron Member. I'm not opposed to "sane" gun control. I'm opposed to an incremental, step by step series of increases in gun control -- one "sane" measure at a time -- until my civil right has been eroded away to nothing.

But then, I can discuss the matter without a profane rant misnaming politicians with whom I disagree -- so perhaps my opinion is beyond consideration.
 

oicu812

"Trust, but Verify"
og is a important part of these discussions, and people like og should not be discouraged or hindered in any why...they bring honesty and transparency to otherwise poorly covered partismanship....they do more for the opposition, than the opposition could do for themselves...

so i salute og and his minions!:rolleyes:
w/o them, i would find my lols to be diminished.,
 

BobbyT

Governor
The left of center insists that the second amendment is not an indivicual protection. If not then what is it?

This makes no sense at all. If the right to bear arms is limited only to government approved troops then what happens when the government becomes the enemy of the people????.... which is exactly what we are seeing right now. Bovard's Leviatihan is alive and kicking and it has a hairy eye on those pesky little people out there who might have ideas of freedom.

Then of course if the second amendment is only for Militias.....that doesn't work either because any Militia that organizes and then arms itself will quickly be crushed by the much larger Militia maintained by the government.

So in a sense the second amendment only works if it is an individual right. The problem of course is that once the various branches of governemtn have been co-opted by Leviathan the only place to turn for constitutional protections is the place that no longer wants the second amendment on the books.

Either way dissent equals treason now.

JO
It seems like each time the 2nd amendment is debated here (and elsewhere) it boils down to two slippery slopes:

1) an unarmed citizenry has no armed response to government overreach (the right's seeming argument that any attempt to restrict guns by type leads inevitably to total restriction of all guns of any type); and

2) if there are no restrictions on gun by type, then there will be no restriction on the citizenry owning any and all type of military weaponry (the left's seeming argument that any attempt to fight restrictions on guns by type leads inevitably to every nutcase out there owning any type of weapon available up to and including nuclear weapons).

To me gun ownership should be for one of three reasons: self protection, hunting, collecting. I don't want to abandon the principle of allowing people to own guns for those three reasons. At the same time, I don't want people obtaining guns that can slaughter people by the 10s at a time. I also don't believe that individual ownership of guns, no matter what type of gun, should be used to fight the government. We are a democratic republic: don't like your leaders? vote them out.

Limitations on gun ownership (by limiting type of weapon, by establishing mechanisms to restrict gun ownership (e.g., no felons), or requiring gun owners to register their weapons) is to me no different from limiting other constitutional rights (limits on when abortions can be obtained, limits to what constitutes free speech, etc). The debate shouldn't be on WHETHER limitations exist, it should be on WHERE those limits are set. The debate on the 2nd amendment would be much more meaningful if we could stop leaping directly to the bottom of the slippery slopes and attributing to a specific political party which side of the bell curve's lowest slope represents where the limit should be set.
 

oicu812

"Trust, but Verify"
you can "feel" all that and more...
just like others {including the govt.} feel you're wrong..
 

BobbyT

Governor
Oh. Well to my knowledge I never wrote the word 'feel.'

Any comment on what I wrote about looking for a realistic limit to the second amendment in the way other rights are limited or do you 'feel' it is sacrosanct in a way the other rights guaranteed by the constitution are not?
 

oicu812

"Trust, but Verify"
Oh. Well to my knowledge I never wrote the word 'feel.'

Any comment on what I wrote about looking for a realistic limit to the second amendment in the way other rights are limited or do you 'feel' it is sacrosanct in a way the other rights guaranteed by the constitution are not?

your idea of "realistic" is what i object to.


"TO ME gun ownership should be for one of three reasons: self protection, hunting, collecting. I don't want to abandon the principle of allowing people to own guns for those three reasons."

your quote "to me" as in this is what i think, i believe, i FEEL..

ya feel me?

"Limitations on gun ownership (by limiting type of weapon, by establishing mechanisms to restrict gun ownership (e.g., no felons), or requiring gun owners to register their weapons) IS TO ME no different from limiting other constitutional rights."

your quote, "is to me" as in what i believe, what i FEEL...

feel me now?
 

BobbyT

Governor
your idea of "realistic" is what i object to.


"TO ME gun ownership should be for one of three reasons: self protection, hunting, collecting. I don't want to abandon the principle of allowing people to own guns for those three reasons."

your quote "to me" as in this is what i think, i believe, i FEEL..

ya feel me?

"Limitations on gun ownership (by limiting type of weapon, by establishing mechanisms to restrict gun ownership (e.g., no felons), or requiring gun owners to register their weapons) IS TO ME no different from limiting other constitutional rights."

your quote, "is to me" as in what i believe, what i FEEL...

feel me now?
What I believe is what I believe, as far as what I believe are necessary compromises to retain integrity on the issue of gun rights vis a vis other rights. What I feel (which is a preference for no guns owned by the public) is a completely different matter. So, that being out of the way, do you have any comment on the establishment of limitations on gun rights in the same way as limits have been established on other rights?
 
Last edited:
Top