Why Liberals Should Love the 2nd Amendment

[unregistered]

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

Dont forget "no ten commandments in the courthouse"

The aclu's claim to fame is no nativity scenes on Government property and no prayer in schools.

They should be given an award for their efforts to maintain a separation of church and state.

 

[Weird Harold]

They should be given an award for their efforts to maintain a separation of church and state.

No, they should be stoned, shot, drawn and quartered or possibly even hurt, for perpetrating the fiction of Freedom From Religion.

 

[koalabear]

They should be given an award for their efforts to maintain a separation of church and state.

You need to study your history. The first bible published in this country was published by the Government.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

No, they should be stoned, shot, drawn and quartered or possibly even hurt, for perpetrating the fiction of Freedom From Religion.

Why is Freedom From Religion a fallacy? Not everyone has religion and it is their right to live that way in this country. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

Sounds pretty secular to me....the government cannot establish a national religion, the church has no power to legislate beyond casting a vote like everyone els, and the gov cant tell you to practice any one particular religion or to practice religion at all.

You need to study your history. The first bible published in this country was published by the Government.

What dose that prove? I prefer the reading’s of Locke, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Washington, and Paine who were all deist and strong advocates of secularism. You can print up a billion bibles a day but it dose not give the government the right to legislate, or force religion on me or anyone els under the guise of morality.

 

[richard_daily]

Anything the government can own, the general populace should be able to own... from a fully automatic M-11 to an Abrams tank, to a tactical nuke.

That said; the government shouldn't own tactical nukes, and therefore neither should the populace.

However, i would definitely love to purchase a tank... even if it was just a little one.

I'm not even being facetious. I might paint racing stripes on it.

That said; most gun collectors are fucking bonkers (not to mention, very accepting of out-in-the-open racism & nazi-fetishizing), but there is a reason that it's the 2nd amendment, and not the 9th or the 10th.

A well-armed populace is the ultimate check on government.

 

[Liar]

No, they should be stoned, shot, drawn and quartered or possibly even hurt, for perpetrating the fiction of Freedom From Religion.

What's with the hate-fest? I had you pegged as pretty level headed.

 

[Weird Harold]

Why is Freedom From Religion a fallacy? Not everyone has religion and it is their right to live that way in this country. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

You bolded the wrong phrase The ACLU's emphasis on Freedom From Religion ignores the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof " part of that amendment.

 

[Weird Harold]

What's with the hate-fest? I had you pegged as pretty level headed.

I dislike hypocrits.

 

[Slowlane]

No, they should be stoned, shot, drawn and quartered or possibly even hurt, for perpetrating the fiction of Freedom From Religion.

Nowhere does the constitution say, nor is intended to be "freedom from religion"

The wording is freedom OF religion.

The difference may be beyond you but it's huge.

 

[Byron In Exile]

What's with the hate-fest? I had you pegged as pretty level headed.

He has a valid point. The ACLU's apparent campaign to cleanse every public place of any sign of religion or religious observance is a bit embarrassing.

 

[statsultan]

Anything the government can own, the general populace should be able to own... from a fully automatic M-11 to an Abrams tank, to a tactical nuke.

That said; the government shouldn't own tactical nukes, and therefore neither should the populace.

However, i would definitely love to purchase a tank... even if it was just a little one.

I'm not even being facetious. I might paint racing stripes on it.

That said; most gun collectors are fucking bonkers (not to mention, very accepting of out-in-the-open racism & nazi-fetishizing), but there is a reason that it's the 2nd amendment, and not the 9th or the 10th.

A well-armed populace is the ultimate check on government.

Absolutely. Driving a tank on the highway looks fun, until you get it stuck on the median, of course.

 

[Weird Harold]

Nowhere does the constitution say, nor is intended to be "freedom from religion"

The wording is freedom OF religion.

The difference may be beyond you but it's huge.

It is not beyond me, but it does seem to be beyond the ACLU's policy makers.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

You bolded the wrong phrase The ACLU's emphasis on Freedom From Religion ignores the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof " part of that amendment.

yes the law can not prohibit the free exercise thereof, untill it is forced on somone els. I.E. you can put on a huge religous gathering in public....I can walk away, no harm no foul. You put religous expression in places where people have to be such as a public courthouse or public school then it no longer a "no harm no foul" situation, it is imposeing and offending. Would you like it if every time you went to work, a courthouse or your child went to school you/they had to pray to satan, odin or zeuce? No you would be fucking pissed....it is no different when the Christian majority just assumes and imposes their beliefs on everyone els.

 

[Byron In Exile]

yes the law can not prohibit the free exercise thereof, untill it is forced on somone els. I.E. you can put on a huge religous gathering in public....I can walk away, no harm no foul. You put religous expression in places where people have to be such as a public courthouse or public school then it no longer a "no harm no foul" situation, it is imposeing and offending. Would you like it if every time you went to work, a courthouse or your child went to school you/they had to pray to satan, odin or zeuce? No you would be fucking pissed....it is no different when the Christian majority just assumes and imposes their beliefs on everyone els.

This is some pretty silly stuff.

If I walk into a public courthouse and see the Ten Commandments on a wall, I don't fall down and have a seizure because I'm not Jewish. It isn't imposing anything on me, and if it's offensive to me, that's my problem. The First Amendment isn't about your "right not to be offended." It's about your right to be protected from people who are offended.

Obviously, your nonsense about being "forced to pray" to Satan, Odin, or Zeus is a red herring. But, if you live in a community where there are pentagrams everywhere, the pentagrams are not the problem. And getting rid of them won't erase your real problem, which is that you are living in a community of Satanists.

 

[statsultan]

This is some pretty silly stuff.
If I walk into a public courthouse and see the Ten Commandments on a wall, I don't fall down and have a seizure because I'm not Jewish. It isn't imposing anything on me, and if it's offensive to me, that's my problem. The First Amendment isn't about your "right not to be offended." It's about your right to be protected from people who are offended.

No, it looks like you're confusing every person's freedom of speech with each person's freedom of religion. Any religious symbol on a government building, or public prayer administered by a public official (like a teacher or school principal) carries with it the weight of government sanction, and is deemed a preference for that particular religion over all others.

Also, did you mean to say this?

If you live in a community where there are Stars of David everywhere, the Stars of David are not the problem. And getting rid of them won't erase your real problem, which is that you are living in a community of Jews.

or

If you live in a community where there are Star and Crescent symbols everywhere, the Star and Crescent symbols are not the problem. And getting rid of them won't erase your real problem, which is that you are living in a community of Muslims.

or

If you live in a community where there are guys on bicycles wearing white dress shirts with black ties everywhere, the bicyclists are not the problem. And getting rid of them won't erase your real problem, which is that you are living in a community of Mormon missionairies.

or

If you live in a community where there are Crosses everywhere, the Crosses are not the problem. And getting rid of them won't erase your real problem, which is that you are living in a community of Christians.

 

[John Doe]

On most forums, hijacking a serious discussion thread by using one line shite posts with no thought, no originality, no creativity - with nothing but the totally unwarranted egotism of your own vastly overrated crippled brains, is pretty bad form.

Of course here, anything goes. But readers should be warned - you are clowns who contribute nothing, incapable of coherent thought or cogent argument, you vomit up whatever you heard on TV yesterday.

You are the very definition of cattle, rounded up and herded by your mental masters, bleating out your catchphrases when whipped and spurred.

So what do you have do you contribute to the thread?

I mean other than self-righteous lectures.

 

[statsultan]

So what do you have do you contribute to the thread?

I mean other than self-righteous lectures.

As far as self-righteous lectures go, that one was pretty good. A lot better than yours. I mean, two sentences? C'mon. Put a little effort into it.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

This is some pretty silly stuff.

If I walk into a public courthouse and see the Ten Commandments on a wall, I don't fall down and have a seizure because I'm not Jewish. It isn't imposing anything on me, and if it's offensive to me, that's my problem. The First Amendment isn't about your "right not to be offended." It's about your right to be protected from people who are offended.

Obviously, your nonsense about being "forced to pray" to Satan, Odin, or Zeus is a red herring. But, if you live in a community where there are pentagrams everywhere, the pentagrams are not the problem. And getting rid of them won't erase your real problem, which is that you are living in a community of Satanists.

No, it looks like you're confusing every person's freedom of speech with each person's freedom of religion. Any religious symbol on a government building, or public prayer administered by a public official (like a teacher or school principal) carries with it the weight of government sanction, and is deemed a preference for that particular religion over all others.

This is what I was trying to get across. ^^^^ thanks stat.

BTW the US is so full of Christian belief if you ever don't want to be selected for jury duty just tell them your an atheist and you wont be chosen, lol because apparently if you haven't accepted the late JC as your lord and savior it is impossible for you to have any morals.

 

[thør]

Anything the government can own, the general populace should be able to own... from a fully automatic M-11 to an Abrams tank, to a tactical nuke.

That said; the government shouldn't own tactical nukes, and therefore neither should the populace.

However, i would definitely love to purchase a tank... even if it was just a little one.

I'm not even being facetious. I might paint racing stripes on it.

That said; most gun collectors are fucking bonkers (not to mention, very accepting of out-in-the-open racism & nazi-fetishizing), but there is a reason that it's the 2nd amendment, and not the 9th or the 10th.

A well-armed populace is the ultimate check on government.

This would be quite the go-get-some-ice cream ride.

http://www.armyjeeps.net/ has tanks, etc for sale.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

A well-armed populace is the ultimate check on government.

Yes, that was supposed to be the theory. But in 200-odd years, can you think of a single instance where armed Americans have taken on the U.S. government and come out ahead?

It's the second amendment. Third was against forced-quartering of soldiers.

Together, they are the two amendments with the least ongoing relevance to actual daily life--as it has turned out to be lived--in our country.

The only reason it's unpopular to say that is because people want to own guns, and fuck anyone who has a good reason for them not to.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

Yes, that was supposed to be the theory. But in 200-odd years, can you think of a single instance where armed Americans have taken on the U.S. government and come out ahead?

It's the second amendment. Third was against forced-quartering of soldiers.

Together, they are the two amendments with the least ongoing relevance to actual daily life--as it has turned out to be lived--in our country.

The only reason it's unpopular to say that is because people want to own guns, and fuck anyone who has a good reason for them not to.

Give me one good reason why I should not be allowed to own a gun.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Give me one good reason why I should not be allowed to own a gun.

Give me one good reason why I should not be allowed to own a nuclear bomb.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

Give me one good reason why I should not be allowed to own a nuclear bomb.

You honestly consider keeping a pistol, rifle or shotgun the equivalent of a nuke? If you were any more extreme than your name would be Rush.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

You honestly consider keeping a pistol, rifle or shotgun the equivalent of a nuke? If you were any more extreme than your name would be Rush.

I didn't say that. You asked me to argue a negative. I simply asked you to do the same.

I'll make it an easier question: can you give me a a good reason I shouldn't own a nuclear bomb if I never intend to use it?

By the way, I also asked you to name a single instance, in 200+ years, that a gathering of armed citizens took on the U.S. government and came out ahead.

Is there a reason you avoided answering that one?