We have very little time left as a democracy- the Patriot Act, open-ended weapon against democracy
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Thursday, October 16, 2025 15:16
VIEWED: 18510
PAGE 17 of 21
Quote:Yes, the way the 2nd Amendment has been framed by gun control advocates and the courts that may be true. The 2nd Amendment may no longer function in its stated purpose, because gun control advocates (largely Left-wing) have been so successful in curtailing it. Your argument is wholly circular, which demonstrates my point that the Left has no problem rendering a Constitutional Right basically null and void, so what is the problem with the Patriot Act?
Originally posted by SignyM:
I personally don't have a problem with people keeping guns. I used to own a couple myself (an old Remington 0.22 for plinking and the shortest-possible-and-still-be-legal barrel shotgun for home defense. I put THOSE deeply away, in pieces, once our daughter started walking around.) I will disagree with you though that the "right to bear arms" will keep any of us free. Back in the day, when the army's weapons were pretty much equal to what everybody else had, that might have been a valid viewpoint. But a shotgun is no match against a 50-caliber machine gun, tank, or any other modern military weapon, and thinking that the "right to bear arms" keeps you free is a fantasy.
Quote:People imprisoned in Concentration Camps in the Soviet Union had “freedom of thought.” You’ll excuse me if my definition of “REAL freedom” extends beyond simply what I think.
Originally posted by SignyM:
REAL freedom comes from freedom of thought. If a large portion of any population comes a different paradigm than the government, the government will not stand. That is the basis of the many "velvet revolutions" that happened in the past decade or so.
Quote:That’s your interpretation. Someone else might say that after several years we have seen no terrorists attacks like the one on 9/ll. That suggests that it may very well help to keep us safe.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
'Cause it doesn't mean we can be safe- these acts are written by the same IDIOTS that let (YES, LET) 911 happen. Y'know, film-makers don't usually get to do a Part II when Part I failed so miserably, so why do people in government get a second chance to f-up (Uh-oh, I'm about to use the 'C' word...I'd better go).
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Now why oh why didn't you include that little condition at the fornt of the second amendment. I'm sure you know it's there:
However, the Second Amendment to the Constitution says that the right of the People to have and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yep, I know it’s there. What’s your point? When was the Last time a Left-wing group defended the right of the People to form armed militias? If you make it illegal to keep and bear arms, then a “well regulated Militia” becomes nothing more then a bunch of defenseless people.
Originally posted by rue:
Now why oh why didn't you include that little condition at the fornt of the second amendment. I'm sure you know it's there:Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Do you support the Minutemen, rue?
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by xenocide:
Geezer's Point: Don't worry, governments get bigger, but they are the good guys so it's OK.
Well, I don't think history or current events back him up on this.
Actually, my point was the the government was lying to us 140 years ago, with the "This war is about slavery" rationale, but we're still bumbling along as a democracy. The fact that we could go from George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton to George W. Bush leads me to believe that whatever you think of he currnet administration, "This too shall pass."
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I suppose it depends on what "well-regulated" means. Likely it doesn't mean a lynch mob, a posse, a renegade group of CIA and FBI agents, or a supremacist compound all chock-full of weapons, ammo and explosives. I would imagine that the militia would have to be subject to the laws of the state a Federal governments and to the political requirement of democracy, by being subject to the "consent of the governed". (I know I'm leaping thtu a number of arguments but the point of the Consitution was to place government authority under the conset of the governed, and if the basis of governance is force... adn I disagree with that... then the assembled force must be under civilian control.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Someone else might say that after several years we have seen no terrorists attacks like the one on 9/ll. That suggests that it may very well help to keep us safe.
It might also mean those Gorram punks shot their wad and it's gonna take 'em another couple decades to come up with a plan, the financing, and the fools to carry it out! 911 didn't work 'cause it was the work of masterminds, it worked 'cause rocket scientists work at NASA, while 100 IQ'd politically motivated dweebs run our government! Most of the facts were out there, political bickering and 'chain of command' one-upsmanship let the worst happen!
But let's all of us give 'em a hand for how bad they all feel, after the fact.
George W! F@#k 'em, at least his dad had brains!!!
Don't take this rant personal, you're still my favourite conservative-like Browncoat Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yep. It’s amazing how quickly we come to parse the Constitution when it doesn’t say what we want it to say. But the 2nd Amendment gives the right to keep and bear arms to the people, not to the militias or a government regulated militia. In other words, the phrase “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” does not as Rue implies, qualify the right to bear arms, but simply justifies it. And suggests that the reason for the right to bear arms is so that the people can form Militias to defend themselves in the absence of the government or against it. To take this phrase and assume that it means that the only guns the People should have are those that are essentially useless against the weaponry these Militias will face in the advent of their necessity is to render such “well-regulated Militias” and the 2nd Amendment obsolete.
Originally posted by SignyM:
I suppose it depends on what "well-regulated" means.
Also this thread is becoming tiresome to refresh, and I’ve got a major delivery due on Wednesday that I need to work on.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't assume what you think I do. But in the face of a standing army, it would be hard to either justify the need for a militia, or presume one could defend against it. And as SignyM pointed out, one would need anti-aircraft missiles, tanks etc to fight the US army.
But there is another flaw with your position, which I didn't want to bring up and potentially derail the discussion. It is a logical flaw. If ANYONE can have ANY ARMS - completely unrestricted for any reason whatsoever, as you seem to want - do you believe an infant should be given a thermonuclear trigger (a red button) to teethe on?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, one might.
Originally posted by rue:
And as SignyM pointed out, one would need anti-aircraft missiles, tanks etc to fight the US army.
Quote:That’s not a flaw with my position.
Originally posted by rue:
But there is another flaw with your position, which I didn't want to bring up and potentially derail the discussion. It is a logical flaw. If ANYONE can have ANY ARMS - completely unrestricted for any reason whatsoever, as you seem to want - do you believe an infant should be given a thermonuclear trigger (a red button) to teethe on?
That’s a ridiculous and intentional misinterpretation in order to deflect from real arguments. When you have a reasonable and intelligent argument to share, then I may elaborate. Until then, this thread just takes too long to refresh just to read some nonsense about infants teething on nuclear bombs.Sometimes I think ridiculous hyperbole has become the mainstay of the Postmodern Liberal argument.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually, it's not off the mark. You obviously understand that SOME restrictions must be placed on who can own what types of arms. That puts you in the same category as liberals. The only thing that you disagree on in where the line should be drawn. So instead of railing aginst "them", why don't YOU tell US- who can own what kidns of weapons?
To get you going on the topic, let's start by exempting babies. (restriction based on age)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME