spacemanspiff
New member
i've been mulling over this topic for a few weeks, hoping i'd find a clear way to express my opinions and be able to ask the right questions of the rest of the class. so here goes:
some feel that the supporters of the 2nd Amendment are taking things too far. the NRA is seen as a special-interest-group that only gets attention from politicians because of their deep pockets. our opposition would like for us to give up some (at least in the beginning anyways) of our weapons because they 'serve no useful purpose'.
obviously those who hold such opinions are on tipping the scales on the other end of the spectrum, so we rarely give them a chance.
it seems to be typical though, for groups of like minded people to take their efforts to blatant extremes. even though they might begin with such good noble intentions, they gravitate towards one side or the other.
for example, i'm sure the ACLU had good intentions when it came into existance. to protect the peoples constitutional rights. but now its a joke, catering to only one political parties agenda, and insisting that society become godless, ethnic-less, size-less, and sex-less (gender, not activity). they have permeated nearly every aspect of everyday life. we are bombarded with their propoganda and made to feel bad for having our own opinions and belief structures.
what about the united nations? wasn't their intent to unify countries of the world to help make the world a better place? many i have talked to express their desire to boot the UN from US soil. for that matter, what good has the UN done lately? have they been able to stop foreign conflicts? solve world hunger?
how about peta and other environmental groups in this country? they could do more good and gain more supporters if they came off the extreme end. every half decent person would agree that animals shouldnt be heartlessly tortured. but what do they do instead? push to end hunting or even fishing, claiming they are 'cruel' to the animals. not once do they realize that its the subsistance and sportsmen that keep animal populations in check. but apparently its more humane to let animals overpopulate, starve and die rather than provide food for other humans.
where does that put us, in our fight to keep the Constitution protected for all? what would put us 'over the line' so to speak?
some feel that the supporters of the 2nd Amendment are taking things too far. the NRA is seen as a special-interest-group that only gets attention from politicians because of their deep pockets. our opposition would like for us to give up some (at least in the beginning anyways) of our weapons because they 'serve no useful purpose'.
obviously those who hold such opinions are on tipping the scales on the other end of the spectrum, so we rarely give them a chance.
it seems to be typical though, for groups of like minded people to take their efforts to blatant extremes. even though they might begin with such good noble intentions, they gravitate towards one side or the other.
for example, i'm sure the ACLU had good intentions when it came into existance. to protect the peoples constitutional rights. but now its a joke, catering to only one political parties agenda, and insisting that society become godless, ethnic-less, size-less, and sex-less (gender, not activity). they have permeated nearly every aspect of everyday life. we are bombarded with their propoganda and made to feel bad for having our own opinions and belief structures.
what about the united nations? wasn't their intent to unify countries of the world to help make the world a better place? many i have talked to express their desire to boot the UN from US soil. for that matter, what good has the UN done lately? have they been able to stop foreign conflicts? solve world hunger?
how about peta and other environmental groups in this country? they could do more good and gain more supporters if they came off the extreme end. every half decent person would agree that animals shouldnt be heartlessly tortured. but what do they do instead? push to end hunting or even fishing, claiming they are 'cruel' to the animals. not once do they realize that its the subsistance and sportsmen that keep animal populations in check. but apparently its more humane to let animals overpopulate, starve and die rather than provide food for other humans.
where does that put us, in our fight to keep the Constitution protected for all? what would put us 'over the line' so to speak?