Pro-RKBA liberals?
- Thread starter Nightflurry
- Start date
invention_45
New member
We can't really do this experiment, but we could do a thought experiment.
Dig up the Founding Fathers. Let them wander around NYC or Miami or LA for a week. Then show them the above quote.
Do you think they were the kind of people who would buy that quote?
steelheart
Moderator
Roger that!! The bottom line is this: Anyone who owns a gun(s) or cares about our right to arms has no business voting for those who work to take them away from us. Period.
.
Agreed, but given the current Republican move towards religious fanatacism, and corporate greed that's becoming a lot harder for many people who are not far right to do.
Given the choices of candidates fielded on both sides, I find it harder and harder to even want to vote.
My opinion, what gun owners need is a strong third party.
steelheart
Moderator
All your money says "In God We Trust" on it - maybe you should burn it all in protest.
Never said it bothered me to the point of doing something stupid; besides I can always keep more money in international accounts where the cash doesn't say that. 
The point is that while I don't see it as fanatasicm as some people do, those examples are as much violations of the 1st amendment as CCW licenses are violations of the 2nd. Same way that the FCC fining radio stations for airing the word fukc or preventing network television from showing nudity is a clear violation of the 1st; the same way that Bush's wiretapping was in clear violation of the 4th.
Some people believe all parts of the BoR are equal, some people believe they're not.
The point is that while I don't see it as fanatasicm as some people do, those examples are as much violations of the 1st amendment as CCW licenses are violations of the 2nd. Same way that the FCC fining radio stations for airing the word fukc or preventing network television from showing nudity is a clear violation of the 1st; the same way that Bush's wiretapping was in clear violation of the 4th. Some people believe all parts of the BoR are equal, some people believe they're not.
lol clever. i'm still right
handy said:
Well, if speech is outlawed, you can use guns to fight to get it back.
You can use guns as a last resort to fight for the return of any rights.
If you have let all your guns be taken away, do you think speech could be used to much effect to get them back? How about voting rights? And what if the government said, "You'll be shot by government forces if you assemble for the purpose of petitioning the government"? Or if it said, "There will be no election this time around"? Could speech be very powerful to fight for restoration of rights against despotism, if people feared that the government would eliminate them through force for speaking out?
I honestly do not feel that freedom of speech, religion, the press, assembly, are anywhere near as threatened today as the right to keep and bear arms clearly is.
Every session of congress, there is introduction of (usually doomed, thankfully) bills to ban gun ownership outright; including an effort to repeal the Second Amendment. When was the last time you heard of a proposed amendment to repeal the First?
You can pretend all you want that speech is in as much jeopardy as gun ownership, but the rest of us will surely be scoffing at you about it.
-azurefly
redworm said:
Can you tell me how you read an amendment that simply says "congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion" and say that it prohibits the teaching OF the ideas that make up religions?
As I read it, congress would have to literally pass a law -- and it would have to establish an official religion (or prohibit one or more religions) -- in order for the amendment to have been violated.
Can you tell me where there is a place where they force Genesis to be the official teaching in a school?
I don't like having to "swear on a bible I think is fiction" either -- but that is not something that George W. Bush, or Republicans or NeoCons or anyone just enacted. It's centuries-old, isn't it?
The point is, though, that the stuff that people say violates the First Amendment these days simply doesn't.
-azurefly
Absolutely.
There's no need to resort to a "thought experiment" as you say either.
Simple reading about colonial life in the 1700s & the documents the Founding Fathers left behind is more than sufficient to prove my stance.
There's absolutely no difference between the contemporary people of modern American cities and their post colonial counterparts, with respect to their right to bear arms. None. Zip. Zilch.
Last edited:
invention_45
New member
Did Tim McVeigh use a gun? Did Osama use a gun?
You are trying to say that the 2nd amendment is more important than all the others because without guns you CANNOT retain the others. Are they going to take our RKBG (Right to Keep and Bear Gasoline)?
Yes, it is supportive of the BoR in general to support the 2nd amendment, but there are other ways to influence tyrrany than with popguns, which is what we're allowed to possess is compared to what the gov't has. Unless, of course, you think we should be allowed our own plutonium.
invention_45
New member
What you seem to be trying to say here is that back then there were just as many nuts and cults and convicted felons, and that your chances of encountering them was as good as it is now. And that they should, unless incarcerated, have unrestricted access to guns.
Hal, in the 1950s it wasn't as bad as it is today by a long stretch. Of course there were dangerous people. But they weren't nearly as crammed together as they are now. And that's only 50 years ago.
Azurefly,
Guns are only tools, replaceable with other tools. Speech is the basis of society and controlling speech controls attitudes and the ability to even begin to resist as a people.
The Soviet Union did not control its population with gun control. They controlled information and movement instead. In contrast, India fought British rule off without even the threat of violence.
"The pen is mightier than the sword." But I wouldn't give up either. But I'm certain that an armed populace that can't coordinate and organize through free speech can't effectively fight an oppressive regime.
Guns are only tools, replaceable with other tools. Speech is the basis of society and controlling speech controls attitudes and the ability to even begin to resist as a people.
The Soviet Union did not control its population with gun control. They controlled information and movement instead. In contrast, India fought British rule off without even the threat of violence.
"The pen is mightier than the sword." But I wouldn't give up either. But I'm certain that an armed populace that can't coordinate and organize through free speech can't effectively fight an oppressive regime.
Congress makes laws that has public funds paying for schools and government buildings. No money collected from the public and used for public purpose should be used for religious purposes. The first amendment protects freedom of religion which inherently requires freedom from religion for those who choose to have none.
There are many school boards trying to push science out of science class and teach literature along with it. ID is creationism wrapped in a politically correct blanket.
Just because something is centuries old does not mean it's right. That's the problem I have with many conservatives. They claim they want to go back to tradition and the "good ole days". Well in many ways the good ole days sucked, especially for anyone but land owning white guys. The point being that just because something has been done a certain way for a long time does not mean it should be.
It seems even the slightest move against the second amendment gets gun owners scurrying but it would take an official US Government Church to make anyone care about the first.
Nightflurry
Inactive
Redworm I mostly agree with what you're saying in reguard to the 1st ammendment there.
I don't like mixing church and state at all, not just for the integrity of the state but for that of the church. I don't know why many religious people would like to see that wall taken down, they don't seem to realize that if churches get government support then the government has power over the churches. The founders were very clear on this, they did not want the two mixing, and they were religious folk themselves. And yes, the founders were also clear on the issue of an armed citizenry.
I've stayed out of this thread for awhile because no matter what I say about half of you are convinced that I don't support the 2nd ammendment. That's ok if you all believe that, I've stated my views a few times, if you don't believe me then.. well then you just don't believe me. Didn't think I'd spark such a debate without getting the thread locked.
I don't like mixing church and state at all, not just for the integrity of the state but for that of the church. I don't know why many religious people would like to see that wall taken down, they don't seem to realize that if churches get government support then the government has power over the churches. The founders were very clear on this, they did not want the two mixing, and they were religious folk themselves. And yes, the founders were also clear on the issue of an armed citizenry.
I've stayed out of this thread for awhile because no matter what I say about half of you are convinced that I don't support the 2nd ammendment. That's ok if you all believe that, I've stated my views a few times, if you don't believe me then.. well then you just don't believe me. Didn't think I'd spark such a debate without getting the thread locked.
Carbiner,
Maybe fanatacism is not the proper term, extremism is more accurate.
In addition to what Redworn has already pointed out, attempts to make religious concepts law like trying to force prayer in schools, teaching intelligent design as a science, trying to amend the constitution to define marriage as a sacred institution between a man and a woman (remember, for most of human history, polygamy has been the norm).
We have a president in office that claims to have a direct line with God, that's usually an indicator of mental illness.
Makes it really difficult for a lot of people to support Republican candidate, regardless of their second amendment views.
handy said:
I clipped (and lost) a funny one-panel newspaper comic that showed a bunch of guys in a castle that was under seige, and they were opening boxes to find that they contained pens, and the caption said something about learning the hard way that the pen is not always mightier than the sword...
I think it stands to reason that the Soviets controlled information and particularly movement because they had a population's throats under their boot heel; and how did they do that? It's not super hard when the population is not allowed to have firearms with which to fight back.
-azurefly
redworm said:
Once again I ask you, "Where do you see that in the 1st Amendment??"
Look, I am somewhere between agnostic and atheist, and I deplore (read that again: "deplore") religion. I think it is harmful to the human psyche and to the human race overall. But for the sake of this debate, I really don't see that the Constitution does anything but prevent the establishment of a state-sanctioned religion.
If you don't like anti-gunners reading some b.s. requirement to be in a militia or the National Guard into the 2nd Amendment, you should not be reading this stuff into the 1st.
Well, that's all that the 1st Amendment prohibits, in terms of religion.
-azurefly