The Right To Bear Arms

[frigidweirdo]

This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.

Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.

1A says "Congress shall make no law"
3A says "No soldier shall"
4A says "shall not be violated"
5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
6A manages to not do a negative
7A also
8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
9A says "shall not be construed"

Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.

All of these Amendments have limits.

But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.

Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.

Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.

Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.

Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.

The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.

Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient. There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction). Otherwise, no rights are preserved.

Yes, but the argument is that the RKBA "shall not be infringed" at all, ever. Clearly wrong.

No, carrying a gun doesn't infringe on the liberties of others. Nor does taking drugs. Nor does have a nuclear bomb. Nor does being Muslim. Nor does take a knife on board with you on an airplane. Lots of things don't do anything, yet some of them are banned because they could pose a threat.

Yes, free speech is only limited when it poses a threat. If I say something that breaks the laws of treason, what I said doesn't mean that people will die, or the National Security. But it could, so you're guilty of treason.

Now, carrying guns around doesn't harm people, but it could. The fact that the US has a murder rate 4 times higher than most First World countries and 3/4 of all murders are with guns is telling. Threats are posed by people with guns. Just because it doesn't always result in harm to others isn't the point. How many of the things that are banned ALWAYS pose a threat?

So, if religion can be limited because Human Sacrifice takes away someone's life, why can't guns be taken away when 11,000 people are being murdered with them every year?

This is correct with regard to the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restriction by government.

Actual human sacrifice as religious dogma is not protected by the Free Exercise Clause because the only outcome of such religious ‘expression’ is the unlawful death of an individual; that’s not the case with regard to possessing a firearm.

Second Amendment jurisprudence recognizes weapons as being either ‘dangerous and unusual’ or ‘in common use’; the former being subject to greater government restrictions, such as fully automatic firearms and SBRs, and the latter handguns, entitled to greater Second Amendment protections.

The problem with human sacrifice is that the outcome is "unlawful", now, imagine having a gun were "unlawful", then the only outcome of carrying a gun would be to be unlawful.

 

[westwall]

Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?

The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.

Although I agree that we live in a sick culture that glorifies violence… I don't believe that that is why we're having mass shootings. There is a concerted effort to get the public to fear and hate guns, and to willingly give up our rights. Look into the Hegelian dialectic, or problem – reaction – solution. It is also legal now to propagandize the public. Watch this video:

Nonsense.

There is no ‘effort’ – ‘concerted’ or otherwise – to get the public to fear and hate guns, the notion is ridiculous, delusional, and dishonest.

Oh, yes there is. I am far older than you and can remember when DGU's were accurately reported. Just recently a friend of mine was forced to use his gun to defend himself from a violent drunk, ex-felon. The newspaper somehow forgot that he used his gun to defend himself (he drew it to buy time to get away) and merely reported the criminals arrest. So yes, there is absolutely a concerted effort to vilify guns, gun owners, and gun defensive usage.

 

[westwall]

This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.

Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.

1A says "Congress shall make no law"
3A says "No soldier shall"
4A says "shall not be violated"
5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
6A manages to not do a negative
7A also
8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
9A says "shall not be construed"

Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.

All of these Amendments have limits.

But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.

Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.

Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.

Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.

Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.

The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.

Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient. There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction). Otherwise, no rights are preserved.

Yes, but the argument is that the RKBA "shall not be infringed" at all, ever. Clearly wrong.

No, carrying a gun doesn't infringe on the liberties of others. Nor does taking drugs. Nor does have a nuclear bomb. Nor does being Muslim. Nor does take a knife on board with you on an airplane. Lots of things don't do anything, yet some of them are banned because they could pose a threat.

Yes, free speech is only limited when it poses a threat. If I say something that breaks the laws of treason, what I said doesn't mean that people will die, or the National Security. But it could, so you're guilty of treason.

Now, carrying guns around doesn't harm people, but it could. The fact that the US has a murder rate 4 times higher than most First World countries and 3/4 of all murders are with guns is telling. Threats are posed by people with guns. Just because it doesn't always result in harm to others isn't the point. How many of the things that are banned ALWAYS pose a threat?

So, if religion can be limited because Human Sacrifice takes away someone's life, why can't guns be taken away when 11,000 people are being murdered with them every year?

This is correct with regard to the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restriction by government.

Actual human sacrifice as religious dogma is not protected by the Free Exercise Clause because the only outcome of such religious ‘expression’ is the unlawful death of an individual; that’s not the case with regard to possessing a firearm.

Second Amendment jurisprudence recognizes weapons as being either ‘dangerous and unusual’ or ‘in common use’; the former being subject to greater government restrictions, such as fully automatic firearms and SBRs, and the latter handguns, entitled to greater Second Amendment protections.

The problem with human sacrifice is that the outcome is "unlawful", now, imagine having a gun were "unlawful", then the only outcome of carrying a gun would be to be unlawful.

That is already a fact in your progressive paradises. How come their murder rates are so high?

 

[emilynghiem]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh? Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

No, you leftists WANT the Constitution to exist only in the context of its case law, because that means the law is whatever you tweekoids "feel" it should be at the moment, and whatever you can get a handful of unelected oligarchs to mandate. Unfortunately for you, that is not even remotely the nation that our Founders set up, or that people want to live in. Maybe go find a nice dictatorship somewhere that's already established to live in, instead of trying to impose one on the rest of us.

What clearly confuses YOU is that you're busy panicking over what you think conservatives believe, rather than ever actually taking the time to listen to us and comprehend what we say. Am I going to waste time even discussing your amusingly pathetic notion that we believe any right is "unlimited", just as though it was actually a serious, thoughtful statement? Guess.

Dear @Cecile1200 and C_Clayton_Jones
But I thought BOTH sides only go with cases, precedence and rulings
that ALIGN with their beliefs; and contest them as "unconstitutional and wrong" when they don't!
Then they attack if the other side does that, but they do it too!

This shows that people ARE coming at the law and govt
with their OWN beliefs first, then using the language of the law
to express their beliefs, or establish them through govt if the can.

The liberals tend to relate to secular justice
where it is established through agreement through govt as the central authority for the public.

The conservatives seek justice by consistent agreement with both church and state laws,
not rejecting one to hide behind the other as liberals do. But satisfying both.

I don't think liberals can help the fact they can't relate
to the bigger universal laws beyond govt.
Because they use the secular approach, the govt becomes their centralizing filter.

It's the way their beliefs are designed, that's how they see and use the system.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Really?

The problem with your argument is that the US seems to have gone completely in the opposite direction.

In the US the criminals have more power because they have guns. Murders are FOUR TIMES HIGHER in the US than compared to most other First World countries. This isn't the power of the people to protect themselves. With guns, they die more often.

As for politicians. The US has a political system which leads to the rich having power over the people.

I think you missed the point. Yes, obviously criminals have guns, but since criminals by definition do not obey the law, more gun laws is not going to make a difference except for making it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. There are already thousands of gun laws on the books.

So are you advocating gun confiscation for everyone on a national scale.... in other words, turning us into a police state?

Actually you have no point.

That criminals violate laws is not ‘justification’ to oppose or eliminate those laws.

And no one advocates for 'gun confiscation,' that's another rightwing lie.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What it means is that the people have the right to form a militia if they feel their government has infringed on their rights, and for that and other purposes, they have the right to bear arms.

Are you referring to the Second Amendment? Because that's not, in fact, what the words mean at all. Any junior high kid in America who makes passing grades in English class would be able to tell you this. It isn't as though the definitions of the words, and the meaning they convey when strung together into sentences, is especially difficult to figure out.

What I'm hearing here is what you would LIKE the Second Amendment to mean, even though it contains all manner of things not actually said anywhere in there. In other words, an interpretation. And a really illiterate one, at that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.

Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.

I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.

However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.

Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.

Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.

So you do want to get rid of all guns.

Not necessarily.

I prefer society that is safer.

Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?

The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.

Yes, and the crime keeps going down in the UK too. And in many other First World countries. So what?

Modern technology is making murders go down because people have other stuff to do.

That doesn't mean the US's murder rate isn't too high.

But gun crimes have doubled in the UK, weren’t they supposed to go down after gun control? Isn’t that what gun control is for?

And once again if guns are the problem, why is Switzerland the safest place on earth, with an assault rifle in every closet.

Post hoc and false comparison fallacies in one post – well done.

 

[westwall]

Really?

The problem with your argument is that the US seems to have gone completely in the opposite direction.

In the US the criminals have more power because they have guns. Murders are FOUR TIMES HIGHER in the US than compared to most other First World countries. This isn't the power of the people to protect themselves. With guns, they die more often.

As for politicians. The US has a political system which leads to the rich having power over the people.

I think you missed the point. Yes, obviously criminals have guns, but since criminals by definition do not obey the law, more gun laws is not going to make a difference except for making it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. There are already thousands of gun laws on the books.

So are you advocating gun confiscation for everyone on a national scale.... in other words, turning us into a police state?

Actually you have no point.

That criminals violate laws is not ‘justification’ to oppose or eliminate those laws.

And no one advocates for 'gun confiscation,' that's another rightwing lie.

 

[emilynghiem]

Free speech may be limited by government when government can demonstrate a compelling reason to do so, limitations that are content-neutral – yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater will likely cause injury or death, unrelated to the content of the ‘message’ attempting to be conveyed.

....
As that process advances governments and the courts must be allowed to play their respective roles in determining what laws comport with the Second Amendment and what laws do not, where measures placing limits on the Second Amendment right are neither un-Constitutional nor ‘anti-Second Amendment’ until the Supreme Court alone rules that they are.

C_Clayton_Jones
A. RE: compelling interest
the other factor in this equation is people CONSENT and agree on the compelling interest.
In the case of yelling fire to disrupt an assembly,
this would violate OTHER RIGHTS within the same Bill of Rights
including right to assemble peaceably and right to security.

It is not some compelling interest outside the same laws,
such as people saying "tax revenue" is a compelling enough interest
for taking private property by eminent domain and giving it to corporations.
If people don't consent to that as a valid "compelling interest"
it gets contested as extraconstitutional or unconstitutional abuse of govt.

Same with "right to life" based on compelling interest to protect the life of unborn
persons. Banning abortion isn't the only way to prevent it and to protect such
right to life beliefs. There are other complications that would cause OTHER rights
such as "due process" to be violated, so people DO NOT CONSENT to the faith based arguments as a compelling interest but see that as govt endorsing one belief over others.

B. as for courts being the final word
No. again, if people do not consent to a ruling that is argued as biased by beliefs,
this will undergo further contest and objection until reforms are made and agreed on that people DO consent to.

the process keeps going, whether reform through executive legislative or judicial branches of govt, until the laws reflect what people CONSENT to including what is a compelling interest,usually to protect other rights within the law that would otherwise be violated.

 

[westwall]

So you do want to get rid of all guns.

Not necessarily.

I prefer society that is safer.

Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?

The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.

Yes, and the crime keeps going down in the UK too. And in many other First World countries. So what?

Modern technology is making murders go down because people have other stuff to do.

That doesn't mean the US's murder rate isn't too high.

But gun crimes have doubled in the UK, weren’t they supposed to go down after gun control? Isn’t that what gun control is for?

And once again if guns are the problem, why is Switzerland the safest place on earth, with an assault rifle in every closet.

Post hoc and false comparison fallacies in one post – well done.

Indeed, you seem to be an expert at logical fallacies. Do you have a degree in them?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Also, whether or not guns are the answer depends entirely on what the question is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh? Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

No, you leftists WANT the Constitution to exist only in the context of its case law, because that means the law is whatever you tweekoids "feel" it should be at the moment, and whatever you can get a handful of unelected oligarchs to mandate. Unfortunately for you, that is not even remotely the nation that our Founders set up, or that people want to live in. Maybe go find a nice dictatorship somewhere that's already established to live in, instead of trying to impose one on the rest of us.

What clearly confuses YOU is that you're busy panicking over what you think conservatives believe, rather than ever actually taking the time to listen to us and comprehend what we say. Am I going to waste time even discussing your amusingly pathetic notion that we believe any right is "unlimited", just as though it was actually a serious, thoughtful statement? Guess.

Dear @Cecile1200 and C_Clayton_Jones
But I thought BOTH sides only go with cases, precedence and rulings
that ALIGN with their beliefs; and contest them as "unconstitutional and wrong" when they don't!
Then they attack if the other side does that, but they do it too!

This shows that people ARE coming at the law and govt
with their OWN beliefs first, then using the language of the law
to express their beliefs, or establish them through govt if the can.

The liberals tend to relate to secular justice
where it is established through agreement through govt as the central authority for the public.

The conservatives seek justice by consistent agreement with both church and state laws,
not rejecting one to hide behind the other as liberals do. But satisfying both.

I don't think liberals can help the fact they can't relate
to the bigger universal laws beyond govt.
Because they use the secular approach, the govt becomes their centralizing filter.

It's the way their beliefs are designed, that's how they see and use the system.

You thought wrong.

Oh, I'll freely admit that everyone has their own beliefs and biases that can color their approach to any given situation. This is why intelligent, thinking, rational adults should and will do their best to separate their emotions and desires from their thinking, and try to determine the facts. This is, actually, the approach generally advocated by conservatives (real ones, not pseudo-leftists who happen to have accidentally stumbled into positions on the right, with no idea how they got there).

Also, it is fairly prominent position on the right, and has historically been the approach used, that precedent is irrelevant when it is egregiously wrong. This is why decisions in court cases get reversed and overturned. Plessy v Ferguson, as a famous example. Where would we be if we considered ourselves irrevocably bound to a truly noxious practice, simply because it was "precedent", rather than asserting the right to refer back to the actual language and intent of a law to state that the precedent was well and truly fucked up?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Time for reasonable gun control. Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.

Time for you to leave the U.S. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

That ain't how it works, sparky. We use the ballot box and laws.

That we do, dunce boy and the ballot box is why the GOP controls the executive and legislative branches of government.

And when Republicans attempt to violate the rights and protected liberties of the Americans people, those disadvantaged seek relief in court, subject solely to the rule of law, not the ignorance, hate, fear, and bigotry of Republicans.

 

[buttercup]

Indeed, you seem to be an expert at logical fallacies. Do you have a degree in them?

Ikr? He didn't even realize that the only reason I mentioned gun confiscation was because the person I was replying to said "taking guns away from society" would make things safer.....and my point was that you're not going to be able to do that without confiscating all guns and turning us into a police state. I never even made the claim that people are advocating for gun confiscation, so he's either dishonest or dense.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Time for reasonable gun control. Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.

Time for you to leave the U.S. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

That ain't how it works, sparky. We use the ballot box and laws.

That we do, dunce boy and the ballot box is why the GOP controls the executive and legislative branches of government.

And when Republicans attempt to violate the rights and protected liberties of the Americans people, those disadvantaged seek relief in court, subject solely to the rule of law, not the ignorance, hate, fear, and bigotry of Republicans.

"Republicans attempt to violate the rights of the people". When, precisely, would that be? Could you cite an example? Would help even more if your cited example wasn't of the left's most cherished right of being an unmitigated jackass whenever and wherever they please.

Not saying you don't have the right to be an asshole. Just suggesting that maybe that's not the one you should exercise and defend the most vigorously.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.

Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.

I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.

However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.

Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.

Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.

Um, her position is a little more than simply "not liking guns." And why should only "important" people be protected? That statement shows the hypocrisy of liberals who talk about "equality." All people are equal, so I hope you're not actually saying that only important people (i.e. your dear leaders) deserve protection.

Pure idiocy.

No one is advocating that only important people be protected; consequently there is no ‘hypocrisy’ of liberals concerning equality.

Liberals support current Second Amendment jurisprudence, take no issue with citizens lawfully possessing firearms, and acknowledge the right of citizens to engage in lawful self-defense.

Indeed, it’s conservatives who are hostile to current Second Amendment jurisprudence, claiming that the Second Amendment is ‘unlimited,’ when the Heller Court reaffirmed that it is not, arguing that there should be no restrictions on possessing firearms although the courts have upheld those restrictions as Constitutional, and opposing firearm regulatory measures the Supreme Court has never ruled to be in violation of the Second Amendment.

 

[emilynghiem]

And when Republicans attempt to violate the rights and protected liberties of the Americans people, those disadvantaged seek relief in court, subject solely to the rule of law, not the ignorance, hate, fear, and bigotry of Republicans.

^ Question, C_Clayton_Jones: ^
And where is this consistent enforcement of law upheld when it comes to SECULAR "beliefs" and
freedom of choice whether to accept these or not:

* LGBT beliefs that homosexual orientation is natural and cannot change
* Beliefs in transgender identity that should be endorsed and enforced through govt, even forced on people of other beliefs; but not Christian beliefs or expressions that should be removed because "not all people share those beliefs, which can't be imposed by govt"
* beliefs in same sex marriage
* beliefs in forcing everyone under govt run health care even if that violates their Constitutional beliefs

That are all EQUALLY faith based? Where laws and penalties favoring these beliefs discriminate against people of opposing beliefs who cannot comply without violating their own beliefs?

Why are people of other beliefs SUBJECT to the harassment, bullying, namecalling, "ignorance, hate, fear, and bigotry" put out by Liberals who claim to be open to tolerance, inclusion of diversity, freedom of choice, and equal protection from discrimination for all people? Or is that only for citizens of leftist political beliefs?

 

[frigidweirdo]

And when Republicans attempt to violate the rights and protected liberties of the Americans people, those disadvantaged seek relief in court, subject solely to the rule of law, not the ignorance, hate, fear, and bigotry of Republicans.

^ Question, C_Clayton_Jones: ^
And where is this consistent enforcement of law upheld when it comes to SECULAR "beliefs" and
freedom of choice whether to accept these or not:

* LGBT beliefs that homosexual orientation is natural and cannot change
* Beliefs in transgender identity that should be endorsed and enforced through govt, even forced on people of other beliefs; but not Christian beliefs or expressions that should be removed because "not all people share those beliefs, which can't be imposed by govt"
* beliefs in same sex marriage
* beliefs in forcing everyone under govt run health care even if that violates their Constitutional beliefs

That are all EQUALLY faith based? Where laws and penalties favoring these beliefs discriminate against people of opposing beliefs who cannot comply without violating their own beliefs?

Why are people of other beliefs SUBJECT to the harassment, bullying, namecalling, "ignorance, hate, fear, and bigotry" put out by Liberals who claim to be open to tolerance, inclusion of diversity, freedom of choice, and equal protection from discrimination for all people? Or is that only for citizens of leftist political beliefs?

The issue here is that people should be tolerant of other people's beliefs.

Now, Christianity is an accepted thing in society. People don't get problems from being a Christian. They get problems from being gay though.

People are free to not like gay people, but they're NOT free to act upon this hatred. The same as for Christians or any other religious person. If someone attacks them for being a Christian, then they're punished, or should be.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Time for reasonable gun control. Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.

Time for you to leave the U.S. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

That ain't how it works, sparky. We use the ballot box and laws.

That we do, dunce boy and the ballot box is why the GOP controls the executive and legislative branches of government.

And when Republicans attempt to violate the rights and protected liberties of the Americans people, those disadvantaged seek relief in court, subject solely to the rule of law, not the ignorance, hate, fear, and bigotry of Republicans.

"Republicans attempt to violate the rights of the people". When, precisely, would that be? Could you cite an example? Would help even more if your cited example wasn't of the left's most cherished right of being an unmitigated jackass whenever and wherever they please.

Not saying you don't have the right to be an asshole. Just suggesting that maybe that's not the one you should exercise and defend the most vigorously.

Try, the war on drugs, try J-walking, try going to war and then using the fear of the enemy as an excuse for things like the Patriot Act, try opposing gay marriage....

 

[buttercup]

Pure idiocy.

No one is advocating that only important people be protected; consequently there is no ‘hypocrisy’ of liberals concerning equality.

Liberals support current Second Amendment jurisprudence, take no issue with citizens lawfully possessing firearms, and acknowledge the right of citizens to engage in lawful self-defense.

Indeed, it’s conservatives who are hostile to current Second Amendment jurisprudence, claiming that the Second Amendment is ‘unlimited,’ when the Heller Court reaffirmed that it is not, arguing that there should be no restrictions on possessing firearms although the courts have upheld those restrictions as Constitutional, and opposing firearm regulatory measures the Supreme Court has never ruled to be in violation of the Second Amendment.

Yet again you butt into a conversation and arrogantly interject something without even understanding the context. The person I was replying to said, "But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns"

That is why I asked him why he only mentioned "important people," because based on his posts, he seemed to hold the position that the general public shouldn't have the same rights.

As for your claim that there is no liberal hypocrisy, are you the spokesperson for all liberals worldwide? You know them all, huh? There are some Hollywood celebrities and others who are extremely anti-gun, yet hire private security who happen to be armed. Of course when called on it, they backtrack and change their position to not look like such hypocrites… but the bottom line is, hypocritical limousine liberals do exist.

I get it that you're zealous about these topics, but please don't keep interjecting yourself into conversations if you're going to misunderstand things or change what is being said. That's the second time you did that tonight.