You are the only clueless bastid that even went down that rathole. Was that where you were told to go??
The Violent Left Says They Want a Civil War: Antifa Forming A ‘Red Army’
- Thread starter Kyle
- Start date
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
Why do you hate the 2ndA so much mo?
Was it the drug use?..the beatings you took as a child?..birth defects?..
PsyOps
Pixelated
You don't even understand who is protected under the constitution. I don't think you're in a position to lecture me or anyone else who is 'retarded'.
And you show your level of childishness by using that definition. I always hope you might rise above that crap, but you always prove me wrong.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
So it is your arguement that the 2ndA is to protect the rights of police?
And you really expect to not be called retarded?
Bwhahahaha
That’s some good #### right there.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
There's an idea promoted by the left that concealed carry - or persons *visibly* carrying a weapon - are a potential threat to those around them. Simply by virtue of HAVING them.
And that, by extension - if they are NOT - that club bearing Antifa protesters therefore do not pose any sort of threat - to those around them.
The idea is that mask-wearing groups of bat wielding Antifa members aren't threatening anyone - that in fact, they are just "defending" themselves.
And I used the example of police, who are the most likely candidate for most of us to be visibly carrying a weapon - but that the presence of a
weapon on their persons does NOT pose a threat. The *existence* of a weapon is not the essence of a threat.
Perhaps I should have used the example of Little Leaguers carrying their bats, or door to door salesman selling kitchen knives?
Second Amendment protesters - carrying arms - don't march discharging their weapons.
Antifa members carry bats - and destroy property - and verbally and visibly threaten people with them.
It is not a threat to HAVE a weapon - it IS a threat to point it at someone and indicate you plan to use it.
A cop is just a common example of the lack of fear we all have - at least I hope we do - to be in the presence of a weapon and not be afraid of it.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
I get it, you are the worst kind of 2ndA supporter.
You see ‘threats’ that aren’t there to justify your fear of someone who is simply carrying.
Again, police are not examples of people who need to be protected by the 2ndA. Neither are kids playing ball or a guy selling kitchen knives. Arms are things were purposefully carry with the intent of self defense, or offense. The 2ndA is there to protect folks you are scared of just as much as people whose politics you agree with. It’s just like the 1st in that way.
You aren't doing a very good job of supporting your Antifa buddies either...
...and you obviously know next to nothing about the 2A.
Where did anyone say they were???
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
You are good at reading mo.
Go ask the local librarian for help
Where did anyone say they were??? Weasel.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Police, kids playing ball, and guys selling knives that are citizens are all examples of EXACTLY who the 2nd Amendment is there to protect. The second amendment is a limit on the government from taking innate rights of citizens. All citizens.
The reason you are not making a point is that you are wrong in most of what you are posting, and grossly misleading in the rest.
The second amendment, as written by a bunch of guys who just used private weapons to overthrow an oppressive government, is there to protect citizens from enemies foreign and domestic. It's not there to attack fellow citizens one does not like - that's called a "crime" (please look that up).
YW
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
.....as we all point at you and laugh....... ;-)
PsyOps
Pixelated
Like I tried to say... I don't subscribe to the petty and childish notion that people are retarded. Resorting to these kinds of characterizations shows how inane your argument has become.
So it is your arguement that the 2ndA is to protect the rights of police?
And you really expect to not be called retarded?
Bwhahahaha
That’s some good #### right there.
I took your post literally:
The 2nd amendment protects the rights of everyone. Police are people. Government workers are people. They, too, have a right to bear arms. You didn't limit your comments to when they are on duty. Cops, by duty carry nearly all the time. It comes with with the territory, and it's their constitutional right to do so as well. It's no different for those who work for the government. If you're going to argue that cops and government workers don't have rights protected under the constitution, then you have a severely distorted understanding of our constitution. The constitution limits CONGRESS and other lawmakers, in the capacity of them doing their job - enacting laws - from infringing on our rights - all of us; including our lawmakers when they are not operating in the capacity of their jobs.The 2ndA is not intend3d to protect the rights of police or government officials. It’s about the people.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
I’m going to have to change my ‘youre retarded’ to a literal statement if you keep acting retarded. The 2ndA is not intended to protect the rights of police or government officials. Your spin notwithstanding.
splitting and spinning as usual .....
what PsyOps Said:
The 2nd amendment protects the rights of everyone. Police are people. Government workers are people.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Holy crap! The constitution isn't there as a matter of need; it's a matter of it just is. Our rights are born to us. The constitution just outlines the limitations on government from infringing on what is already naturally ours. Without the constitution, our rights are still ours. The constitution doesn't define our rights. It doesn't grant our rights. I don't something written down tell me there are trees in a forest. I know they're already there.
And the display of guns isn't something I fear. It's the the known intentions of the carrier that causes me to question their motives. But, my thoughts end where my questioning their motives enter into demanding they can't carry. That's not up to me. I'm pretty careful not to allow my personal sentiments about someone, who I know has ill-intentions, to demand their rights be relinquished simply because I know they could harm an innocent person. That's the big debate going on about guns. We don't want violent criminals and mentally ill people having guns. Those are reasonable demands. Some would go as far as demanding people that have acted out violently or attached themselves to violent group not be allowed to have guns. Should people that acted out in violence - especially innocent people - or attach themselves to extremist or violent groups be allowed to have guns? Maybe that should be open for a debate.
The consequential thing about rights is, until you have proven to be unfit to carry arms (criminal conviction or mentally ill), you retain those rights.
The bottom line ^.