Archery Addix banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
491 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

He may be one of the few Liberals that are being honest about their agenda and that's to eradicate the 2nd Amendment!

"Maher argued that the gun debate is a "constant center-right debate," and that liberals are too afraid to stand up and say that the "Second Amendment is bull****." Former Reagan budget director David Stockman found it amusing that anyone would think having an "18th century citizen militia" armed with muskets somehow has "anything to do with liberty." He said that the "real shield for liberty" is the first amendment, not the second."

"Costas added that there are so many "paranoid types" who think that they're going to need to rise up against the government, wondering exactly who is going to lead that movement. He said that the NRA is just a political lobby trying to protect the rights and profits of gun manufacturers, and so they're not going to just simply evolve on gun control overnight."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
833 Posts
If it weren't for that 18th century militia they'd all be speaking the queens English and eating tea & krumpets. Make no mistake, the founding fathers new exactly what they were doing when they set forth the bill rights. Enough to know there would be no lasting 1st amendment if the 2nd Amendent ceased to exist.
They are kidding themselves (Maher, Costas) as they sit in their coffered ceiling parlors while collecting their million dollar salaries if they think their safe from it all. When the bottom drops out they and every other libtard will be faced with the stark reality of their actions as the SHTF. They'll wish there was even an 18th century militia with muskets at the point. Just hope I'm around to see the looks on their faces.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts
All I can say is Bull Mahr is EXTREMELY left. His view does not represent the Democratic or liberal party as a whole any more than Muslim Extremist terrorists represent their entire religion.

I am a hunter, sportsman, gun enthusiast, and also a democrat. I believe in the second amendment being put down by our founding fathers as a safeguard against the government from doing what Britain was doing before the revolutionary war. But I also see how the second amendment can be interpreted differently. It is one of the only (or very few) places the constitution used the phrase "well regulated." Meaning, regulated by the government, states, or some other "official" body of people.

I do not in any way believe any form of gun control not already put in place (at least suggested to this day) would have any impact on the crime rate involving guns. America does have an epidemic of gun related crime, and we should strive to take action to reduce this violence, but we shouldn't get caught up on petty squabbles about political maneuvers.

President Obama said it perfectly in his debate against Governor Romney during the elections. It was the debate using the "town hall" style where they was asked questions by the people of that area. The question asked was regarding Aurora Colorado, if he believed we needed tighter gun legislation to help stem the tide of gun violence. His answer was amazing: Education. He stated that he believed if we provide the children in rough neighborhoods with high crime rates better education, more chances at college, and of a future worth living rather than a life in a street gang devoid of morals and steeped in violence then hopefully more youngsters would pull themselves out of that lifestyle and be upstanding citizens rather that street thugs.

Lets focus on the people pulling the trigger, not the trigger itself.


--Alex
 
  • Like
Reactions: Country Girl

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts
If it weren't for that 18th century militia they'd all be speaking the queens English and eating tea & krumpets. Make no mistake, the founding fathers new exactly what they were doing when they set forth the bill rights. Enough to know there would be no lasting 1st amendment if the 2nd Amendent ceased to exist.
They are kidding themselves (Maher, Costas) as they sit in their coffered ceiling parlors while collecting their million dollar salaries if they think their safe from it all. When the bottom drops out they and every other libtard will be faced with the stark reality of their actions as the SHTF. They'll wish there was even an 18th century militia with muskets at the point. Just hope I'm around to see the looks on their faces.
Bill is not any better not worse than Rush Limbaugh. If I remember correctly Rush called a woman a slut and thought because she wanted birth control pills to be included into Medicare she should video tape herself having sex and post it to the Internet so the taxpayers "get something back for their money" since they are paying her to do so. however, b.c. Pills have other medically beneficial traits over just lowering pregnancy rates. I dont think "entertainers" or comedians should be taken seriously politically. Just like Stephen Colbert, or John Stewart. I like watching and listening to these people, but not while I take anything they say seriously.

And by the way, I pray to god I never see the day where America has to use the second amendment. Hundreds of thousands of lives aren't worth an "I told you say" in any way.



--Alex
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
All I can say is Bull Mahr is EXTREMELY left. His view does not represent the Democratic or liberal party as a whole any more than Muslim Extremist terrorists represent their entire religion.

I am a hunter, sportsman, gun enthusiast, and also a democrat. I believe in the second amendment being put down by our founding fathers as a safeguard against the government from doing what Britain was doing before the revolutionary war. But I also see how the second amendment can be interpreted differently. It is one of the only (or very few) places the constitution used the phrase "well regulated." Meaning, regulated by the government, states, or some other "official" body of people.

I do not in any way believe any form of gun control not already put in place (at least suggested to this day) would have any impact on the crime rate involving guns. America does have an epidemic of gun related crime, and we should strive to take action to reduce this violence, but we shouldn't get caught up on petty squabbles about political maneuvers.

President Obama said it perfectly in his debate against Governor Romney during the elections. It was the debate using the "town hall" style where they was asked questions by the people of that area. The question asked was regarding Aurora Colorado, if he believed we needed tighter gun legislation to help stem the tide of gun violence. His answer was amazing: Education. He stated that he believed if we provide the children in rough neighborhoods with high crime rates better education, more chances at college, and of a future worth living rather than a life in a street gang devoid of morals and steeped in violence then hopefully more youngsters would pull themselves out of that lifestyle and be upstanding citizens rather that street thugs.

Lets focus on the people pulling the trigger, not the trigger itself.


--Alex
Actually "well regulated" had another meaning back then. Militias were not regulated by anyone but themselves. "Well regulated" meant well organised, trained, and proficeint with arms, and tactics. They had nothing to do with the government, but they were ready to protect their country from a from foreign invaders, but also a tyranical government as well.
Did ya ever notice how the feds paint local militias as bad guys over the past 40 years?

Just sayin
Pete
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top