Justification of the second amendment

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


That is precisely why I brought that law to the attention of the people here. When government is paranoid - which they very clearly are and have been for all time - you will only get yourself in trouble faster by raising flags quite unnecessarily. Caution needs to be exercised because the line is dangerously close to where we're heading here in these threads and their replies.

reply to post by CosmicEgg

Yes I agree....it is kind of like "Catch 22" (you cant get there from here). The government has a right to self preservation also and that conflicts with those who think that it is tyrannical and want to overthrow it.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


The trouble is that people don't even see that so many rights guaranteed in the Constitution are already gone. Not just altered but simply gone. Why are they up in arms (ha! pun) about the right to keep weapons when they can't ever use them in the way they *think* they can? I'm no lawyer but you don't have to be one to look around the web and find out that you're utterly fuXX0red when it comes to any rights, freedoms, or liberties anymore in the US. That's no longer the land of the free and the brave and to be honest it never was. The people who chime in about their freedoms and being the envy of the world just really don't get out of the house enough. lol That's an illusion propagated and perpetuated by your own government and media, and a lot of materialistic and otherwise equally deluded wannabe immigrants.

The whole country is really a real life tragedy.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


Actually, when you think about it: No, the government does not have a right to self-preservation because its sole purpose is meant to facilitate a good and prosperous society for the people of the nation. Ideally that applies to all nations, but people being people....eh. Well, it's only up from here, right?

Government is not a living, breathing being and even if it were, it cannot work against the good of the people in preservation of itself. It is, as one will hear often in American history classes, meant to be of, for, and by the people. What happens to citizens who work against the good of others around them, in pursuit of only their well-being at the detriment of rest?

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
reply to post by CosmicCitizen

 

How's that Constitution thing going for you?

They think they can bear arms to prevent a tyrannical government from overruling them. They cannot. They cannot either plot in any way

In bringing that law to the attention of the members here, I was merely trying to make everyone aware that there is a law whereby you really can't talk about overthrowing the government. You really can't. It wasn't about guns, it was about talking about getting rid of the government

So this versus...

Create a government you can trust. What's the point of having one if you're completely left out of anything good from it?

Actually, when you think about it: No, the government does not have a right to self-preservation because its sole purpose is meant to facilitate a good and prosperous society for the people of the nation. Ideally that applies to all nations, but people being people....eh. Well, it's only up from here, right?

Government is not a living, breathing being and even if it were, it cannot work against the good of the people in preservation of itself. It is, as one will hear often in American history classes, meant to be of, for, and by the people. What happens to citizens who work against the good of others around them, in pursuit of only their well-being at the detriment of rest?

...this.


If I were a smart man, I'd say there's a conflict here. If I were any smarter, I'd think you were a member of said government.