Second Amendment Supporters Have All Failed!

a reply to: howmuch4another

a reply to: beezzer

Oh man Porkchop lol gonna steal that.
Gonna call everyone that. Love it.

originally posted by: HauntWok
simply put, if you intend to protect every Americans rights under the constitution, it has to be EVERY American.

Not just who you have political or racial aliegences to.

That being said, my fellow militia-man, what did you do to protect the rights of the people who you felt had them violated?

Let me see if I understand. We're failures because we didn't mobilize with our guns in support of a bunch of thugs and criminals who were rioting in support of a fellow thug and criminal who was killed while committing felony assault on a police officer. If that's your definition of failure, well, I'm glad we failed.a reply to: HauntWok

originally posted by: HauntWok
simply put, if you intend to protect every Americans rights under the constitution, it has to be EVERY American.

Not just who you have political or racial aliegences to.

But wait you said that this isn't about race! You said:

This ain't about race, this is about Americans being persecuted by a tyrannical government.

You can't have it both ways, so which is it going to be. Is this an anti second amendment racially motivated hate thread, or is it as you say, just about the people being as you put it "persecuted"?

a reply to: luciddream

exactly. this is probably the first time I've starred a post of yours.

a reply to: HauntWok

My point is valid.

No it isn't. Mostly because you do not understand a few key provisions of the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment is an individual right as well as an affirmation of the right of the people to act in self defense.

The point of the second Amendment is the defense of the people against a tyrannical government.

Haven't you spent a lot of time arguing how invalid the notion of self defense against government is? Why the change of mind now?

You all failed to do that, instead, you argued for that tyranny.

No. The people involved in their community failed. Why on Earth would any reasonable person show up and start shooting when facts are muddied water at best, even to this day? Why would you have people go in guns blazing without proper intel on the situation? Yet another aspect of armed conflict you anti gun folks simply don't understand.

You failed to protect your brothers.

Defending looters and rioters is not something that I will ever use my guns for.

Defending peaceful protesters from police killing them, definitely. That situation was tense enough. In those types of situation you DO NOT SHOOT FIRST.

Don't fire unless fired upon...Or would you rather we act as the aggressors?

You are failures. You failed, and there is a segment of Americans that now know that the pro second Amendment crowd, will not be able to really on you.

You could always trying relying on yourself and exercising you own INDIVIDUAL right to arms. Join with like minded individuals. Start a militia. Stop asking everyone else to do the fighting for you pansy.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I don't have a gun.

But, i at least supported our soldiers fighting for their first amendment rights which you also with your guns failed to protect.

Reporters were arrested in Ferguson, and no militia were there to help them.

Hard to blame me, an anti second Amendment person for the failure of those that profess that the second protects the first when that doesn't happen.

originally posted by: howmuch4another
a reply to: luciddream

exactly. this is probably the first time I've starred a post of yours.

It will probably the last. Lol ill star you as well.

Our perspective is at polar opposite.

originally posted by: Oudoceus
Let me see if I understand. We're failures because we didn't mobilize with our guns in support of a bunch of thugs and criminals who were rioting in support of a fellow thug and criminal who was killed while committing felony assault on a police officer. If that's your definition of failure, well, I'm glad we failed.a reply to: HauntWok

You have no proof the officer was assaulted, it could be true that man was shot due to race, we simply don't know all the facts yet. Not everyone there was rioting, they were not all thugs, to put them all in the same framework makes you no better than the ass on here calling all gun owners cowards. This really is not about race, it is about the government not being held accountable for any of their actions and that includes their ignoring the plight of young black men. Society will always have bad eggs, some humans are just born to be evil, our duty is to understand how to remedy the issue together as a human race. We need to overhaul our political system with term limits, no lobbying etc. But that's a whole new thread.

a reply to: HauntWok

I don't have a gun.

Of course you don't.

But, i at least supported our soldiers fighting for their first amendment rights which you also with your guns failed to protect.

I'm an active duty soldier in the United States Army. I don't need you to protect me. My fidelity is to the Constitution. You seem to have a lot against a fundamental American right. Which means you don't speak for me and most of my fellow soldiers.

Reporters were arrested in Ferguson, and no militia were there to help them.

All you want is bloodshed. Not justice.

Hard to blame me, an anti second Amendment person for the failure of those that profess that the second protects the first when that doesn't happen.

Do you hear the cognitive dissonance spewing out of your mouth? You're anti-second amendment, yet want people who you hate to protect your ass with a right you don't want them to have?

originally posted by: HauntWok
I don't have a gun.

You do not need a gun to be part of the Militia as outlined by the Framers. You are already part of it, like it or not my fellow militia-man.

But, i at least supported our soldiers fighting for their first amendment rights which you also with your guns failed to protect.

I saw quite a few people exercising their First Amendment rights until the hooligans in the crowd decided to throw objects and loot.

Reporters were arrested in Ferguson, and no militia were there to help them.

Do they still require relief or were they freed almost immediately?

Hard to blame me, an anti second Amendment person for the failure of those that profess that the second protects the first when that doesn't happen.

Oh, I see, a rather insipid case of do as I say and not as I do. It is your right as a free citizen to excoriate others for what you do not have the testicular or intestinal fortitude (emphasis on the former) to undertake yourself. It does not however make you right.

originally posted by: luciddream

originally posted by: howmuch4another
a reply to: luciddream

exactly. this is probably the first time I've starred a post of yours.

It will probably the last. Lol ill star you as well.

Our perspective is at polar opposite.

yeah but I bet we could argue while having a beer and not get into a fist fight.t...really.

a reply to: HauntWok

They came for your brothers. And you didn't lift a damn finger, you didn't care, you argued semantics, you argued against the unarmed American gunned down.

Where were all the well financed well armed street gangs?

Hiding and scared stiff I would imagine.



You were warned about this for years.

You laughed at and cursed the Militia efforts at Bundy Ranch.

You cursed and spit at the "Conservatives".

I bet they would have helped, but nobody invited them nicely like Bundy did.

So a few reporters were detained (and then released) and we are supposed to do what with our guns exactly?

That's not really tyranny and it certainly does not require and armed response.

a reply to: HauntWok

You have the duty to protect and defend a free state.

Reporters were arrested, they weren't looting. And you failed to protect them from tyranny.

Accept your failure.

You're so full of it. Are your hands broken or something? No one is stopping you from arming up and taking on the Government. Well, how about it? You seem very eager for everyone else to go start a civil war. Well what are you waiting for Guevara Jr., lead the way!

And dumped into the 'Rant' forum where a thread about crying what other people should be doing while you do the opposite belongs...

a reply to: projectvxn

First, let me say, I'm glad you came to this thread, i respect you, and appreciate your input. I consider you a good friend to me, and I enjoy the level headed input you bring to threads like this.

First, let me confirm, the second Amendment is a singular sentence.

A coma is not a period.

That being said, isn't it logical that the entire second Amendment is inclusive?

Which means that in order to preserve the entire second Amendment, it has to be inclusive.

Which means that even when reporters are in peril from a tyrannical government it is your task to defend them from tyranny.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I don't have a gun.

But, i at least supported our soldiers fighting for their first amendment rights which you also with your guns failed to protect.

Reporters were arrested in Ferguson, and no militia were there to help them.

Hard to blame me, an anti second Amendment person for the failure of those that profess that the second protects the first when that doesn't happen.

I am glad to hear you don't have a gun, your blood thirsty attitude makes me nervous. You cannot pick and choose which part of the constitution you will abide by, at least not in this country. I will gladly buy you a one way ticket to any country that bans guns, the only stipulation is that I watch you board the plane.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Which means that even when reporters are in peril from a tyrannical government it is your task to defend them from tyranny.

How do you infer all that from this:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

?

Seems more like a right and not an obligation to grab guns and start shooting when an ATS member calls tyranny...