Is this board just an echo chamber for the left, especially with regards to the 2nd?

S

Seahawk

12
Christie's latest thread about the 2nd is so full of holes it boggles the mind. Yet, she dutifully bans those that a pro 2nd amendment.

Other than wanting to hear your own echo, why make such a thread on a messageboard?

SCOTUS is clear, the 2nd does carry an individual right and yes, that right can be restricted just like other rights.

It is like the same argument over and over, and only on this board do I see the left banning people from their discussions about it.

Just Plain Politics
 
The 2nd amendment is about a well regulated Militia not the right of every lunatic to buy the means of mass destruction at the corner store. That it is political today is because gun makers made it so, there is a reason there are ads on TV and I'm sure you all can guess why. Money has more power than honesty and commonsense. Seems simple.

"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word 'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state."
 
Thing1 said:
Interesting that you only seem to care about the lefties who threadban.

I've been kept off of plenty of threads.
Click to expand...

Who? I think there is only one rightie who does it, what's his name? I've seen some say ILA, but it is another user they are talking about. And I've already told that prick it is stupid.

The thread ban is really a dumbing down of any board. I've been interested in some discussions here, but then find I am banned from them. I was told I could create my own thread, but by then, the discussion is already over or their friends have circled the wagons.

It is simply a way to keep out opposing ideas. It is shameful.
 
Seahawk said:
Who? I think there is only one rightie who does it, what's his name? I've seen some say ILA, but it is another user they are talking about. And I've already told that prick it is stupid.

The thread ban is really a dumbing down of any board. I've been interested in some discussions here, but then find I am banned from them. I was told I could create my own thread, but by then, the discussion is already over or their friends have circled the wagons.

It is simply a way to keep out opposing ideas. It is shameful.
Click to expand...

It depends. I don't do it, but there are a LOT of disruptive posters here. I get banning quite a few. If someone is just going to come on your thread & be abusive, why open it up to them? And w/ christie, a lot of righties here are just abusive. They're not seeking discussion.

I've been banned from threads by ILA and USF, but there are other righties who threadban frequently. It's a function on the board. If I'm banned, I just move on.
 
midcan5 said:
The 2nd amendment is about a well regulated Militia not the right of every lunatic to buy the means of mass destruction at the corner store. That it is political today is because gun makers made it so, there is a reason there are ads on TV and I'm sure you all can guess why. Money has more power than honesty and commonsense. Seems simple.

"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word 'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state."
Click to expand...

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.


The 2nd says a militia is necessary to the security of a free state....
The 2nd says that the people in a state can have militias....NOT the state can have militias.....
and it says THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED


Certainly, if the people are not allowed to bear arms, there can be no militia.....

The amendment restricts the gov. from removing the right of citizens to arm themselves.....

It ain't rocket science.
 
Seahawk said:
Christie's latest thread about the 2nd is so full of holes it boggles the mind. Yet, she dutifully bans those that a pro 2nd amendment.

Other than wanting to hear your own echo, why make such a thread on a messageboard?

SCOTUS is clear, the 2nd does carry an individual right and yes, that right can be restricted just like other rights.

It is like the same argument over and over, and only on this board do I see the left banning people from their discussions about it.

Just Plain Politics
Click to expand...

If anything this board is right leaning. Though a lot of the rightist trolls don't tend to stay for very long.
 
SIERS072815
 
quote-a-fear-of-weapons-is-a-sign-of-retarded-sexual-and-emotional-maturity-sigmund-freud-35-33-43.jpg


This explains:

Thingy
Legion Fag
Leonthepussy
Darcula
KKKhristiefan
Toxic Titties aka Rana
Rune

And every other liberal running to gobblement to protect them from scary looking guns. Of course liberals think muslimes are their friends you know because the crocodile is going to eat them last.
 
NOVA said:
...The 2nd says a militia is necessary to the security of a free state....
The 2nd says that the people in a state can have militias....NOT the state can have militias.....
and it says THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED


Certainly, if the people are not allowed to bear arms, there can be no militia.....

The amendment restricts the gov. from removing the right of citizens to arm themselves.....

It ain't rocket science.
Click to expand...


No one is saying Americans can't own a gun - and I still disagree that the 2nd is about every tom dick and harriet being armed to the teeth. It ain't rocket science it is common sense, I'd even go so far as to call it a moral sense in a civilized society in which safety matters too. Justice Burger is right, but partisan politics and gun money manage the minds of the fearful. The few NRA members I know agree with regulation. Seems simple, way easier than rockets. Here's a example of why?

"Eric manufactured three more pipe bombs: the Charlie batch. Then he halted production until December. What he needed was guns. And that was becoming a problem.

Eric had been looking into the Brady Bill. Congress had passed the law restricting the purchase of most popular semiautomatic machine guns in 1993. A federal system of instant background checks would soon go into effect. Eric was going to have a hard time getting around that.

"Fuck you Brady!" Eric wrote in his journal. All he wanted was a couple of guns - "and thanks to your fucking bill I will probably not get any!" He wanted them only for personal protection, he joked: "Its not like I'm some psycho who would go on a shooting spree. fuckers."

Eric frequently made his research do double duty for both schoolwork and his master plan. He wrote up a short research assignment on the Brady Bill that week. It was a good idea in theory, he said, aside from the loopholes. The biggest problem was that checks applied only to licensed dealers, not private dealers. So two-thirds of the licensed dealers had just gone private. "The FBI just shot themselves in the foot," he concluded."

Eric was rational about his firepower. "As of this date I have enough explosives to kill about 100 people," he wrote. With axes, bayonets, and assorted blades, he could maybe take out ten more. That was as far as hand to-hand combat would get him. A hundred and ten people. "that just isn't enough!"

"Guns!" the entry concluded. "I need guns! Give me some fucking firearms! " p.280 'Columbine' by Dave Cullen [bold added]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top