Summations Only

What a bunch of politically correct idiocy GDR. Right, it isn't that the second amendment is intended to protect US from our enemies, but now according to global PC we're to give our enemies the right to attack us via our amendment too.OUR AMENDMENT FOR OUR DEFENSE, get it?DEFENSE, GDR, DEFENSE, that's the purpose of the amendment, against aggressors AGAINST us.That's all ICANT said. What is the matter with you liberals? You want us all dead obviously. Fortunately that will include you too.No I don't agree with ICANT that we have the right to be armed to the degree of a modern army, but you should be tarred and feathered for your insane remark. And so should AZPaul for cheering it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So the right to bear arms under the second amendment is sacrosanct, but the right to free speech under the first amendment, not quite so much ?(Ok, I'll accept that you're employing hyperbole, but re-assure me Faith - whilst you disagree strongly with what many of us say here, you would still defend to the death our right to say it, wouldn't you ?)

Just as there are limits to the right to keep and bear arms there are limits to the right to free speech, and I'm for tarring and feathering people who morally equate the aggressive murderous violence of our enemies with our right to self defense.

Presumably though it's ok just to have those opinions - you'd only tar and feather people who openly expressed them ?

Huh?Is this some kind of weird joke?Speech. Freedom of.Speech.Isn't that the same thing as "openly expressing" something?I know political correctness often tries to proscute people for our thoughts too, but this is rather nuts.

I hope, Faith, that you can recognize GDR's comments as political speech, tongue-in-cheek though they were. He was not saying that them there furriners had 2nd Amendment rights under our constitution. Though on a global scale, as independent nations, he's not really wrong. Scary.[aside]You do know GDR was being facetious to make a point, yes?[/aside]Political speech is exactly what the 1st Amendment is designed to protect. You disagree with what he said and you have the right to disagree and to say so. But he does have the right to say it without being tarred and feathered (what happened to being run out of town on a rail? That is supposed to be part of the standard practice in a tarring and feathering.)The limits on free speech go more toward incitement to do harm.As far as my "cheer," it was a reaction to your "jeer." I don't do jeers and where I think appropriate I try to counterbalance those that do.Anyway, please recognize GDR was making a ridiculous statement as a way of making his larger point. And, please don't tar and feather either of us for exercising the very right you used to make this objection.

His "point" is insane and evil, sorry, I don't care how "tongue in cheek" it was supposed to be and his "point" is wrong no matter how you look at it. There is NO equation between the AGGRESSIVE VIOLENCE of Iran and Korea and OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE --that's DEFENSE, D-E-F-E-N-S-E!no matter how wrong ICANT might be about WHAT arms we have a right to. Consider yourself tarred and feathered.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think it might be time for that cup of tea we talked about earlier.

Precisely the point.Popular uprisings succeed not by the citizenry outgunning the standing military but politically through loss of support for the current regime. Armed rebellion simply declares to the world with greatest clarity that a regime has lost the support of the people. For that purpose standing unarmed before a line of tanks has far greater effect than any popguns.--Percy

American Revolutionary War.

I hope you mean "North" Korea only.Just a quick question though, if those 2 nations are so aggressive and violent... How many wars have they started in the last 20 years?- Oni

Civil Rights Movement- Oni

Faith, welcome back and all that, but you're popping into threads like this one and The Origin of Novelty without taking the time to get the context. In this case you've somehow missed the context of how effectively an armed citizenry can oppose a modern military.Most laws require far more frequent updating than every 200 years, and I think the 2nd amendment is long overdue, especially since there seems to be such a wide variety of interpretation.--Percy

Wilmington Insurrection of 1898.

Do you know how the colonists won the Revolutionary War? Indifference and lack of support in England and foreign intervention.The war would not have been won with out the arms, troops and sea power of the French Empire. Yes, you owe your freedom to the French Monarchy. Personal arms had jack shit to do with winning the Revolutionary War.