Second Amendment, freedom, and tyranny

It shall not be infringed,

Without the second amendment it is easy to take the next steps to infringe on our freedoms and liberty. We have been losing our fights for many years and not said much. Get rid of that large drink it is not good for you. Wear that seat belt and helmet make sure you smoke 20 feet from that door.

Why are the Progressives so set on eliminating this protection?

Tell that to the families of the dead children of Newtown. How many more children must die so that grown men with little dicks can carry phallic symbolsof death and destruction to compensate their inadequate manhood?

If the headmistress of that school had been armed and trained, along with some key staff, they might still be alive, and so might most of those kids.

There are a lot of hypothetical situations where things might have been different. But without Lanza having access to the weapons he did, the tragedy most likely would have been avoided.

That was his mother's responsibility. But that's no justification, nor even excuse, to leave the populace vulnerable to external--or internal--enemies.

First of all Newtown is a tragedy!
Second Newtown is an aberation!
Third "grown men with little dicks can carry phallic symbolsof death and destruction to compensate their inadequate manhood" (sic), are mostly the criminals!

Now down to some facts.
Had Sandy Hook not been a gun free zone the chances that this would, or could of occurred fall to near ZERO.
The occurrence of mass shootings has remained, remarkably stable for decades. http://articles.latimes.com/2...
Fatal gun crime is 0.09% of all crime, 0.072% of all violent crime, and 3.69% of gun crime. Yet you want to penalize all of the LEGAL & LAW ABIDING to try and get at the criminals who as a matter of definition IGNORE LAWS. How is anything being proposed going to change any of this? The "nut" in Aurora drove past at least two theatres to get to one that "prohibited" patrons from carrying within the building. Colorado has made its citizens LESS safe by passing a law "prohibiting" guns on colleges & sport stadiums!

As to your comment; "grown men with little dicks can carry phallic symbolsof death and destruction to compensate their inadequate manhood". (sic)
Cops are "grown men with little dicks can carry phallic symbolsof death and destruction to compensate their inadequate manhood"?

Pretty much common sense that the founding fathers did not intend to have thermonuclear weapons under everyone's couch. But then common sense is not as common as it ought to be.

I'm pretty sure that the phrase "right to keep and bear arms" explicitly means arms that a person can carry ("bear").

Either that, or they meant this:

Suitcase nukes?

Still emotion rather than reason!

This is not a logical argument but an emotional one. Meant to distract from the discussion at hand!

As if the discussion at hand was logical and not emotional? Lol! Or was my sarcasm too subtle?

The left only works from emotion! Logic is a foreign to them as bicycles are to fish.

Thank you for that emotional response devoid of any facts. You undermine your own words just by posting them.

Not a bit of emotion in; "The left only works from emotion! Logic is a foreign to them as bicycles are to fish."
Only an observation & levity.
To which you respond with a direct attack on my person, i.e. an emotional response.

The government needs to fear the citizens not the citizens fearing the government. Maybe that's why Obama wants to take away the guns.

And the law abiding, gun carrying citizens will ensure that the Second Amendment is upheld.

"The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to ALL instruments that constitute bearable arms...". Does that include the nuclear tactical recoilless gun, aka Davy Crockett Weapon System?

Another attempt to remove logic & substitute emotion.
Why is it that virtually all arguments from the left are based in emotion?
All that does is distract from the discussion at hand. And endeavor to make reasoned argument moot.

No emotion at all. Just saying that there are obvious limitations.

Problem is that the "obvious" limitations, according to the left, are anything that can fire a bullet.
But that means they either are already slaves or do not understand the purpose of the Amendment.

Just more prattling and fear raising by the know nothing minority.

There are some on the left that know things. It's just that they think their beliefs are better.

You just attempted to explain the difference between the possession of actual knowledge and "faith" in an ideology, Of course arguing from the position of "faith" in an ideology, you managed to screw up that argument, too.

The left is all about emotion to achieve their agenda.

As your faith tells you. You'd be funny, but your explanation based on faith is held by many in this country.

The 2nd amendment is very clear

The 2nd Amendment is a very important addition to our Constitution but is sorely misunderstood by many. For instance, the SCOTUS has held for many years that it is constitutional to restrict gun ownership to some individuals. It has also been held for a long time that certain weapons can be banned without violating one's 2nd Amendment rights (see United States v Miller). In all likelihood, the SCOTUS will decide a case(s) this summer regarding the constitutionality of universal background checks and registration.

The body of the militia has always been seen as those able-bodied and available for military service.

I don't understand. Not that I disagree with you but what does that have to do with what I said?

Now I don't know why I said that.

LOL!!! Been there and done that.

Can't get where we are in life without doing that!

Isn't that what they call learning?

Student of SHK.

A civilized society does not need all of its members to "pack heat".

America will never be civilized.

More than 100,000 convicted violent felons are released EARLY from prison every year.

The only way to stop a bad person with a gun, is to kill him. The only reliable way to do that... is with a gun.

Criminals will always have access to guns. There's more than 400,000,000 of them, manufacture of guns is NOT difficult, and import of people and drugs can't even be controlled.

Because criminals will always have access to guns, why the HELL don't you have one?

They are trying to get rid of the Constitution

I'm not understanding why everybody keeps saying Obama wants to get rid of guns? He didn't say that, he said: let's make the application to purchase weapons harder & let's do stricter back ground checks.