Why do the Neo-Communists(neo-coms) laud the Constitution for the first amendment but trample the second?

Question

Neo-Coms are always talking about their right to free speech, yet constantly want to take away our right to defend ourselves. Selective interpretation of our Bill of Rights. Why is that? Why do Democrats and liberals fear my rifle? Is it because when it comes time they can supress our speech and leave us defenseless to topple their socialist tyranny?

Wow, guitar with some well thought out garbage. I think what he just described is hoe the Jews were subdued in the 30's, shot on sight if armed. Wonder if he has any idea thats exactly what he just described, and I say that with no hypebole.

I agree johnny, but don't worry about the U.S. military being turned on us. They ARE us. They are citizens, my brother, my friends, my relatives. They won't be able to turn a million people who are loyal to their country, not government. Plus, technology don't mean sh*t, look at the afghans against the soviets in the 80's. Some rockets and AK's against tanks, planes and superior technology.

Answer 1

They know they have to disarm us before they can displace us.

Down through the course of history, the first strategy to overthrowing a country was to convince the people guns are DANGEROUS. You don't need guns, let us have a safe, peaceful world. Get rid of your guns. Yeah right.

Next thing you know the people are being subjugated by a dictator or communist. They are about the same.

Right now they are using the media to convince us how horrible things are so we will lose faith in our government and country. That is just the preliminary phase.

Next will come the government snooping in your mail, telephone, emails, remote cameras, doublecheking what you read at the library. OOPS! That already happened. The Patriot Act. I can't believe someone in the government had the guts to reveal that it was being used illegally. He is a brave man. I bet he won't live till next Christmas.

So long as a people are well armed the government knows it must respect the peoples wishes (to a point). They know it would be too costly to try to take our guns away. But now, the government has a whole bunch of battle hardened soldiers to turn loose on us. I fear the Iraq adventure was just a proving ground to get the troops hardened. Hope I'm wrong.

Even a well armed civilian population would be a poor match for todays modern high tech army. They got stuff that civilians have never seen or heard of.

Answer 2

Neo-coms?

What a bizarre term.

Many liberals such as myself have no problem with individual citizens owning guns *for the purpose that the Bill of Rights specifies* - i.e. a MILITIA

mi•li•tia
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.

Amendment 2 was in the Bill of Rights because at the time, the federal government had no authority to establish a standing army, and had to rely on the readiness of an "irregular" army.

That's NOT the case, now.

So by all means, get yourself into the Reserve, because that's the modern equivalent of a militia. Be ready to defend the United States.

Amendment 2 doesn't mean "get yourself an arsenal so you can defend your gang territory or blow away police officers when they come to bust up your meth lab".

Read Article 2 in it's entirety (it's not that long....pretty easy read, in fact.). Then do some reading on the militia in the history of the United States - how it was formed, what it's purpose was, under what authority it was formed, how it was used, etc. If you don't have the historical content (which you obviously don't), you really cannot understand what the Second Amendment actually meant at the time it was written.

Answer 3

Neo-cons trample the Constitution in other ways too, mainly when it comes to States' rights. For instance, Oregon voted to loosen restrictions on marijuana and assisted suicide. The Feds stepped-in and stopped it. In other words, the citizens of Oregon don't know what is best for them; only our Wise Guardians in Washington know what is best for us. The believe in States' rights to do what the Feds want them to do.

Look at the way Congess (Republicans included) abuse the commerce clause. Everything the government wants to do, they justify with the commerce clause. A few years ago, Congress wanted to trample Second Amendment rights by disallowing handguns within a 500 yd. radius of schools. How did they get this authority? Why, it is clearly an issue of interstate commerce. The parts used to assemble the gun come from all over the country. The people who assemble the guns are from different states. The guns are sold in all 50 states. This is clearly an issue of interstate commerce (say the statists).

We could be here all night talking about ways Congress abuses its authority. Neo-Cons are the worst. At least the Democrats are pretty up-front about their socialist agenda. Neo-cons seem to have the same agenda, but they insist on calling themselves "conservative."

Answer 4

2nd amendment- "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the maintenance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Why do you guys always forget the first half of it? Talk about "selective interpretation"; the "well-regulated militia" piece was so important, they put it first.
So join the National Guard. I don't fear your rifle. But I would prefer that you register your hand-gun. And it might be reassuring if we could know you're not a psychopath or a convicted felon. Is that really too much to ask?
Although, judging by the tone of your last sentence, you might have some difficuly passing the psycho test. Try to relax, take a deep breath, stomp on a kitten or something that'll take you to your happy place. Now repeat after me, "We are all Americans, we are all Americans..."

Answer 5

In truth, liberals do not laud the 1st amendment. They would readily silence any free speech that speaks against their sad and misguided views. So these liberals/Democrats/Neo-coms fear anything that anyone with an opposing view can use to disagree and defend any point of view that they do not espouse, whether it is words or rifles.

Answer 6

PhD. Laura is a judgmental whiner. pass over Manners, she isn't. She had the spectacular to declare what ever she had to declare. regrettably, her out of control, manic part did not know the version between freedom of speech and rather undesirable style. good riddance! Mr. Wizard: Its MEDGAR EVERS, not Edgar Evers.

Answer 7

Wow, my cat almost got scared of your babble there. You wanna defend yourself, keep a piece in your home, You take it out the door, you should be capped on sight. You're a republican, a proven homicidal bunch of thugs, that would be the best way to handle it. What are you gonna do now? Shot me? Oooh, the wittwe wepubican is angwy, it's scawy.

Answer 8

"A well-regulated militia" does not protect criminals or alienated teenager's right to have rapid fire weaponry.

Defend yourself?

Paranoid much?

I know of no Democrats, or even Socialists who want to murder or subdue you (that the President's self-declared job).

Having rapid fire weaponry easily available to mass murderers is asking for mass murder.

You may like that state of affairs; humans don't.

Answer 9

They are twisted and ill informed and just grossly ignorant. Laws are good to them if it suits them and they could care less about our quality of life. In a nutshell, they are hypocrites and cowards and oh so un American. Savages is a good word for those creatons.

Answer 10

It seems to be a popular idea amongst the far left that you're free to say anything you want, as long as you agree with them, and they seem to love the freedom of religion, as long as you're not a Christian.