- Thread starter CrazyHorse_mk14
- Start date
You think those are really vets? My money says the dwebels are actors hired to play vets. Of course our guy is a vet.
Those idiots don’t speak for me either, and quite frankly they’re dishonorable bastards betraying their oath to protect and defend the constitution.
What I find frightening is the audience lapping up what these veterans have to say. The technical errors (of mechanics and even language) by these veterans are understandable, they are speaking to matters in which they have no training or interest. However, the off-handed dismissal of our Constitution, the writings of the men who penned it, and all subsequent discussion on the matter in the intervening 227 years since it was put down in ink is outright disturbing. Whatever the COTUS may or may not mean is not worth discussion. It all ends with a four word snub, "there is no reason".
If I may be forgiven the temerity to ask why I seem to be told it is because a veteran, a member of the 82nd Airborne or a radio operator, says so. To this I say, no thank you. And to the bleating herd who can't stop fawning over the credentials of a very dismissive Mr. Seal Team 1, I say it is unfortunate that we must part ways. But we don't have to.
I choose to take the road more honorably traveled by the reasoning of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. I find reason in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. I find reason in one U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Joseph Story, who called the American right to bear arms "the palladium of the liberties of the republic."(1) The reasons, and more importantly reasoning, seem to go on for quite a while and well before the birth of our founding documents. In ancient Greek, Roman, and Anglo-Saxon law, the ceremony of freeing a slave included placing a weapon in his hands "as a symbol of his new rank." Aristotle wrote in Politics 68 that "true citizenship included the right to possess arms, and that armed tyrants disarmed the oppressed."
I expect by now that most sheep to have grown tired of that bothersome word, reason. But if you have soldiered on I will try to make things worse for you. Thomas Jefferson said, "The God who gave us life, gave us freedom to defend life." The God word invoked. Probably acid in your eyes.
The dramatic climax of the Book of Esther has Jews assembling in an act of self-defense. On the eve of extermination King Ahasuerus permitted Jews to arm themselves to fight against their attackers: “The king allowed the Jews who were in every city to gather and defend their lives, to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate any armed force of any people or province that might attack them, children and women included, and to plunder their goods.” (Esther 8:11). The armed Jews then “struck all their enemies with the sword, killing and destroying them, and did as they pleased to those that hated them.” (Esther 9:5).
The idea that one is required to surrender his life, or the lives of family, neighbors, or even strangers, in the face of armed attack is foreign to scripture. This is ingrained in Western moral traditions.
Then there is the murkiness of natural law. If you don't like reasoning you probably can't stand people like John Locke, who is an actual liberal. It may be nauseating to snowflakes that liberalism has roots in scripture. It all takes thinking and thinking can be hard, but I urge you to reject the snarkiness of those in the video who are doing everything they can to stop you from thinking for yourself.
John Locke, in his Second Treatise of Civil Government (2), described the right of self defense as a "fundamental law of nature":
Sec. 16. THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man’s life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power [emphasis added].
(1) http://selfeducatedamerican.com/201...berties-of-the-republic-justice-joseph-story/
(2) http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/locke1689a.pdf
If I may be forgiven the temerity to ask why I seem to be told it is because a veteran, a member of the 82nd Airborne or a radio operator, says so. To this I say, no thank you. And to the bleating herd who can't stop fawning over the credentials of a very dismissive Mr. Seal Team 1, I say it is unfortunate that we must part ways. But we don't have to.
I choose to take the road more honorably traveled by the reasoning of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. I find reason in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. I find reason in one U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Joseph Story, who called the American right to bear arms "the palladium of the liberties of the republic."(1) The reasons, and more importantly reasoning, seem to go on for quite a while and well before the birth of our founding documents. In ancient Greek, Roman, and Anglo-Saxon law, the ceremony of freeing a slave included placing a weapon in his hands "as a symbol of his new rank." Aristotle wrote in Politics 68 that "true citizenship included the right to possess arms, and that armed tyrants disarmed the oppressed."
I expect by now that most sheep to have grown tired of that bothersome word, reason. But if you have soldiered on I will try to make things worse for you. Thomas Jefferson said, "The God who gave us life, gave us freedom to defend life." The God word invoked. Probably acid in your eyes.
The dramatic climax of the Book of Esther has Jews assembling in an act of self-defense. On the eve of extermination King Ahasuerus permitted Jews to arm themselves to fight against their attackers: “The king allowed the Jews who were in every city to gather and defend their lives, to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate any armed force of any people or province that might attack them, children and women included, and to plunder their goods.” (Esther 8:11). The armed Jews then “struck all their enemies with the sword, killing and destroying them, and did as they pleased to those that hated them.” (Esther 9:5).
The idea that one is required to surrender his life, or the lives of family, neighbors, or even strangers, in the face of armed attack is foreign to scripture. This is ingrained in Western moral traditions.
Then there is the murkiness of natural law. If you don't like reasoning you probably can't stand people like John Locke, who is an actual liberal. It may be nauseating to snowflakes that liberalism has roots in scripture. It all takes thinking and thinking can be hard, but I urge you to reject the snarkiness of those in the video who are doing everything they can to stop you from thinking for yourself.
John Locke, in his Second Treatise of Civil Government (2), described the right of self defense as a "fundamental law of nature":
Sec. 16. THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man’s life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power [emphasis added].
(1) http://selfeducatedamerican.com/201...berties-of-the-republic-justice-joseph-story/
(2) http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/locke1689a.pdf
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
Pursuit of happiness. Pursuit was put in their to avoid entitlement. To aid and protect in our pursuit they created the 2A.
He said “oh one of those marines “ I wouldn’t doubt they’re all posers! The Navy guy aughta be easy to bust out. He says ST1 but my guess if he was in at all , he’d be more akin to a jessy venture era UDT.
Angry loves to bust posers too
Angry loves to bust posers too
And if all veterans were pro 2A, the media would dismiss them as having PTSD and incompetent. This belief system of a veteran being the go to expert on a weapon's place in society when it aligns with an agenda has no credibility. I think at this point we all understand that pointing at someone with an AR and pulling the trigger will likely kill them. The weapon is functioning AS IT SHOULD. There is no malfunction that is killing people, other than in the shooter's head. Solution is don't point guns at people; I know I have never and I hope I never have to.
Pointing out the obvious here, but haven't there only been 2 school shootings in the last 6 years with an AR? And Sandy hook was questionable because I remember hearing it was found in the trunk of the car
Pointing out the obvious here, but haven't there only been 2 school shootings in the last 6 years with an AR? And Sandy hook was questionable because I remember hearing it was found in the trunk of the car
I don’t know the #’s but it’s safe to say the most dangerous weapon besides cars....
Is a full semi auto handgun
Is a full semi auto handgun
I joined the Navy because I wanted to dedicate a part of my life to service to my country. I got out of the Navy after a single term because I wanted to live the rest of my life as a free man. While in the Navy I was not allowed to have the rights in the bill of rights. In the service you do not have a right to free political speech, you can not speak ill of the POTUS. You can not have a gun in your berthing space. You are not free from unreasonable search, ect ect. While the media always professes respect for service people based on the dangers some of them face, and sometimes they offer some sympathy for the difficulties of being separated from family and far from home. Never have I heard the talking heads explain what made the service difficult for me: which was accepting the reduction in my freedom to choose on a daily basis. Yes I chose to surrender those choices for a period of six years and I do not regret that choice.
Yet today I have to say that being a vet reading from a script asking fellow citizens to surrender their freedoms is treason.
Yet today I have to say that being a vet reading from a script asking fellow citizens to surrender their freedoms is treason.
Well said inmate...I mean shipmate!
Bravo-Zulu.
Similar threads
