A right that's too overbearing(md semi-barf)

diamondbackonline.com ^ | 14 March, 2012 | Alissa Gulin

[Cicero]

Exactly. She says she’s fiscally conservative. I don’t believe it for a minute.

[rlmorel]

Heh, see my response at post #17. After my first post, I just stopped freezing and thought about it a bit, and yes.

The ARE mutually exclusive.

[JRandomFreeper]

All stop, aye.

The student is ignorant.

/johnny

[W. W. SMITH]

Using your same logic it is not possible to be socially conservative and fiscally liberal. Yet we have Santorum.

[TigersEye]

Here’s a head-scratching little nugget: If we weren’t conditioned to think we’re entitled to own a gun, would people get all up in arms if someone restricted their right to bear them?

If you had a brain you would, Alissa. Let's put it this way; if someone told you that you didn't have a right to wear clothes around men and further suggested that your clothing choices should be limited, limited to G-strings in fact, would that be OK with you? Would you have any suspicion at all as to why we wanted you naked at all times, Alissa?

[rlmorel]

"...They are almost always wrong, they just have no understanding of why..."

Boy, you nailed it. I think it might have something to do with this (Though perhaps as much as the one below it! I wanted to post the liberal brain diagram, and the website I found it at had the conservative brain diagram, which I had never seen. Being a conservative, I said: "Yeah...that's about right. I don't think a liberal looking at their diagram would honestly say the same!)

[TwoSwords]

She must have meant viscerally conservative. Either could apply. Proud of their lack of intellect aren’t they?

4.
characterized by or proceeding from instinct rather than intellect: a visceral reaction.

5.
characterized by or dealing with coarse or base emotions; earthy; crude: a visceral literary style.

[rlmorel]

LOL...now what does that say? Ya think old Calvin Coolidge might have been the last President who was a true adherent and proponent of self-reliance?

[TigersEye]

The bridge that spans your cleavage is selfishness. A person can support fiscal conservatism because they don’t want to get hurt financially and social liberalism because they want what they want baby’s lives be damned. Personal responsibility never enters into it for them.

[PubliusMM]

From the article: “The case concerned not the Second Amendment itself, but its scope — which the judge substantially broadened by declaring: “The Court finds that the right to bear arms is not limited to the home.””

Therein lies the faulty logic of the writer. The notion that the judge broadened the scope of the Second Amendment by his declaration that the right is not limited to the home clearly shows this college student doesn’t know a thing about the Amendment, apart from the mental pablum he’s been fed in the government schools.

May God help us all...

[Last Dakotan]

Second Amendment protections were put in place so that the people could shoot operatives of an oppressive government.....not deer.

True, but the deer taste better.

[dr_lew]

I think most people intuitively believe in a natural right to protect ourselves, but not in a natural right to endanger others.

So who can tell me what scene from SEMI-TOUGH leaps to mind ?

[dr_lew]

My personal opinion is that the Second Amendment did make reference to citizen militias, rather than personal ownership of firearms. This is because the right to own a gun was on a par with the right to breathe, and a gun was indeed a necessity of life for many, at that time. I believe this right is more properly covered by the Ninth Amendment, concerning “other rights retained by the people”.

[SIDENET]

Here’s a head-scratching little nugget: If we weren’t conditioned to think we’re entitled to own a gun, would people get all up in arms if someone restricted their right to bear them? If the founding fathers had relied not on horseback but on horsepower, or understood the importance of highway systems and emergency exit routes, or lived on opposite coastlines, might they have protected the right to operate an engine, making our automobile industry radically different? And if — bear with me — one of their children had attended class on the day of a school shooting, might they have been a bit less hasty on amendment number two?

Painful.

[trebb]

I find it counterintuitive that people shouldn’t need a reason to carry a deadly weapon. It seems problematic for the Constitution to necessitate that if I’m not a criminal, drug addict or psychiatric patient, I can tote around my gun just for shits and giggles.. Eliminating the “good and substantial” clause worries me because it shows our government gives more weight to words scribbled on some parchment more than two centuries ago than to an honest, logical evaluation of current gun policy.

Oh my - college is really educating them, isn't it? I can see why she also says "ignoring the Constitution" because I've never seen the clause that talks about criminal/drug addict/psycho when saying the right to bear arms will not be infringed. She obviously only knows what her "perfessers" told her about the Constitution.

[jda]

...foolishness of basing modern public safety laws on a document created for a society utterly different from ours today.

This might be the whole point of this rant - the leftists would have us believe that the Constitution is outdated.

Of course, it is implied that they are the only ones who are enlightened enough to decide what parts are outdated. Their liberal education (isn't that an oxymoron???) obviously didn't teach them that there is a mechanism for changing the Constitution - it's not by concensus of some self-exalted group of liberals, but by agreement of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and two-thirds of the states.