Guys... I Just Don't Get It....

[halfmileharry]

What does this mean exactly? When people say " enemy of the Constitution," it's never sounded right, unless something illegal is being done. Opposition to the second amendment doesn't make one an enemy of the Constitution.

OR...trying to interpret the Constitution into something it was never meant to be. The language is plain and simple. No need to turn it into debate for those with ulterior motives.

 

[Tombs]

So you naturally consider almost every Republican, especially President Bush and VP Cheney, elected in 2000 a "roach?"

Because they didn't try to take away your rights, they 100% absolutely DID take away our rights with the Patriot Act, along with PRISM, XKeyscore, TAO and others! They successfully assaulted our rights, freedoms and liberties without remorse, all of course in the name of the greater good of security and protection.

According to this logic almost every politician elected today OR running for office is a "roach" you won't be supporting, correct?

As onerousness as the NFA and GCA may be, can you please tell me a firearm you are not legally able to own due to these? As near as I can tell I am legally able to own about anything, if not anything, I am able to carry and a lot of weapons I am not able to carry. Whereas under the Patriot Act my right to privacy had been totally obliterated without recourse if the government decides I am a terrorist, and it has NO review or subjective standard to apply. They simple get to say "Doug is a terrorist" and that is all it takes for my right to privacy to die.

However, I doubt that calling republicans who supported the assassination of our rights roaches will do much good, as these poor, misguided sots somehow believed (and some continue to believe) that security trumps liberty. Doing so would simply undermine any hope of a conversation with which to exchange things called facts into their thinking. Of course, even armed with facts, most people don't just turn on a dime and say, "Ah-ha! Boy, was I wrong! I have seen the light from heaven and am sure glad you pointed me in the right direction." Nope. Counterproductive in my opinion.

Regards,

Doug

Yep Bush, Cheney, and even Reagan were absolute nut cases. Thanks to Reagan, the average citizen will never be allowed to own any proper military rifle ever again.

They're all enemies of the constitution and the people of this nation, regardless how clueless the people of this nation are about their rights.

If they do it according to the method set forth by the Constitution, then its valid; albeit distasteful. One could say it's an assault on natural rights, but not the Constitution.

The constitution is a limitation placed on government by the people. You can not repeal natural rights, they are given by the creator and not the government. But you could repeal a limitation placed on government, through the constitutional process provided.

 

[El-Cigarro]

What does this mean exactly? When people say " enemy of the Constitution," it's never sounded right, unless something illegal is being done. Opposition to the second amendment doesn't make one an enemy of the Constitution.

It makes an enemy of me.....

 

[Snipercop]

Same reason it's "OK" for them to take away our right to free speech with ridiculous protests.. If you don't agree with them, you automatically become a target. One more way to take away control.

 

[IndyDave1776]

What does this mean exactly? When people say " enemy of the Constitution," it's never sounded right, unless something illegal is being done. Opposition to the second amendment doesn't make one an enemy of the Constitution.

If you were inclined to be intellectually honest here, you would be forced to acknowledge that most all who attack the Second Amendment will demonstrate other forms of contempt for the constitution that in the case of past and present office holders took an oath to uphold and defend. If opposition to the Constitution doesn't make a person an enemy of the Constitution, I don't know what the hell would make them its enemies. The bottom line is that one either understands that the Constitution established a comprehensive and self-supporting system of maintaining the republic or they do not, or choose not to. Failure to act correctly is generally a willful choice based on fundamental unwillingness to align with the principles of a free people living under a limited government. Those people are enemies of the Constitution and further are enemies of free citizens.

If they do it according to the method set forth by the Constitution, then its valid; albeit distasteful. One could say it's an assault on natural rights, but not the Constitution.

Perhaps true, but they don't do that. The attempt to do an end run around the Constitution by either simply ignoring it or by appointing 'activist' judges who declare that it doesn't really say what it clearly says--and somehow far too many people accept the 'superior' knowledge of these traitors in robes simply because of education and position rather than any actual or supposed merit of their declarations which, often, a common fool could see are nothing short of politically motivated fraud.