Why liberals should love the 2nd Amendment

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Ghost of Cutten, Sep 6, 2010.

  1. So you're saying that Muslims can exercise their first ammendment right to build their mosque two blocks from ground zero; but those that oppose it must sit silently and have no first ammendment right to say that it's causing great pain to the families of the 9/11 victims.

    #31     Sep 6, 2010
  2. They can say whatever they want. Show me where I said they couldn't.
    I am saying this, and this only: the First Amendment comes first. Not only that, within the First Amendment, religious freedom is the very first thing mentioned, and all of the rights enumerated in the First Amendment are enumerated without condition of any sort.
    So, they can say the Earth is flat, they can espouse Nazism, Communism, or any other ism they feel like. Just don't come back and tell me that these same people are somehow lovers of liberty, when their words show that they're not.
    #32     Sep 6, 2010
  3. Please give the name of one person who has said that Muslims have no constitutional right to build the mosque. I have been unable to find a single person making that argument.

    What I see is two sides exercising their First Ammendment rights, and I believe that both sides rights should be fully and equally protected.

    #33     Sep 6, 2010
  4. You obviously didn't read my reply. That entire post is made of burning straw.
    Go back and read what I wrote.
    #34     Sep 6, 2010
  5. I'm trying to have a respectful discussion about protecting both sides in this Constitutional debate. Protecting both sides is the foundation of liberty.

    If you don't want to talk about it anymore, that's fine; but "burning straw" insults are unnecessary.

    #35     Sep 6, 2010
  6. No, it's an accurate characterization: it's one thing to say someone has a right to be against that mosque. I've never and would never argue that point, but you keep raising it as if I've somehow argued it. That's a strawman.
    What I am arguing, and what you are either deliberately missing or not is this: it's typical of the right that they would argue against the mosque, because freedoms outside of the right to make money and bear arms are freedoms they're not interested in.
    You can easily infer this from the behavior of the politicians who represent the right, almost all of whom have taken a strong position against the mosque.
    The Second Amendment is there to protect what's in the First Amendment. It becomes useless to argue vehemently for the Second if you find any exercise of the liberties guaranteed in the First to be offensive. That makes the Second an empty shell.
    If that's not clear, I can't help you.
    #36     Sep 6, 2010
  7. Hello


    So why dont you kindly point me to the legislation which has taken away muslims right to practice their religion.... Oh yeah i forgot you cant find any......

    So because its "typical of the right" to say something perhaps it should not be said, is this what you are implying? Is there any less meaning in what right wingers say because they stand up for certain values? Perhaps because the left stands up repeatedly for certain values we shoulde strip them of their constitutional rights.... Would this make you happy? I could find all kinds of situations where the left has shattered the constitution, and it would not just be through their thoughts/words it would be through actual legislation.

    Maybe we should change the dialogue to something you would find more suitable.... Perhaps when we all tow your line we would be properly following the "constitution."

    Tinfoil is a dumbass.
    #37     Sep 7, 2010
  8. That's a libtard red herring like the race card is for disagreeing with Obama's policies. So you fuck off.
    #38     Sep 7, 2010
  9. Did you even read the article? Apparently not.
    #39     Sep 7, 2010
  10. Hello


    +1 :)
    #40     Sep 7, 2010