TexasCHLforum.com

This is one of the worst (and laziest) arguments I've seen against the 2nd Amendment!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-cu ... 72428.html?

Lumberjack98 wrote:This is one of the worst (and laziest) arguments I've seen against the 2nd Amendment!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-cu ... 72428.html?

Completely incoherent.

I refuse to read buzzfeed anymore. They are hands down the worse than CNN on getting facts straight. They do have some great recipes though!

Words fail me. Well, that's not true. I had words to reply to that article. What an idiot!

So, a criminal approaches me and wishes to shoot me and unlawfully deprive me of my property without due process, and I am somehow equally wrong if I shoot him, thus depriving him of a right to a trial?

This from the same folks who think that a murderer should live, but that a baby deserves to die. My sig line explains it well.

It's not often an essay by a 5th grader gets this kind of prominence. Childish, puerile might be adequate descriptions.

I am not even sure that the article made a point. Not understanding what the "Five Aims of the USA" is supposed to be I did a simple google search. First two replies referenced a group wanting to purchase overseas property and the Institute for Health Improvement. However, this was the third reply:
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals

I couldn't finish the first paragraph. It went incoherent that quickly.

The author of the article mentions the "Five Aims" in an earlier article in the series. They are from the Preamble to the US Constitution, "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." From his worldview, it seems apparent that he values the first four as applied to the general population much more highly than the last as applied to individuals.

From my reading of the Founders, individual liberty, individual property and being safe in ones person were the lynchpins of society, and these led to the creation of a government to secure these and, in aggregate, the other things mentioned in the Preamble. I guess the author has only gone as far as reading the Constitution and establishing his own hierarchy of the stated values based on a Progressive upbringing. It's too bad folks can't (or don't) take time to look deeper into the WHY and HOW of things rather than investing themselves in the WHAT, WHERE, WHEN tripe they are fed without validating it.

That article was nothing but a bunch of convoluted claptrap. He failed in his second sentence:

The Second Amendment is highly contested. There is no doubt that people do have the right to carry and have a stockpile of guns (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) and a state has the right to organize a well-regulated Militia.

Even the most cursory observation of our founding fathers' writings tell us that one of the purposes of the militia is to oppose a tyrannical government. That alone indicates the government (at any level) has no control over the militia an no authority to organize it.

Middle Age Russ wrote:The author of the article mentions the "Five Aims" in an earlier article in the series. They are from the Preamble to the US Constitution, "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." From his worldview, it seems apparent that he values the first four as applied to the general population much more highly than the last as applied to individuals.

From my reading of the Founders, individual liberty, individual property and being safe in ones person were the lynchpins of society, and these led to the creation of a government to secure these and, in aggregate, the other things mentioned in the Preamble. I guess the author has only gone as far as reading the Constitution and establishing his own hierarchy of the stated values based on a Progressive upbringing. It's too bad folks can't (or don't) take time to look deeper into the WHY and HOW of things rather than investing themselves in the WHAT, WHERE, WHEN tripe they are fed without validating it.

Thank you for researching his previous work. No way I could have managed through it even though I do try to exam opposing views to see what I am up against. Thanks again.

Huffington Post. That's all I needed to see. Unfortunately their audience will take it all in as gospel.

As was said of one of Sen. Warren Harding's speeches, “an army of pompous phrases moving over the landscape in search of an idea.”

“an army of pompous phrases moving over the landscape in search of an idea.”

This sounds like the definition of political speech to me.