Would you be willing to commit violence against fellow Americans of differing viewpoints

My view of any law is that way, Hell my view of REALITY is that way and so is everybody's. This is why we write laws so carefully, and have courts and judges and ****.

And this is why I'm so against the idea that the 2nd Amendment give you the "right" to use deadly force to "defend the Constitution" WHO DECIDES, what constitutes an attack on it?

 

The other keeper thinking is dopey thinking and anti-Constitution.

 

The courts say your interpretation of the 2nd is wrong and the things you seek with respect to same violate it.
So, I ask again:
Why do you refuse to defend the 2nd Amendment?

 

Then why aren't you reading the whole thing? It says that you are under the command of the Commander in Chief and being under someone means that you don't act on any important matter on your own.

I take my duties as citizen seriously too, I've never missed ANY election since I turned 18. (I remember that first one very well, Hammurabi vs Gilgamesh and we had to vote during the Flood)

 

I can disagree with the courts and I can seek to change their erroneous opinion. I've not yet gone out and confiscated anyone's firearms on my own and don't intend to (probably a wise decision on my part, thank you Captain Obvious)

 

Violence is only acceptible as a defensive response to violence. I will not initiate it over words. But I will stand my ground if it is initiated against me.

 

Indeed -- but you, yourself, said we have courts to decide what the constitution means.
Apparently, in terms of obligation to defend the Constitution you talked about, what the court says only matters when you agree.
That being the case, why bother with the courts?

 

Agreed , theyou are a hoot when they are not attacking people or burning cities down ...

 

What the courts, the law, the Bible and the Egyptian Book of the Dead say only matters when you DIS-agree with it enough AND when you manifest that disagreement in action, THEN you go to court (sometimes willingly, others in shackles)

I don't understand what you're saying. Are you arguing the 2nd Amendment says I have no right to say we ought to make laws outlawing firearms? The Constitution is supposed to ensure my freedom, not violate my most basic rights

 

Simple.
The 2nd Amendment, in law, means something you disagree with.
Thus, you believe you have no obligation to defend the 2nd, even though you also say there is a universal obligation to defend the constitution. Similarly, you would agree that, say, a practicing Roman Catholic has no obligation to defend the right to an abortion - even though, as you say, there is a is a universal obligation to defend the constitution.

If you can pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you defend, how can there be the universal obligation to defend the constitution?

 

I'v had to remove snakes from my basement. I put them in buckets and go dump them in the river up the street. The park ranger told me I could have been fined for killing one (I used a snake stick I bought on the Internet years ago and boy was I glad to have that).

Again WHO DECIDES that someone is an enemy? Is the guy next door who plays rap music loud undermining the Constitution?

 

It would be nice if just ONCE you would answer the actual question being put to you. Let me repeat it:

Are you arguing the 2nd Amendment says I have no right to SAY we ought to make laws outlawing firearms?

Let me ask you another question. What do you mean by defense? Does it mean we must agree slavishly? Can we not find things wrong and say so while still defending them?

 

I'm sorry -- we're discussing your refusal to make good on your claim of a universal obligation to defend the constitution.

If you can pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you defend, how can there be the universal obligation to defend the constitution, as you claim?
Well?

 

First of all, your military oath is legally binding at least while you are in uniform. If you disobey an order or disregard command, you can end up in a lot of hot water. Even to the point of even being executed.

Next, no one out of government has an obligation to enforce the Constitution. If you ignore someone's Constructional Rights, chances are good that you and or the company you work for will be penalized. Our Constructional Rights are guaranteed. However, it is up to the courts to enforce them, not the individual.

 

Since you refuse to answer my question I see on reason to answer yours. Answer the question put or go back to your bridge since we're done

 

I accept your concession of the point - you do not in any way believe there is a universal obligation to defend the constitution.

 

I make no such concession, but you refuse to answer a salient question, go defend your bridge and stop wasting our time here.

 

You have.
Disagree?
Explain then how, if you can pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you defend, there can be a universal obligation to defend the constitution, as per you claim.

 

You just listed legal professions which is irrelevant to what I posted lol

 

What happens when someone is given an unconstitutional order? What happens when I am no longer in the military? What happens when one of my governments violates my Constitutional rights? Obviously, not all defense is violent, but I will defend the Constitution. That’s all I meant.

 

I'm glad you weren't bitten by those snakes in your basement, and, no, the guy who plays music loud is not undermining the Constitution.

 

They weren't bitey, just harmless black snakes probably more scared of me than I of them, (though I don't think you can GET more scared than I was at first finding snakes IN MY HOUSE)

OK yes, our rap fan isn't your enemy but WHO DECIDES WHO IS YOUR ENEMY? Who decides who you're going to limber up your arsenal for and then strike down with great vengeance and furious anger. The important part of that oath isn't the part about defending the Constitution as we're ALL supposed to do that, it's that part putting you under the President's command. That part doesn't apply to everyone AND it very definitely implies rather clearly that you are NOT to act on your own in that Constitutional defense since that is what being under someone's command means, yes?

 

Google "civil unrest in the u.s."
Does the proclivity to initiate, or take part in, violence appear to be more related to those holding a Left or a Right leaning viewpoint?

 

Not no, but hell no! Any violent resistance will always be against tyranny, and the destruction by our ruling elites of our rule of law, constitutional republic. That is the only violence we will ever potentially see coming from americans. We might reach a point where the People have to take back the gov't that our Founders gave us. Not even close to reaching that point, although we probably should be. But violent rebellion as only the very last resort.

This idea of the dems waging violence against the repubs, or vice versa is just nonsense. Never happen, IMO. Even as MSM and politics, have worked so hard to divide the american people, and that clearly has some nefarious intent behind it, or perhaps it is just basic human stupidity that is responsible for creating and sustaining the division we see in america today.

I would not lose a minute's sleep in worrying about americans fighting, and murdering other americans because of ideology. The only entity that should worry are the ruling elites and their puppets in DC. For you cannot continue to refuse to represent and refuse to work in the interests of 300 million plus americans and only represent and work in the self interests of a few at the top. History should show us that whenever enough citizens get tired of this top down governance, and their economic suffering reaches critical mass, all sorts of horrible things generally happen to the ruling elites and their puppets, if you have any kind of democratic principled system.

We have also seen, as during the great depression, that economic suffering and a system that is skewed to benefit only those at the very top, puts at risk capitalism, but also those who are allowing the skewing to remain in place. People here need to spend some time in reading about what was actually going on in the US during those terrible years of the 30s. And you don't generally get this education in history from public school, or even in a college level american history course. But it needs to be understood what was going on that prompted FDR the pragmatist in doing what he did. It has been said by more than one historian that FDR is credited with saving capitalism, a capitalism that tends to operate in excess, when the ruling elites get too much power and influence upon the system, so they can structure it, via their puppets in DC in their exclusive favor.

And this skewing happens when the ruling elites basically change an economic model to only enrich themselves, which comes with a tremendous cost, of what it is doing to the majority of americans who are not elites. And eventually, this can lead to people rebelling against it. But not in going to war with other americans, your average american, but gets directed towards the politicians who committed treason against the People, in their own self interests and in the interests of those at the top. Economic suffering has historically been a catalyst, and about the only thing that will bring people together to take on those responsible for that suffering. History teaches quite well where this can lead. And yet, the ruling elite and their puppets in DC have a tendency to think they can pull it off this time, that this time the suffering people will not rebel, and this time these schemes to generate as much disparity in income as possible will be allowed to remain the order of the day.

So, critical mass is all that is needed, given we are of the same psychology today as we were during the french revolution, during the great depression of the 30s. Human nature has not changed since we dropped down from the trees, for it has not evolved.

 

You ask very important questions, Aleks, to which there are no easy "one-liner" answers. What is "unconstitutional"? Who are 'enemies' of our Constitution? It used to be much easier to discern these things... but....

In our time, even something as obviously unconstitutional on its face as "Obamacare" (as voted upon, passed, and signed into law) was actually determined by the Supreme Court to be legal -- but only after Chief Justice John Roberts essentially REWROTE the thing to change it from being a "mandate" (unconstitutional), and becoming instead, a TAX (constitutional). Sure, the process by which Roberts did this was itself also unconstitutional, but does that mean that someone should have taken a shotgun and blown Roberts' head off because he was an enemy? In this instance, Roberts clearly violated the Constitution... but there is no higher legal 'authority' to appeal to. The SCOTUS should have thrown Obamacare out and told Obama and his Democrats in Congress to start over with something that was constitutional, or, forget about it. But that didn't happen....

What does someone do when faced with a situation like that? Ultimately, what "we, the people" did was to elect someone who DID cause Obamacare to be thrown out, so, sometimes it is better to wait for the processes of REAL justice to have an effect instead of acting too quickly, even though living under something like Obamacare is an illegal outrage!

So, I don't recommend grabbing up arms and storming out into the street over most things -- even when something as callously and baldly egregious as "Obamacare" becomes the latest 'outrage du jour'.