General Discussion

Loudly

(2,436 posts)

63. Hey, I listen to right wing loudmouth Mark Levin. He states very emphatically

Mon Jul 28, 2014, 04:47 PM

Jul 2014

that the 2A was invented so that the People might engage in armed rebellion against the government.

An utterly obsolete concept since Lee's surrender at Appomattox Courthouse in 1865.

(Levin doesn't agree with this last part of course!)

So the 2A no longer serves any Constitutional purpose, and is now put forward only by fools and panderers to fools.

Which are YOU?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

90 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Appeal court upholds 'docs vs. glocks' gun law [View all] Baitball Blogger Jul 2014 OP

Florida Man strikes again. onehandle Jul 2014 #1

i agree with you samsingh Jul 2014 #5

+1. There are a few who just can't accept that fact, but not many. n/t Hoyt Jul 2014 #28

Ban all guns PowerToThePeople Jul 2014 #2

given the position of gun lovers, this is the only position that makes sense to me samsingh Jul 2014 #4

Think you have the votes to accomplish that? nt. IronGate Jul 2014 #7

Gun Ownership Conclusively linked to Male Impotence and Penile Necrosis onehandle Jul 2014 #12

Yeah, IronGate Jul 2014 #13

That lot find adolescent jokes a balm for political inefficacy friendly_iconoclast Jul 2014 #23

And why do you think that is? rock Jul 2014 #38

Gee, I don't know. IronGate Jul 2014 #39

It's obvious rock Jul 2014 #40

Non answer. IronGate Jul 2014 #44

Well let me spell it out for you rock Jul 2014 #45

What obviousness of comparison? IronGate Jul 2014 #46

OK since you asked so nicely rock Jul 2014 #47

So, you're a head shrink? IronGate Jul 2014 #48

Don't need to be rock Jul 2014 #50

"Remember I said it's obvious." Declaring it 'obvious' doesn't make it so friendly_iconoclast Jul 2014 #67

Well, I guess I can try to explain this to you for what it's worth rock Jul 2014 #70

Insults to go with your pseudo-Freudian imagery? Feh. friendly_iconoclast Jul 2014 #75

OK you got me rock Jul 2014 #76

wouldn't gun servant be an appropriate description samsingh Jul 2014 #73

I don't object rock Jul 2014 #74

others to consider samsingh Jul 2014 #85

You almost can't go wrong rock Jul 2014 #86

agreed samsingh Jul 2014 #87

Hilarious! badtoworse Jul 2014 #41

Do women who own guns have issues with their nipples getting hard? snooper2 Jul 2014 #56

nope samsingh Jul 2014 #29

Just in: Carrying guns linked to cunnilingus. Eleanors38 Jul 2014 #78

DUzy. IronGate Jul 2014 #82

Thanks. When the opportunity arises. Eleanors38 Jul 2014 #88

All it will take is 2/3 of the states agreeing to repeal the 2A. IronGate Jul 2014 #6

Ban all gun nuts onehandle Jul 2014 #8

How? nt. IronGate Jul 2014 #10

Ban teh Gunz111!1 aikoaiko Jul 2014 #16

Absolutely! mwrguy Jul 2014 #42

So how would you do it, IronGate Jul 2014 #49

It won't be easy, but it's not impossible. mwrguy Jul 2014 #65

And repealing the second amendment doesn't make the right go away. X_Digger Jul 2014 #79

OK SCOTUS. You love the 1A so much? Prove it. Loudly Jul 2014 #3

Civil rights sometimes conflict with each other. In this case, the right to privacy prevailed. badtoworse Jul 2014 #9

Scalia says there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. nt flamin lib Jul 2014 #15

So? badtoworse Jul 2014 #25

So, if it goes to SCOTUS two votes will go against privacy flamin lib Jul 2014 #53

As a technical point, you may be right,... badtoworse Jul 2014 #60

I'll say. The so-called RKBA conflicts with EVERYTHING! Loudly Jul 2014 #52

Do some research so you don't embarrass yourself further. badtoworse Jul 2014 #61

Hey, I listen to right wing loudmouth Mark Levin. He states very emphatically Loudly Jul 2014 #63

I see the problem. Instead of listening to Levin... badtoworse Jul 2014 #64

There can be no "right" to the means of conveniently depriving others of all their genuine rights. Loudly Jul 2014 #66

LOL. You must do lots of pandering. badtoworse Jul 2014 #68

No, I don't suffer fools gladly. Loudly Jul 2014 #69

Sometimes, I do. badtoworse Jul 2014 #71

So obsolete that the battle of athens never happened. beevul Jul 2014 #72

'irrelevant'? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2014 #11

False equivalence pipoman Jul 2014 #17

And that's based on your vast understanding of public health, then, Dr? nt Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2014 #20

based on knowing the difference between pipoman Jul 2014 #22

Maybe you might want to spend a little time on reading about Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2014 #26

Funny, I've had many doctors and not one has pipoman Jul 2014 #33

I've never had one suggest that either. badtoworse Jul 2014 #36

Never had these questions asked. Hangingon Jul 2014 #62

Do you know doctors who would dismiss patients for saying they would not like to disclose... aikoaiko Jul 2014 #19

'no apparent health threat'? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2014 #21

Fabricated statistics aside, are you proclaiming a 'comic' being something more? pipoman Jul 2014 #24

Ah, Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2014 #31

So then you will hang onto the truth if someone posts NRA stats, eh? pipoman Jul 2014 #35

There are lots of dangers in the home. aikoaiko Jul 2014 #27

exactly samsingh Jul 2014 #30

+1 Zenlitened Jul 2014 #37

It's irrelevant to the doctor's advice. X_Digger Jul 2014 #81

No reason at all for Doctors to be concerned ... GeorgeGist Jul 2014 #14

True or not (and likely not), it's still none of their business. badtoworse Jul 2014 #34

good one marions ghost Jul 2014 #83

Doctors can still hand out information on baby proofing homes from any danger aikoaiko Jul 2014 #18

As a physician I would have no problem asking a patient about this...... Swede Atlanta Jul 2014 #32

Therein is the issue pipoman Jul 2014 #43

Allowing the patient to not answer without dismissing ten from your care makes you a good doctor aikoaiko Jul 2014 #51

"may be contributing..." So, you have a standard. Eleanors38 Jul 2014 #80

This case, in addition to the lobbying that went on to deny funding to the CDC from researching gun LanternWaste Jul 2014 #54

This case didn't have anything to do with research or data. aikoaiko Jul 2014 #55

Right. It had to do with doctors asking patients questions related to gun ownership, yes? LanternWaste Jul 2014 #57

Yes, in order to prevent doctors from denying medical services aikoaiko Jul 2014 #58

That's precisely how I read it. But thanks for the relevance...? LanternWaste Jul 2014 #59

Conservatives rail against government interference in dr & patient relationship gerogie2 Jul 2014 #77

That's not quite accurate. The law allowed such questions is medically necessary or for safety. aikoaiko Jul 2014 #89

Wayne LaPierre, kindly stay the fuck out of my doctor's office. Paladin Jul 2014 #84

Sounds like you are unfamiliar with the history of this law. ManiacJoe Jul 2014 #90