The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?

[Little-Acorn]

The 2nd amendment's mention of a militia, is merely an explanation for WHY the right to keep and bear arms mustn't be infringed.

If the first thirteen words of the 2nd amendment were removed, it wouldn't change the amendment's impact or effect the slightest bit. It would still be illegal for any government in the US to restrict or take away people's guns.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?



But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

then why does the very first clause of the 2nd mention the necessity of regulation?


regulate

verb reg·u·late \ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt also ˈrā-\
: to set or adjust the amount, degree, or rate of (something)

: to bring (something) under the control of authority

: to make rules or laws that control (something)

The amendment talks about the "well regulated militia", this means THE militia and not any old militia. It's THE militia which can be called up by the feds,a.

The founding fathers NEVER intended to allow the state militia to be called by the feds

"Liberals from Patrick Henry to Jefferson to Richard Cobden all understood standing armies as engines of government force. The best answer to this, the liberals believed, was to make military force decentralized, localized, and subject to local approval from a multitude of (often conflicting) jurisdictions. This built in diversity of opinions and an informal system of vetoes provided barriers to capricious use of military force. In other words, politicians could only deploy the power of armies after obtaining a consensus among those who would provide the money and the men needed for military action.."


PS "liberals" referred to classical liberalism - not the liberals as the term is used nowadays which are fascists or government supremacists


.

What?


Firstly it doesn't matter what some of the Founding Fathers never intended. We got what we got because of the Founding Fathers and their give and take for the good of the country.

Secondly liberalism and conservatism changes based on the era anyway. I mean, liberalism back then was showing your ankles. Conservatives can all show their ankles and knees nowadays. Things change.

As for "which are fascist or government supremacists", it just sort of makes me fall asleep. It's not even attempting to be intelligent.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The 2nd amendment's mention of a militia, is merely an explanation for WHY the right to keep and bear arms mustn't be infringed.

If the first thirteen words of the 2nd amendment were removed, it wouldn't change the amendment's impact or effect the slightest bit. It would still be illegal for any government in the US to restrict or take away people's guns.

Some points.

First it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL rather than illegal. Second it wouldn't be unconstitutional to take away people's guns AFTER DUE PROCESS.

 

[Contumacious]

The 2nd amendment's mention of a militia, is merely an explanation for WHY the right to keep and bear arms mustn't be infringed.

If the first thirteen words of the 2nd amendment were removed, it wouldn't change the amendment's impact or effect the slightest bit. It would still be illegal for any government in the US to restrict or take away people's guns.

Exactly.


The Preamble to The Bill of Rights


THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:

 

[Contumacious]

The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?



But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

then why does the very first clause of the 2nd mention the necessity of regulation?


regulate

verb reg·u·late \ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt also ˈrā-\
: to set or adjust the amount, degree, or rate of (something)

: to bring (something) under the control of authority

: to make rules or laws that control (something)

The amendment talks about the "well regulated militia", this means THE militia and not any old militia. It's THE militia which can be called up by the feds,a.

The founding fathers NEVER intended to allow the state militia to be called by the feds

"Liberals from Patrick Henry to Jefferson to Richard Cobden all understood standing armies as engines of government force. The best answer to this, the liberals believed, was to make military force decentralized, localized, and subject to local approval from a multitude of (often conflicting) jurisdictions. This built in diversity of opinions and an informal system of vetoes provided barriers to capricious use of military force. In other words, politicians could only deploy the power of armies after obtaining a consensus among those who would provide the money and the men needed for military action.."


PS "liberals" referred to classical liberalism - not the liberals as the term is used nowadays which are fascists or government supremacists


.

What?


Firstly it doesn't matter what some of the Founding Fathers never intended. We got what we got because of the Founding Fathers and their give and take for the good of the country.

Secondly liberalism and conservatism changes based on the era anyway. I mean, liberalism back then was showing your ankles. Conservatives can all show their ankles and knees nowadays. Things change.

As for "which are fascist or government supremacists", it just sort of makes me fall asleep. It's not even attempting to be intelligent.

In 1787 the Founding Fathers did not intend to create a "country".


They were 13 sovereign independent states joined together to form a federal government which would deal with foreign affairs.

There were many anti-federalists who CORRECTLY opposed the new creation. Time has proven that their fears had a basis in fact.

The new "liberals" aka, the fascists - the government supremacists - have managed to turned the federal government into a gargantuan bureaucracy which controls tall aspects of our lives.


.

 

[Ernie S.]

Is the second amendment the only amendment that gives a reason for its existence? If the reason is no longer needed is the amendment still valid?

Sigh.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

You may not realize this, but this answers your question in full.

Some scholars have contended that the focus on the individual right only arose in the latter part of the last century, and the milita clause was more important, or even the only operative reason for the 2nd amendment. Growing up in rural areas during the 1960s, it always seemed to me that we had a right to own firearms, just as any other tool to be used. So, imo, Scalia got it right in Heller. It's not an unlimited right, but the govt must allow us to protect ourselves and our property.

I don't disagree with that. I own three guns:
1) Chrome plated .38 magnum revolver(S&W)
2) .30 .30 rifle(Marlin saddle gun)
3) 12 gauge semi automatic Remington shotgun
My whole stand on the difficulties we're experiencing about firearms is background checks. Anybody who thinks it's OK for some half crazy numb nuts who's been arrested for domestic violence or treated for mental illness to own an AR-15 or 9mm Glock needs to rethink their position. I understand the NRA wanting him to have five loaded guns at all times but not sane people who have no special interest.

By the way.....the weapon I enjoyed firing most was a 90mm gun when I was a tanker on an M-48 medium patton tank. Imagine a cartridge weighing over 40 pounds, 3ft. in length with an armor piercing projectile nearly 4" in diameter weighing about 20lbs, firing flat trajectory at 3500fpm and smacking a 6'X6' target smack in the bulls eye at 1500 yards. Now that's some fun.View attachment 49127

A .38 magnum????

 

[2aguy]

I don't disagree with that. I own three guns:
1) Chrome plated .38 magnum revolver(S&W)
2) .30 .30 rifle(Marlin saddle gun)
3) 12 gauge semi automatic Remington shotgun
My whole stand on the difficulties we're experiencing about firearms is background checks. Anybody who thinks it's OK for some half crazy numb nuts who's been arrested for domestic violence or treated for mental illness to own an AR-15 or 9mm Glock needs to rethink their position. I understand the NRA wanting him to have five loaded guns at all times but not sane people who have no special interest.

By the way.....the weapon I enjoyed firing most was a 90mm gun when I was a tanker on an M-48 medium patton tank. Imagine a cartridge weighing over 40 pounds, 3ft. in length with an armor piercing projectile nearly 4" in diameter weighing about 20lbs, firing flat trajectory at 3500fpm and smacking a 6'X6' target smack in the bulls eye at 1500 yards. Now that's some fun. View attachment 49127

Background checks? No one thinks it is okay for aggressively violent people to have guns...background checks do nothing to stop that. The NRA actually is against it as well...obviously you have allowed the anti gun extremists to do your thinking for you...otherwise you wouldn't have posted what you posted.

 

[ChrisL]

The 2nd amendment's mention of a militia, is merely an explanation for WHY the right to keep and bear arms mustn't be infringed.

If the first thirteen words of the 2nd amendment were removed, it wouldn't change the amendment's impact or effect the slightest bit. It would still be illegal for any government in the US to restrict or take away people's guns.

Some points.

First it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL rather than illegal. Second it wouldn't be unconstitutional to take away people's guns AFTER DUE PROCESS.

In some instances it most certainly would. Once someone has served their time for a nonviolent crime, what gives the government any "right" to take away an individual citizen's rights? Do you understand that the BOR was meant to PROTECT us from governmental tyranny? The BOR has NOTHING to do with any "rights" of the government to do anything. It is all about OUR rights as citizens. Why would anyone applaud the government taking away an individual's rights? One must ask, who's side are you on?

 

[regent]

The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?



But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Or as Justice Story asked, in effect, how can you keep the second amendment viable without an organization such as a militia? Story also said that for a Constitution to endure it must change with the times. And certainly our weapons and the times have changed since Story was a Justice, 1811-1845.
then why does the very first clause of the 2nd mention the necessity of regulation?


regulate

verb reg·u·late \ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt also ˈrā-\
: to set or adjust the amount, degree, or rate of (something)

: to bring (something) under the control of authority

: to make rules or laws that control (something)

The amendment talks about the "well regulated militia", this means THE militia and not any old militia. It's THE militia which can be called up by the feds,a.

The founding fathers NEVER intended to allow the state militia to be called by the feds

"Liberals from Patrick Henry to Jefferson to Richard Cobden all understood standing armies as engines of government force. The best answer to this, the liberals believed, was to make military force decentralized, localized, and subject to local approval from a multitude of (often conflicting) jurisdictions. This built in diversity of opinions and an informal system of vetoes provided barriers to capricious use of military force. In other words, politicians could only deploy the power of armies after obtaining a consensus among those who would provide the money and the men needed for military action.."


PS "liberals" referred to classical liberalism - not the liberals as the term is used nowadays which are fascists or government supremacists


.

What?


Firstly it doesn't matter what some of the Founding Fathers never intended. We got what we got because of the Founding Fathers and their give and take for the good of the country.

Secondly liberalism and conservatism changes based on the era anyway. I mean, liberalism back then was showing your ankles. Conservatives can all show their ankles and knees nowadays. Things change.

As for "which are fascist or government supremacists", it just sort of makes me fall asleep. It's not even attempting to be intelligent.

In 1787 the Founding Fathers did not intend to create a "country".


They were 13 sovereign independent states joined together to form a federal government which would deal with foreign affairs.

There were many anti-federalists who CORRECTLY opposed the new creation. Time has proven that their fears had a basis in fact.

The new "liberals" aka, the fascists - the government supremacists - have managed to turned the federal government into a gargantuan bureaucracy which controls tall aspects of our lives.


.

 

[RKMBrown]

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "



legislators and regulators have been parsing this sentence for ages...

i note the first 2 clauses as a dependent presupposition to the right, and i see "the people" as a fine balance of individuals and the collective... together we define what it means to keep and bear arms and how to regulate ourselves...

That's because you're a moron.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

then why does the very first clause of the 2nd mention the necessity of regulation?

It speaks of the militia being regulated, not arms nor the people's right to keep and bear them. The latter, it forbids from being infringed.

And “regulated”, as used in the Second Amendment, does not mean what you think it does. Of the definitions which you posted, the first is closest to correct. It is the difference between an orderly, organized military unit and a chaotic, unruly mob.

regulate

verb reg·u·late \ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt also ˈrā-\
: to set or adjust the amount, degree, or rate of (something)

: to bring (something) under the control of authority

: to make rules or laws that control (something)

 

[Bob Blaylock]

First it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL rather than illegal.

Unconstitutional is illegal.

Anything which violates the law is illegal. The Constitution is the highest law in this nation, so anything which violates it is illegal. This includes the enactment and enforcement of any lesser law which violates it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

In some instances it most certainly would. Once someone has served their time for a nonviolent crime, what gives the government any "right" to take away an individual citizen's rights? Do you understand that the BOR was meant to PROTECT us from governmental tyranny? The BOR has NOTHING to do with any "rights" of the government to do anything. It is all about OUR rights as citizens. Why would anyone applaud the government taking away an individual's rights? One must ask, who's side are you on?

No need to ask. Anyone who supports any gun control laws is, either through willful intent or through ignorance, on the side of violent criminals and tyrants, and against that of the American people.

 

[ChrisL]

In some instances it most certainly would. Once someone has served their time for a nonviolent crime, what gives the government any "right" to take away an individual citizen's rights? Do you understand that the BOR was meant to PROTECT us from governmental tyranny? The BOR has NOTHING to do with any "rights" of the government to do anything. It is all about OUR rights as citizens. Why would anyone applaud the government taking away an individual's rights? One must ask, who's side are you on?

No need to ask. Anyone who supports any gun control laws is, either through willful intent or through ignorance, on the side of violent criminals and tyrants, and against that of the American people.

If a person were to look back into our history, they would realize that these types of mass shootings are relatively new. Guns have been here since the beginning. Only recently has the blame shifted from an individual's actions to the inanimate object. They try to control the gun in order to control the people. It's a silly premise. I don't have a problem with "common sense" regulations and laws, some of them just don't make sense though.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?



But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

then why does the very first clause of the 2nd mention the necessity of regulation?


regulate

verb reg·u·late \ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt also ˈrā-\
: to set or adjust the amount, degree, or rate of (something)

: to bring (something) under the control of authority

: to make rules or laws that control (something)

The amendment talks about the "well regulated militia", this means THE militia and not any old militia. It's THE militia which can be called up by the feds,a.

The founding fathers NEVER intended to allow the state militia to be called by the feds

"Liberals from Patrick Henry to Jefferson to Richard Cobden all understood standing armies as engines of government force. The best answer to this, the liberals believed, was to make military force decentralized, localized, and subject to local approval from a multitude of (often conflicting) jurisdictions. This built in diversity of opinions and an informal system of vetoes provided barriers to capricious use of military force. In other words, politicians could only deploy the power of armies after obtaining a consensus among those who would provide the money and the men needed for military action.."


PS "liberals" referred to classical liberalism - not the liberals as the term is used nowadays which are fascists or government supremacists


.

What?


Firstly it doesn't matter what some of the Founding Fathers never intended. We got what we got because of the Founding Fathers and their give and take for the good of the country.

Secondly liberalism and conservatism changes based on the era anyway. I mean, liberalism back then was showing your ankles. Conservatives can all show their ankles and knees nowadays. Things change.

As for "which are fascist or government supremacists", it just sort of makes me fall asleep. It's not even attempting to be intelligent.

In 1787 the Founding Fathers did not intend to create a "country".


They were 13 sovereign independent states joined together to form a federal government which would deal with foreign affairs.

There were many anti-federalists who CORRECTLY opposed the new creation. Time has proven that their fears had a basis in fact.

The new "liberals" aka, the fascists - the government supremacists - have managed to turned the federal government into a gargantuan bureaucracy which controls tall aspects of our lives.


.

Correctly opposed? You make it sound like there was only one correct option. It's a matter of opinion, not of right and wrong.

And then you go and start labelling liberals as fascists. Oh, it gets so tiring listening to this nonsense. Use your brain for once instead of resorting to the default insulting.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The 2nd amendment's mention of a militia, is merely an explanation for WHY the right to keep and bear arms mustn't be infringed.

If the first thirteen words of the 2nd amendment were removed, it wouldn't change the amendment's impact or effect the slightest bit. It would still be illegal for any government in the US to restrict or take away people's guns.

Some points.

First it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL rather than illegal. Second it wouldn't be unconstitutional to take away people's guns AFTER DUE PROCESS.

In some instances it most certainly would. Once someone has served their time for a nonviolent crime, what gives the government any "right" to take away an individual citizen's rights? Do you understand that the BOR was meant to PROTECT us from governmental tyranny? The BOR has NOTHING to do with any "rights" of the government to do anything. It is all about OUR rights as citizens. Why would anyone applaud the government taking away an individual's rights? One must ask, who's side are you on?

Well, the question is what is a person's time? Jail time isn't the only time. Having rights limited could also be considered time.

Take the right to bear arms. The right to be in the militia. Do you really want ex-cons in your military when you need to have discipline? I mean ex-cons aren't allowed passports in many cases, they're not allowed to join the proper military. Why would you guarantee their right to be in the militia?

 

[Contumacious]

then why does the very first clause of the 2nd mention the necessity of regulation?


regulate

verb reg·u·late \ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt also ˈrā-\
: to set or adjust the amount, degree, or rate of (something)

: to bring (something) under the control of authority

: to make rules or laws that control (something)

The amendment talks about the "well regulated militia", this means THE militia and not any old militia. It's THE militia which can be called up by the feds,a.

The founding fathers NEVER intended to allow the state militia to be called by the feds

"Liberals from Patrick Henry to Jefferson to Richard Cobden all understood standing armies as engines of government force. The best answer to this, the liberals believed, was to make military force decentralized, localized, and subject to local approval from a multitude of (often conflicting) jurisdictions. This built in diversity of opinions and an informal system of vetoes provided barriers to capricious use of military force. In other words, politicians could only deploy the power of armies after obtaining a consensus among those who would provide the money and the men needed for military action.."


PS "liberals" referred to classical liberalism - not the liberals as the term is used nowadays which are fascists or government supremacists


.

What?


Firstly it doesn't matter what some of the Founding Fathers never intended. We got what we got because of the Founding Fathers and their give and take for the good of the country.

Secondly liberalism and conservatism changes based on the era anyway. I mean, liberalism back then was showing your ankles. Conservatives can all show their ankles and knees nowadays. Things change.

As for "which are fascist or government supremacists", it just sort of makes me fall asleep. It's not even attempting to be intelligent.

In 1787 the Founding Fathers did not intend to create a "country".


They were 13 sovereign independent states joined together to form a federal government which would deal with foreign affairs.

There were many anti-federalists who CORRECTLY opposed the new creation. Time has proven that their fears had a basis in fact.

The new "liberals" aka, the fascists - the government supremacists - have managed to turned the federal government into a gargantuan bureaucracy which controls tall aspects of our lives.


.

Correctly opposed? You make it sound like there was only one correct option. It's a matter of opinion, not of right and wrong.

And then you go and start labelling liberals as fascists. Oh, it gets so tiring listening to this nonsense. Use your brain for once instead of resorting to the default insulting.

FASCISM DEFINED

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....


Benito Mussolini


Yep, you guys are fascists alright


.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The amendment talks about the "well regulated militia", this means THE militia and not any old militia. It's THE militia which can be called up by the feds,a.

The founding fathers NEVER intended to allow the state militia to be called by the feds

"Liberals from Patrick Henry to Jefferson to Richard Cobden all understood standing armies as engines of government force. The best answer to this, the liberals believed, was to make military force decentralized, localized, and subject to local approval from a multitude of (often conflicting) jurisdictions. This built in diversity of opinions and an informal system of vetoes provided barriers to capricious use of military force. In other words, politicians could only deploy the power of armies after obtaining a consensus among those who would provide the money and the men needed for military action.."


PS "liberals" referred to classical liberalism - not the liberals as the term is used nowadays which are fascists or government supremacists


.

What?


Firstly it doesn't matter what some of the Founding Fathers never intended. We got what we got because of the Founding Fathers and their give and take for the good of the country.

Secondly liberalism and conservatism changes based on the era anyway. I mean, liberalism back then was showing your ankles. Conservatives can all show their ankles and knees nowadays. Things change.

As for "which are fascist or government supremacists", it just sort of makes me fall asleep. It's not even attempting to be intelligent.

In 1787 the Founding Fathers did not intend to create a "country".


They were 13 sovereign independent states joined together to form a federal government which would deal with foreign affairs.

There were many anti-federalists who CORRECTLY opposed the new creation. Time has proven that their fears had a basis in fact.

The new "liberals" aka, the fascists - the government supremacists - have managed to turned the federal government into a gargantuan bureaucracy which controls tall aspects of our lives.


.

Correctly opposed? You make it sound like there was only one correct option. It's a matter of opinion, not of right and wrong.

And then you go and start labelling liberals as fascists. Oh, it gets so tiring listening to this nonsense. Use your brain for once instead of resorting to the default insulting.

FASCISM DEFINED

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....


Benito Mussolini


Yep, you guys are fascists alright


.

Oh God, are we really going down to these levels of patheticness?

 

[Contumacious]

The founding fathers NEVER intended to allow the state militia to be called by the feds

"Liberals from Patrick Henry to Jefferson to Richard Cobden all understood standing armies as engines of government force. The best answer to this, the liberals believed, was to make military force decentralized, localized, and subject to local approval from a multitude of (often conflicting) jurisdictions. This built in diversity of opinions and an informal system of vetoes provided barriers to capricious use of military force. In other words, politicians could only deploy the power of armies after obtaining a consensus among those who would provide the money and the men needed for military action.."


PS "liberals" referred to classical liberalism - not the liberals as the term is used nowadays which are fascists or government supremacists


.

What?


Firstly it doesn't matter what some of the Founding Fathers never intended. We got what we got because of the Founding Fathers and their give and take for the good of the country.

Secondly liberalism and conservatism changes based on the era anyway. I mean, liberalism back then was showing your ankles. Conservatives can all show their ankles and knees nowadays. Things change.

As for "which are fascist or government supremacists", it just sort of makes me fall asleep. It's not even attempting to be intelligent.

In 1787 the Founding Fathers did not intend to create a "country".


They were 13 sovereign independent states joined together to form a federal government which would deal with foreign affairs.

There were many anti-federalists who CORRECTLY opposed the new creation. Time has proven that their fears had a basis in fact.

The new "liberals" aka, the fascists - the government supremacists - have managed to turned the federal government into a gargantuan bureaucracy which controls tall aspects of our lives.


.

Correctly opposed? You make it sound like there was only one correct option. It's a matter of opinion, not of right and wrong.

And then you go and start labelling liberals as fascists. Oh, it gets so tiring listening to this nonsense. Use your brain for once instead of resorting to the default insulting.

FASCISM DEFINED

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....


Benito Mussolini


Yep, you guys are fascists alright


.

Oh God, are we really going down to these levels of patheticness?

YEP, we have to.

Time for you to face reality.


.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What?


Firstly it doesn't matter what some of the Founding Fathers never intended. We got what we got because of the Founding Fathers and their give and take for the good of the country.

Secondly liberalism and conservatism changes based on the era anyway. I mean, liberalism back then was showing your ankles. Conservatives can all show their ankles and knees nowadays. Things change.

As for "which are fascist or government supremacists", it just sort of makes me fall asleep. It's not even attempting to be intelligent.

In 1787 the Founding Fathers did not intend to create a "country".


They were 13 sovereign independent states joined together to form a federal government which would deal with foreign affairs.

There were many anti-federalists who CORRECTLY opposed the new creation. Time has proven that their fears had a basis in fact.

The new "liberals" aka, the fascists - the government supremacists - have managed to turned the federal government into a gargantuan bureaucracy which controls tall aspects of our lives.


.

Correctly opposed? You make it sound like there was only one correct option. It's a matter of opinion, not of right and wrong.

And then you go and start labelling liberals as fascists. Oh, it gets so tiring listening to this nonsense. Use your brain for once instead of resorting to the default insulting.

FASCISM DEFINED

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....


Benito Mussolini


Yep, you guys are fascists alright


.

Oh God, are we really going down to these levels of patheticness?

YEP, we have to.

Time for you to face reality.


.

I guess I really should face the reality that there are way too many pathetic people on this board. Thanks for helping me see the light.