Created this meme for Democrats because they do not understand the difference between a right and a privilege.

8b0swi.gif (click to show)
"Yeah!"

That's where privilege comes in. People may be free to suppress our free speech but they have no right to suppress our free speech.

A privilege is granted by the government or by someone narcissism to infringe on someone else's rights.

The Second Amendment gives adult freemen the right....... to get conscripted immediately upon notice.
Drop eveything and go. That includes family, a farm or business in need of tending, whatever they're doing at the moment. On their own dime, no less, having to supply their own arms.

Where do you find that in the text of the 2nd amendment.

However, the founder were opposed to standing armies. And how we fought the Revolutionary War was by people picking up their firearms, leaving their farms and going into battle. They were not conscripted. They were fighting for their freedom and liberty is worth supplying everything you have to maintain and protect it.

Only about 10% of the country supported separating from England.

Conscription started with the Civil War. And it has always been the favorite way to fight wars for Democrats. Democrats hate freedom.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. The 2nd does not even mention conscription in any way. The well regulated militia is the people, it's not our military. That's why there are those militia groups operating in the boonies who are upset with something or another. They have a constitutional right to form those groups, although that isn't exactly what the founders had in mind.

The founders meant that the people would come together in a militia to protect our freedom from all enemies both foreign and domestic. It has to be a serious threat and not a bunch of libs who are pissed at Trump. It has to be a threat where a complete loss of freedom is at stake.

Lincoln was a Republican and he did conscript soldiers. But I was talking about recent times. About every decade some lib politician makes a statement about conscripting young men and women into military service, war or no war.

Unable to afford a weapon and opposing military service should be the same thing with regards to freedom. No one should've ever been forced into war. It should always have been voluntary.

"Initially they granted the right to vote to the previously mentioned monied land owning Protestant British and Germanic men class, then it was any land owning Protestant British and Germanic men WITH the Electoral College to correct for the expected stupidity of the uneducated masses, then it was just all Protestant British and Germanic men. Catholics weren't allowed to vote till a decade after them, then Jews a decade after them. Other races and women weren't allowed the Founding Father Gods given right to vote for a century or 2 later."

No, no, no and no. You are wrong. There were even black people who owned land and lived as free men and women. What your ancestry was meant nothing. It never did.

There was a problem between Catholics and Protestants prior to the formation of this country but once the country was founded those issues began to subside. There was no legal discrimination against Catholics like their was in the English government.

It is true that it was only male land owners who could vote. Their voted counted for the entire family. The reason for this is because most people believed back then only those who owned land had and kind of investment into the country. If you didn't own land then you were seen as not having any strong ties to the country. It had nothing to do with hating women. That's is just what society accepted back then.

Seriously, you really need to look at how people act and try to understand that people in history were not evil haters. They were just ordinary men and women. They lived in a society that they thought was normal. Many of them opposed slavery and many were in favor of it but the majority were just indifferent. That doesn't make any of them bad people.

Painting everyone in the past as horrible, stupid or racist people is wrong. They were just people.

Presentism seems to be a serious problem with the left and especially the "woke" left.

Your revisionism is for what purpose? To make amends by painting what you claim to be your ancestors in a different light for what what ends again?

You never started.

You go by a script that has little, if any, relation to what I post, let alone any bearing on it. It's pretty routine, which is good for me, as I don't miss anything when I skip over it because you say it all the time regardless the topic.

Even the format. First paragraph starts off by addressing the post but soon veers from it an into your usual script. Following paragraphs feature random unrelated meanderings also typical of your script. Last paragraph makes tepid attempts to wedge in "you leftists" somehow, and your last sentence says "Democrat" like it was climax of the whole thing despite rarely having anything to do with anything in your post, other than having been your family's party. For centuries.

What little may pertain is a lopsided pretzelated distortion - to put it politely - of what I said, as well rather overtly confessional of how the truth of what you are saying applies to you. Everything you say is a would-be attempt at 'excorcising' your feelings of guilt over what you obsessively try to pretend are the sins of others, despite being elements of your own celebrated heritage and culture.

"What part of could. not. afford. an. army did you not understand?"

Um... All of it. That's why I said "I'm not sure where you are going with this."

Are you saying you want a gun but you can't afford one or are you saying that you are opposed to guns?

What were you even talking about when you said, "Unable to afford and opposed to are 2 diff things."? And what did that have to do with anything that I said?

"they couldn't afford to mint their own money, let alone pay anybody."

What does this mean? What are you talking about? You wonder why I type so much, I'm trying to provide context to what I am saying. I'm not just spouting off random stuff.

Then look it up then, unless you're really gonna stick to the claim that Founding Fathers were snorting a little too much of the Nostradamus snuff and space-time bending to allow former slave holding territory nutters to form the KKK and other such shoot-up -them-other-folk 'militias' because tyranny from ye olde North was gonna be a bit much one day?

"Yes, as you said, the Founding Fathers were rich."

Did I say that? Crap!! I just re-read my comment and I forgot to type the word "not".

No they were NOT all rich. Most of them were poor. It is a liberal myth that they were all rich slave owners. It is meant to disparage them as bad men. That is evil because they were some of the greatest men to have ever been involved in our government. Yes, they had flaws but I would take any one of them (maybe not Hamilton or Paine) over ANY politicians in any level of government.

I just want an honest government and I am not finding that in any party or in any bureaucracy. They are all sell outs who are only interested in their own power. Biden was poor when he was first elected. Now he is mega rich. Any politicians, as Harry Truman said, who enters politics a poor man and leaves a rich man is a criminal. I agree 100% with that. Truman was the last honest Democrat.

Yes, they were still upper class rich guys still? Hence their ability to read and wear really dandy clothes and makeup.

Good to see you mention your party again. You don't get paid if you don't.

"Yes, they were still upper class rich guys still? Hence their ability to read and wear really dandy clothes and makeup."

Dandy clothes and makeup????? Wrong time period. Wrong country.

"Good to see you mention your party again. You don't get paid if you don't."

You mean I can get paid for this??? Tell me more.

Wigs, makeup, tights........ what's not to glove?

"A list of gievances against their King remedies, etc, then followed."

I guess you didn't understand the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson talked about the purpose of any government and then he applied that to the king. Read it again. He made no mention that this applied specifically to any 1 government. It wasn't until the end of the paragraph that he said,

"Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

He explained our rights under God. He explained that when a government fails to protect our rights it should be thrown off. And after he made that point perfectly clear THEN he said, "Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies;"

"Hence the Second Amendment providing for the need "to provide new Guards for their future security" which the gov't couldn't afford to do."

Are you talking about the Articles of Confederation or the rule of King George. Which government are you talking about? Our government did not start until the Constitution was ratified several years later.

So when you say the government couldn't afford, which government? The Articles of Confederation wasn't really much of a government at all. It gave all power to the states. It was a Confederate government, just like the Confederate States of America. The Confederate government had no power whatsoever. They had no money.

The 2nd amendment didn't exist under the Articles of Confederation. However, the right to self defense dates all the way back to the Magna Carta.

At the signing of the Constitution the government had a little more power than under the Articles and they were still broke (as the government should be).

So why are you complaining about having no money in regards to the 2nd amendment? You're not making sense....again.

*le sigh*

A lot of people don't know this because, you know, Hollywood? Jeff & Co were Brits, yeah, them guys in uniform with those posh British accents who shot at the 'Muricans they were attacking in the American Revolution? They were their countrymen. Washington did not speak in a modern Northeast-based TV accent like yous think. They spoke with ENGLISH accents. King George III of Britain wasn't some invader, he was THEIR king.
THAT'S who Jefferson was referring to, not any would-be kings, but George III. Specifically.

Now reread the list of grievances against King George III in the context that King George III was THE King George III they were grievances against, and it should make sense. I understand some occasional words are a tad archaic and no longer used as much, but English is, by definition, English, even if it's 'Murican. Mostly.

Hope this helps!

(Wait till you find out Caesar, Aristotle, and Alexander the Great weren't English!)

"THAT'S who Jefferson was referring to"

Yes, the Declaration was directed at King George but the principle that Jefferson wrote is true for all people in all nations. This is why the Declaration is still an important document.

It became a list of grievances against the king but that was AFTER Jefferson defined the purpose of government, ANY government.

I really do not understand why you want to argue this point. It is obvious from how Jefferson wrote it that he defined the purpose of government and that the people have the right, duty, authority to dump a tyrannical government.

It is the reason why the 2nd amendment was added to the Constitution.

Tyranny does not have to be a monarchy. Socialism, Nazism, fascism and communism are all tyrannical. It is any government that has forgotten it's sole reason to exist and that is the protection of our God given inalienable rights. If they refuse to protect those rights then there is no reason for them to exist.

What you need to understand is the government we have today is not the same government our founders left for us. Not even close. They long passed the abuses that King George III imposed on the colonialists before I was born, before my dad was born.

As long as there are Democrats we will always be less and less free. The Republicans are not much better but at least there are a very small handful who understand what America is supposed to be.

This repitition - in which you continue to support what I stated, no less - begins to bore me a lot?

Jefferson created the (proto) Democrat Party as a counter to the big goverment (proto) Republican Party.

"This repitition - in which you continue to support what I stated, no less - begins to bore me a lot?"

I'm not sure how I am supporting what you are saying. I haven't seen anything you have said that I agree with except for this, "This repitition".

It is repetition and I am getting bored. Plus I am tired of looking for one of your comments that has a Reply hyperlink. So lets just end this. Take care and have a great rest of your evening.

Are you familiar with a document known as the Declaration of Independence? Just wondering. Here is what Thomas Jefferson wrote when he wrote this document:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

So that you might understand old English here is what Jefferson said in a nutshell.

The truth is that all men and women are created equal and are given rights by God and no man or woman can take away those rights. The purpose of government is to protect those rights but if they fail to do their job and begin to abuse those rights then it is responsibility and right of the people dissolve the that government to preserve our safety and happiness. The government should not be removed for trivial or minor problems but for a series of abuses and corruption. And when it become tyrannical it is the right and duty of every person to shut that government down.

THAT is what the founders believed and THAT is what America is all about. When our government has grown far too abusive and tyrannical then it is our (mine and your) right and duty to get rid of that government. To throw all of those people in power out of power.

This was written to the English BUT it applies to our own government and any other government, like the UN.

Unfortunately Democrats just don't understand this.

You forgot to finish the paragraph:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

......"

A list of gievances against their King remedies, etc, then followed.

> "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Hence the Second Amendment providing for the need "to provide new Guards for their future security" which the gov't couldn't afford to do.

Good, you're catching on.

Those "God/nue Aristocrat given rights, btw, were reserved for monied land owning Protestant British and Germanic men, something the South struggled to maintain well into th 1960s, and seeks to reestablish to this very day.

Ahh, no paragraph from you is complete without your party -

As a counter to Hamilton's Federalist Party which favored a national identity and a big centralized gov't to go with it, Jefferson founded the Democratic Republicans Party which stood for decentralized gov't and state's rights, which, as you so very well know, is why they were favored by the South leading to and after the 'War of Nothern Aggression' as they put it. They later became known as the Democratic Party. The Federalists became the GOP.

"Those "God/nue Aristocrat given rights, btw, were reserved for monied land owning Protestant British and Germanic men, something the South struggled to maintain well into th 1960s, and seeks to reestablish to this very day."

Where do you get the idea that our rights came from aristocrats? That's just idiotic. The founding fathers were all rich. They were not all slave owners. The vast majority didn't own slaves and most were poor. There were no aristocrats and our rights do NOT come from man. It doesn't matter if you are an atheist.

Just because you don't believe there is a God does not change the fact that God exists and is real.

Tell me again who these "monied land owning Protestant British and Germanic men" that were alive at the founding and still alive in the 1960's? You're not one of those Rothschild/Rockefeller conspiracy theorist are you? You do know the earth is actually round don't you?

"Ahh, no paragraph from you is complete without your party -"

And what party is that? I'm not a Republican.

"As a counter to Hamilton's Federalist Party which favored a national identity and a big centralized gov't to go with it, "

You do know that we did not start off as a "big centralized gov't" don't you?

Let me make something very, very, very clear to you. States rights does not mean slavery. Let me repeat this. States rights does not mean slavery. The 10th amendment was not added to the bill of rights because of slavery.

Let me compare the atrocity of slavery to the atrocity of our time, abortion. Most people just don't go about their lives thinking about people who murder their babies. Yeah, it's a concern. Those who oppose abortion were the same kind of people as those who opposed slavery.

States rights was an issue because before the Constitution was ratified the states looked at themselves more like separate nations and they wanted to retain that. So did the people who lived in those states. Slavery was just not a major concern because only the rich owned slaves. They were only 7% of the nation.

With abortion that is different. There are all sorts of money available for the poor to murder their babies. So more people think about abortion. But seriously how many hours a day do you devote to thinking about infanticide? Not much, right? I'll bet you never thought about it at all today until you read my post. That's how people in the early 1800's thought about slavery because that's just how people are.