Forum Post: Newt Gingrich: Assassination is Good Politics
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 23, 2012, 6:57 a.m. EST by aahpat
(1407)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
"The right to bear arms is a political right designed to safeguard freedom so that no government can take away from you the rights which God has given you."
– Newt Gingrich, NRA's Celebration of American Values Leadership Forum <http://www.newt.org/solutions/second-amendment>
So, according to Newt, if you believe that the political leadership of the United States of America, (including Newt Gingrich), is threatening to or actually depriving you of your God given rights then you have a Second Amendment right to assassinate that political leader. And/or to wage armed insurrection against that government.
"I have always thought that all men should be free; but if any should be slaves, it should first be those who desire it for themselves, and secondly those who desire it for others. Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on them personally."
"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe."
Abraham Lincoln
You have no god given right to kill anyone.Stop being a horses ass and get on with life.
when a government becomes tyrannical it is it he right of the people to over throw it. we do this every 4 years with voting. it doesn't mean violence. that being said, as a gun owner (i do not speak for all of us), is the government ever started putting up road blocks and locking up political prisoners and things of that nature and removed my right to vote that government out, i would in fact pick up arms against it.
I never held a gun, but Iv'e been told that it can generate a rush of adrenaline in the body and give one a great feeling of power. Some psychologists compare it to the act of stroking one's hard penis until a fountain of cum erupts from it. A recent study showed that some men achieve orgasm while at the shooting range. It's like a legal act of public masturbation. Every time someone talks about NRA meetings, I imagine a bunch of guys in the midst of a massive circle jerk. I guess that's why I never owned a gun or like to go hunting with the guys. I always preferred hanging out with girls.
Have you ever experience sexual energies while firmly gripping your weapon? What about when firing, have you ever reached an orgasm that way?
Now thats hot! This is exactly what I'm talking about. I can't help but think about sex when theres no leadership or direction. My mind just wanders there. Some people, their mind wanders to conspiracy theories though. That's boring. Sex talk is way more fun than conspiracy theories.
[Removed]
moronic conclusion. the poster needs a lesson in logic and constitutional law
Denunciation is not rebuttal.
perhaps denunciation is not - but a brief summation of the facts certainly is.
You do indeed need lessons in logic, law, and perhaps the meaning of natural consequences
The President is not a dog to be put down, as you did suggest on another forum post. I think this obviously means you not only realize you are in deep shit - but that the only way out is indeed, further in.
you are so fucked
caveat emptor indeed.
I'm SOOOO glad the FBI and NSA monitor this site
What is this about?
You're extrapolating. The right to bear arms means the right to carry arms. It doesn't mean the right to murder the president. I'm not too sure how you jumped from one to the other. From what I recall, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you're a conspiracy theorist right? If so, this might explain your acrobatic logic that permits you to transform one meaning into the another in a quasi magical-like way.
And, by the way, your rights don't come from God.
hit it trashy
I always do dog.
It seems nice in paper, but then any minority could kill democratically elected leaders with a cheap excuse? It would end up like some countries in Africa, wouldn't it? (I'm mostly asking than commenting, because i'm not good at texts)
Yes. Your right.
No country would last long under the Newt Gingrich NRA interpretation of the Second Amendment.
There's one place where it would work nowadays... Brazil... Our politicians are so corrupt that everyone knows they are thieves, we are just afraid of getting arrested so we don't kill anyone... I'd be sure that the first one to get shoot would be José Sarney...
The logical conundrum of the Second Amendment and political assassination is that your enemies have the same right. An eye for an eye then leaves everyone blind.
There's nothing in the Second Amendment that permits you to indulge in political assassination. That's something you dreamed up in a fantasy.
Second Amendment Assassination License
I am interested in whether or not the Second Amendment is a license for citizens to assassinate American political leaders.
If so who would be willing to be in the political leadership of America?
If so who decides which political leaders require Second Amendment rendition?
Do both right and left wing Americans have a Second Amendment right to commit assassination and insurrection? Or is this a right reserved to right-wing evangelicals?
No, the Second Amendment is not a license to kill people. We are a nation of laws, these laws begin with the Constitution, and nowhere in the Second Amendment do you find license to kill.
If, however, you take some weak minded individual, such as Jared Loughner, surround them with stimuli that enhances reactions and feelings of negativity, and then introduce positive reinforcement for specific, desired reactions within that negative range -
you may be able to produce a killer - one who acts on cue . . .
Or not . . .
The Declaration of Independence lays out a very precise framework, a path that must be followed, with certain tests that must be met, before the public can reasonably and credibly consider violent revolution to overturn political authority.
You have such an obsession with the issue of assassination I'd kinda like to shoot you myself . . . just to see how far I get . . .
If I shaved my head - do you think they would let me get away with it?
ZenD, your violent and insane. And inane.
You are rationalizing assassination and insurrection.
The Declaration of Independence is a manifesto that has no legal bearing or status in the United States or anywhere else on the planet.
And I'm not in jail - what do you think that means?
Really? I thought that was what you were doing by associating assassination with the Second Amendment, as if there were no other, practical, and lawful, uses for firearms . . . .
I see - and you really don't much care for the Constitution either - I can tell by the construct of your obsession around the Second Amendment . . .
so what the fuck . . .
You have such an obsession with the issue of assassination I'd kinda like to shoot you myself . . . just to see how far I get . . .
If I shaved my head - do you think they would let me get away with it?
When you learn to read for comprehension rather than always reading into what people write what you want to read and believe we will be able to hold an intelligent and rational conversation. Until then you are hopeless.
I don't plan on attempting an intelligent and rational discussion with someone who is as clearly obsessed with attaching the concept of assassination to the Second Amendment.
It obviously isn't within the realm of possibility so I won't try.
I would be more than happy to put you right out of your misery though - at this point in your life I can see it might be a kindness . . .
I'm sorry aahpat. The DOI does lay out the framework. It is based on John Locke's Second Treatise of Government because our government is a social contract. Therefore, those steps must be adhered to dissolve it. You must be able to prove the usurpation and abuses outlined. Further, failure to do so may lead to non recognition in the international community as many countries have modeled their constitutions on ours. None of what I have said endorses assassination.
The Constitution is the social contract and was produced in forming the government, years after the Declaration.
You are rationalizing insurrection and assassination.
I'm not rationalizing anything. Thems the facts, baby. In fact, I will go one step further and state that the second amendment sure as hell did not have the same meaning that it has come to today. The interpretation of the second amendment, as he would have it, did not begin until the 1980s with a few little scholarly articles by some NRA nitwit. Be that as it may, the second amendment was recently incorporated and how you feel doesn't matter. None of that endorses assassination.
hey fuckwad
you are the one attempting to rationalize assassination
and using the Second Amendment to do it