• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rick Santorum and the Second Amendment

Rick Santorum drew on the Sharon Angels playbook in response to a question at a Texas Tea Party rally last month. Suggesting that armed resistance could be necessary to protect alleged violations of the Constitutional rights of Conservatives, Santorum claimed that "the Second Amendment is there to protect the First Amendment."

Like, DUH!, Mr. Presidential Hopeful, whatever happened to the judiciary?

Surely Conservatives are not advocating picking up the gun against the US government. The last time something like that happened was in 1859 with the attack at Harpers Ferry, Virginia, and we all know how badly that went for John Brown.

But exactly which of their First Amendment rights do they feel are threatened anyway? Their right to impose Conservative and Far-Right Religious values on the rest of us? Their right to deprive us of our Constitutional right to marry who we choose? To deny a woman's right to pre-natal care, or to end her unwanted pregnancy? To deny our youth the right to vote? A worker's right to join a labor union?

But if Liberals don't adopt the politics of the far right extremists, does that mean there will be more gunplay at women's health clinics? Will more abortion doctors be cowardly gunned down? More gays dragged to their deaths from the back of pickups? Does it mean "minorities" are in for more church bombings? Will more federal buildings be leveled?

It would make more sense if Liberals were the ones advocating for an armed resistance to protect their Constitutional guarantees to a liberal life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as opposed to a conservative one.

Conservatives also see it as their right to require our Liberal president to prove his fitness to govern by producing a birth certificate, like the plague of racist cops a few years back (DWB) who only stopped black motorists and required them to prove their fitness to drive by showing a drivers license. If this is fair, then should it not also be fair to have presidential candidates who make seditious statements prove their fitness to govern by having their heads examined?

Seriously. Is this the mind set we want in the White House? While it is fitting that pro athletes have to prove their eligibility to play in the major leagues by submitting to a drug test, and since alcohol destroys brain cells, should we not, at the very least, require our politicians to submit to alcohol testing? At least while Congress is in session?

As a result of watching the GOP presidential "debates," it appears that a home-school education is more of a disadvantage than I once realized. Many in the audience seem to embrace an anti-fellowman animus as they hoot and applaud the hardship of others. One can only hope that whatever ails them is not contagious.

Perhaps a secular class, or workshop involving people of various backgrounds (that you actually have to communicate with), should be required as a prerequisite for a gun ownership permit. Otherwise, we may end up having to take the guns from their cold dead hands.
 
Back
Top Bottom