[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

16 Things That Everyone Needs To Know About Violent Far-Left Revolution In Los Angeles

Undercover video in Arizona alleges ongoing consumer fraud by Fairlife

Dozens arrested after San Francisco protest turns violent Sunday

Looking for the toughest badasses in the city (Los Angeles)

Democrat Civil War Explodes: DNC Chair Threatens to Quit Over David Hogg

Invaders waving Mexican flags, pour onto the 101 Freeway in Los Angeles

Australian Fake News Journo Hit By Rubber Bullet In L.A. Riot

22-year-old dies after being unable to afford asthma inhaler

North Korean Bulsae-4 Long-Range ATGM Spotted Again In Russian Operation Zone

Alexander Dugin: A real Maidan has begun in Los Angeles

State Department Weighing $500 Million Grant to Controversial Gaza Aid Group: Report

LA Mayor Karen Bass ordered LAPD to stand down, blocked aid to federal officers during riots.

Russia Has a Titanium Submarine That Can ‘Deep Dive’ 19,700 Feet

Shocking scene as DC preps for Tr*mp's military birthday parade.

Earth is being Pulled Apart by Crazy Space Weather! Volcanoes go NUTS as Plasma RUNS OUT

Gavin, feel free to use this as a campaign ad in 2028.

US To Formalize Military Presence in Syria in Deal With al-Qaeda-Linked Govt

GOP Rep Introduces Resolution Labeling Free Palestine Slogan as Anti-Semitism

Two-thirds of troops who left the military in 2023 were at risk for mental health conditions

UK and France abandon plans to recognise Palestinian state at conference

Kamala Backs LA Protests After Rioters Attack Federal Officers

Netanyahu's ultra-Orthodox partners move ahead with Knesset dissolution plan

Former Prime Minister of Ukraine: Zelensky will leave the country

Man protesting Paramount ICE raid added to FBI's Most Wanted

JUAN O SAVIN- The Plan to Capture America

US Manufacturing By State: Who Gains Most From 'Made In America'?

Rickards: The Truth About Fort Knox And Gold Leasing

Los Angeles Warzone: "Insurrectionist Mobs" Attack Cops, Set Fires, Block 101 Freeway

The Attack on the USS Liberty (June 8, 1967) - Speech by Survivor Phillip Tourney At the Revisionist History of War Conference (Video)

‘I Smell CIA/Deep State All Over This’ — RFK Jr. VP Nicole Shanahan Blasts Sanctuary Cities,


Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Quiz Time: (Hypothetical Question)
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 17, 2008
Author: Neil McIver
Post Date: 2008-04-17 21:33:40 by Pinguinite
Keywords: None
Views: 2812
Comments: 73

Okay, 4umers, quiz time.

I've got a hypothetical question for you. Suppose you were in a funny situation where you had the opportunity to reconstitute the 2nd Amendment, doing away with all 20,000 or so gun laws. The power was in your hands to make it so.

But there's one catch. In order to make this wish come true, you first had to pick up a gun, put it to the head of an innocent 7 year old girl, and pull the trigger, blowing her brains out. With that task completed, the 2nd Amendment would be restored all across America.

Would you do it? If your answer is "yes" then this quiz is over for you. You may resume your perusing of 4um and disregard the rest of the test.

If your answer is no, then we'll expand our hypothetical scenario.

After you refuse to kill this girl, someone else steps up and says "I am also interested in restoring the 2nd Amendment, and I am willing to do what must be done for you. If I am elected president, I will shoot this girl and then the 2nd Amendment will be restored".

Question: Do you vote for this man or not?

It would seem that some people here on 4um would happily endorse the death of this girl one way or another in order to restore 2nd Amendment rights. I am not one of those people, which is why a couple days ago I wrote the following:

For us to try to safeguard our 2nd Amendment rights at the expense of lives of innocents worldwide doesn't fly in my book.

This apparently earned me the label of "gun grabber" in the minds of a few here.

I honestly don't know why. Honestly. Does the phrase "expense of lives of innocents" mean something other than "murder" to people here?

I really feel like I've entered the twilight zone. You know, where the whole world changes but you don't. In this case, it's like learning suddenly that a bunch of 4umers would indeed blow the brains of of a little girl if it helped to secure some of their own "liberties". I am really amazed that a number of people here take exception to my statement.

As this hypothetical scenario applies to the real world, if there was a pres candidate promising to work to fully restore the 2nd Amendment in the USA while simultaneously promising to bomb the rest of the world into oblivion, I could not in good conscious vote for him. Call me crazy or call me a gun grabber if you want, but if not being willing to kill this way makes me a gun grabber, then I hope I'm a gun grabber for life. But I would not, could not support such a "pro 2nd Amendment" candidate. Never.

If I am truly in the minority on this point on 4um, then perhaps I should resign my account and leave you all.

Thank you for reading.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 73.

#1. To: Pinguinite (#0)

I could not hurt her, and I would try to protect the little girl, who might someday grow up to write or say something that would move millions to support second amendment freedoms knowing that her life had been spared.

I do think this is a false dilemma. I saw the thread where you and another poster were having a discussion about this in a different form (related to Obama).

I don't believe he is what he seems, and even if he is, he would not be permitted to move to protect innocent young lives at the expense of the globalists' agenda.

I respect your concern and your desire to see the world improved by reforming American foreign policy. The down side of this false dilemma is that McCain and Rodham do not have better stances on gun control than Obama.

This is a false dilemma in both directions.

buckeye  posted on  2008-04-17   21:40:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: buckeye (#1)

I do think this is a false dilemma. I saw the thread where you and another poster were having a discussion about this in a different form (related to Obama).

Thanks for replying.

You're right that Obama may very well keep the occupation going another 4 years. Politicians being what they are, he could do anything. But my statement was generic and not directed toward any particular candidate. Certainly my beatings the past 2 days were for being a gun grabber, not an Obama supporter.

Pinguinite  posted on  2008-04-17   22:18:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Pinguinite (#17)

Certainly my beatings the past 2 days were for being a gun grabber, not an Obama supporter.

I might have misunderstood, but I figured this was about support for any candidate who was in favor of draconian gun control, which they each are. I don't figure a vote for any one of them or another will make a difference.

buckeye  posted on  2008-04-17   22:24:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: buckeye, Pinguinite (#20)

I might have misunderstood, but I figured this was about support for any candidate who was in favor of draconian gun control, which they each are. I don't figure a vote for any one of them or another will make a difference.

The Bush administration has exercised mightily to claim it is not subject to any law. John Yoo put it this way: "We are used to a peacetime system in which Congress enacts the laws, the president enforces them, and the courts interpret them. In wartime, the gravity shifts to the executive branch." When Bush pronounces it is wartime, our constitutional system purportedly ceases as we know it, and the Unitary Executive takes over. Ah, fond memories of when we used to think of a system in which Congress enacts the laws, the president enforces them, and the courts interpret them.

Bush pronounced a war on terror without end, and an unending legal gravity shift. The President is placed above the Constitution and beyond the reach of the legislature or judiciary. When the President can invoke warped reasoning to commit serial rape of one part of one part of the Constitution, the same warped reasoning can be applied to any other part. I fail to see how McCain, Clinton, or Obama can attack the constitution any more effeciently or completely than Bush already has.

nolu_chan  posted on  2008-04-19   9:41:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 73.

        There are no replies to Comment # 73.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 73.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]