PDA

View Full Version : 2A explained by Newt Gingrich


Wita09
03-24-2013, 12:55 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWsE9jvwjLA

Mods please delete if this is a dupe. Thanks.

MR2Chuck
03-24-2013, 2:14 PM
Wonderful history lesson. Great 2A lesson and a primary study of what a real LEADER OF MEN can accomplish.

L84CABO
03-24-2013, 3:25 PM
Awesome!

CitaDeL
03-24-2013, 3:50 PM
History Fail.

Uses story of Lincoln to illustrate that American leadership is not Imperial or tyrannical. I guess he completely forgot that war was begun to impose Federal power over the States, that Lincoln used executive power to hold the Union together in spite of Congress having ceased to have a quorum.

Gingrich finally gets to his point at about 13:20 into the video... He calls the 2nd amendment a 'political' right...This is true in part. More particularly, it is a right of self-determination- not only of political will, but a protection from the imposition of someone else's desires over your own. If you are armed, no one, not the President or any other officer of the government can impose upon you their will. This is what liberty or death really means- I will be free to do as I please or someone is going to die.

rm1911
03-24-2013, 9:15 PM
History Fail.

Uses story of Lincoln to illustrate that American leadership is not Imperial or tyrannical. I guess he completely forgot that war was begun to impose Federal power over the States, that Lincoln used executive power to hold the Union together in spite of Congress having ceased to have a quorum.

Gingrich finally gets to his point at about 13:20 into the video... He calls the 2nd amendment a 'political' right...This is true in part. More particularly, it is a right of self-determination- not only of political will, but a protection from the imposition of someone else's desires over your own. If you are armed, no one, not the President or any other officer of the government can impose upon you their will. This is what liberty or death really means- I will be free to do as I please or someone is going to die.

Exactly!!!

Lincoln was a dictator (even referred to as caraculla in northern newspapers) who had zero respect for the constitution OR the republic. The union was not a one way street and without question secession and nullification were well established and clearly supported by the founders.

Further the war itself was an unconstitutional act of aggression. Instead of infamy the rat basturd gets deified. The federal government is probibited from waging war on the states. Like he cared.

advocatusdiaboli
03-24-2013, 11:36 PM
And, need I say it, Gingrich himself is hardly a model of leadership and sacrifice having abandoned his wife, terminally ill with cancer, before she passed to have an affair with her successor who he wasted no time in anointing. Nonetheless, the messge is clear and strong, despite the demagogue's use of it falsely.

Tyrone
03-25-2013, 12:59 AM
All men have flaws, including Lincoln and obviously Gingrich. However, Gingrich's speech was really not much about Lincoln except as a prelude to the Dec of Ind and the Constitution. The shots at Lincoln re Civil War (secession and nullification) and Gingrich (infidelity) are a distraction to the message concerning the historical context of the RTKBA which, IMHO, was absolutely well stated and delivered. This is a video worth watching and is not a "history fail." Whether you like Gingrich or not there are not many who can argue with his knowledge of American history and ability to put message in context. Did he weave in and out of the DOI and Const almost as if they were one document? Yes. But that is not a problem as ideals set forth in both documents have unifying importance to the meaning of America. The purpose was not to compare and contrast differences of the two documents, it was not to discuss whether Lincoln's actions re Civil War were consistent with Framers, nor whether Gingrich individually is a model of leadership. The issue was the experience and historical context (part of it) leading to the 2nd Amdt, and in that regard, he did a wonderful job of framing the issue and delivering a historically accurate representation of events concerning the Revolutionary War, British attempts at disarming the Colonies, and that the War could not have been won but for the bravery of our forefathers and specifically the RTKBA. He tops it off at dispelling distractions perpetrated by antis concerning the RTKBA in demonstrating why it is not primarily about hunting or sportsmanship but about protection from a tyrannical government and essential enslavement by that government. That he took some license in the description to add to the drama of the final message is not the point. Well done Newt!

Stephen Halbrook does a great job of describing with great particularity the Pre-Revolutionary Origins of the Second Amendment. A link to his law review article re same is here. http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/39rev-.pdf

motorhead
03-25-2013, 12:46 PM
sic semper tyrannus.
not a real newt fan either.

Nick Adams
03-25-2013, 12:52 PM
Newt is a reptile.

sunaj
03-25-2013, 12:58 PM
Newt is a reptile.

How can you insult reptiles like that

Root66
03-25-2013, 3:06 PM
Great 2A lesson and a primary study of what a real LEADER OF MEN can accomplish.

Newt Gangrene couldn't lead a cub scout with diarrhea to a Port-A-Potty.

FalseProfit
03-25-2013, 3:24 PM
wow. that was great. i may have a new found respect for the man.

Sunday
03-28-2013, 9:02 PM
Have we looked at Newts voting record???

vincewarde
03-29-2013, 12:35 AM
Lincoln was a dictator (even referred to as caraculla in northern newspapers) who had zero respect for the constitution OR the republic. The union was not a one way street and without question secession and nullification were well established and clearly supported by the founders.

Further the war itself was an unconstitutional act of aggression. Instead of infamy the rat basturd gets deified. The federal government is prohibited from waging war on the states. Like he cared.

The huge problem that this nation faced was the reason for secession. There was a conflict between what was morally right (ending slavery) and what may very well have been legally right (secession). After all, no less a person than Robert E. Lee strongly held the view that slavery was immoral - and prior to the secession of VA, would have gladly fought for the North. He even wrestled with which side to fight on AFTER VA's secession. It is really too bad that the founders put off dealing with it, time only made it worse.

It is interesting to consider what would have happened if a state had left the union prior to this for another reason. What would have happened? What other issue would have brought it about?

It's also interesting to wonder what Lincoln's post war administration would have been like. Given his directions to his commanders as to how to treat the defeated Confederates, one could argue that his post war administration would have been very different, but we will never know.

Sadly, our nation has never been more divided than it is today, except for the period immediately before the Civil War. Let's hope that we can avoid armed conflict this time....

ja308
03-29-2013, 4:28 PM
Come on Democrats ,lets see how much the anti gun media has taught you about this progun Republican

You really need not bash republicans that are no threat to you . Stick with Sarah Palin . Your real enemy who gets crowds in the 1000s everytime she speaks.

Hope this helps you in your quest to get Hillary elected next !

Powerkraut
03-30-2013, 12:01 AM
The huge problem that this nation faced was the reason for secession. There was a conflict between what was morally right (ending slavery) and what may very well have been legally right (secession). After all, no less a person than Robert E. Lee strongly held the view that slavery was immoral - and prior to the secession of VA, would have gladly fought for the North. He even wrestled with which side to fight on AFTER VA's secession. It is really too bad that the founders put off dealing with it, time only made it worse.

It is interesting to consider what would have happened if a state had left the union prior to this for another reason. What would have happened? What other issue would have brought it about?

It's also interesting to wonder what Lincoln's post war administration would have been like. Given his directions to his commanders as to how to treat the defeated Confederates, one could argue that his post war administration would have been very different, but we will never know.

Sadly, our nation has never been more divided than it is today, except for the period immediately before the Civil War. Let's hope that we can avoid armed conflict this time....

Please, PLEASE, do your research before talking about causes of the Civil War. I really don't feel like lecturing but think a little deeper into why slavery was so important to the South and why the North had a vested interest in ending the practice. If you truely believe there was morality and not politics involved then you need more than a high school understanding of the issue, there were no "good guys" or " bad guys", just political factions manuevering for power at the expense of the common man.

Virginian
03-30-2013, 12:13 AM
^^^^ Thanks. I was starting to develop Tourettes. :)