 |
Saturday, March 28, 2009
11 comments:
-
Anonymous said...
-
Now, how will they spin the results?
Tim -
3/28/09, 1:53 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
No! It does NOT!
It merely enumerates a natural right that existed before there was a government or Constitution, and a right that will live on long after there is a government o Constitution.
They could repeal every one of the ten original amendments and those rights would still exist.
So let them argue about the second amendment all they want.
WV: Swatoide - which probably describes the type of being that will kick down my door some day for thinking thoughts like that... -
3/28/09, 1:54 PM
-
Chuck Martel said...
-
That's a trick question. None of the ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights give anything. The those ten amendments memorialize and protect specific individual rights -- including the individual right to bear arms.
-
3/28/09, 1:54 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
Does the Constitution say what the Constitution says? These days that's not such a stupid question.
The results of that Poll are rather gratifying aren't they?
GrinfilledCelt -
3/28/09, 2:10 PM
-
ET said...
-
Semantically, the amendment does not GIVE the right; it merely says that the right shall not be altered by government: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Logically, for a statement to exist prohibiting infringement of a right without first giving or authorizing that right, the right apparently pre-dates the statement; ergo, the framers saw no need to give or award or extend the right to the people since it already existed, and all they were doing was noting that ab initio situation. A Latin legal term exists for precisely this eventuality , but I can’t remember it at the moment.
Sometimes an original theory or law or rule comes into being based on a concept which needs no definition or explanation because it is universally understood and accepted, such as the right of people to eat, or breathe, or sleep. Declaring such things to be rights would be superfluous and redundant to what everybody takes for granted. Infringing upon them becomes the business of rulers and delegations. The Constitution therefore is saying that keeping and bearing arms can NOT be infringed, and doing so would be the same as modifying or commandeering citizens’ right to breathe.
The issue and the debate comes not from the document itself, but from shysters and other opportunists who focus on the absence of any definition of the term “arms” in the Constitution, a bit like BJ’s justifying his lying to the entire world by hinging his own interpretation of his own words on the definition of “is.”
Naturally the framers never anticipated development of rapid-fire, automatic assault weapons any more than they foresaw and gave counsel on regulation of the Internet and e-mail; hence, any infringment on weapons or e-mail or blackberries or whatever can NEVER be authorized by the federal government, only by the individual states. And when state governments infringe too goddam much on the people’s rights and/or wishes, another of the people’s rights is to dismantle that government and install a new one.
curtislowe and chuck martel are right. -
3/28/09, 3:41 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
Y'all need to remember that the average colonial citizen WAS armed with state-of-the-art weaponry.
We don't hear enough people asserting the real intent of the amendment - to ensure that the PEOPLE would be as well armed as the government. -
3/28/09, 5:56 PM
-
cmblake6 said...
-
Well, I had to vote "Yes" because that truest of answers wasn't offered. You must remember the mentality we're dealing with here.
-
3/28/09, 6:46 PM
-
Unknown said...
-
No it does not?
Really?
Try kicking in my door and win a 12 Gauge 00 Buckshot Surprise from an 8 shot Mossberg 590. -
3/28/09, 6:51 PM
-
Unknown said...
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RgLEGibyXs&feature=player_embedded
Power in Your Hands! -
3/28/09, 7:10 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
No, Tim...It DOES NOT.
Because if the 2A gave the right, that implies that repealing the 2A would repeal the right.
Read my post again - the WHOLE post. I think you will find we are on the same side.
WV: Thotslo - infer wht you will. -
3/29/09, 11:38 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
Whats with the didn't anticipate rapid fire weaponry bit? Libs use this too: The Red Coats went to Concord to capture the the Artillery of the Colonials that's right CANNON. The Americans forewarned had buried the cannons ion the fields and hid the caissons, trails and wheels, (the wooden part of the artillery) in an apple orchard. The Brits found the caissons, trails and wheels, and burned them. This led the Colonial Militiamen to believe that Concord was being burned.
This attempt at confiscation is what led directly to the shot heard round the world.
The Brits were justly so afraid of the American's state of the art weaponry. Actually we have fallen far behind, as citizens today. No artillery rockets missile firing drones, just one old patched together B-52...
RAK -
3/30/09, 10:14 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)