Gun rights compared to Civil Rights

WorldNetDaily ^ | 7 October 2001 | Jon Dougherty

[spartan68]

2 A BUMP

[Freedom2specul8]

granted TO THE PEOPLE

That's not exactly right. The bill of rights was created to prevent the govt from intruding on our personal liberties. It's OUR ORDERS TO the govt, not visa versa.

[JeepInMazar]

bump

[Freedom2specul8]

See, you have to remember that *we* created the declaration of independence, bill of rights and constitution. We created the govt to protect our land, so that we wouldn't have to be oppressed by foreign rulers. We gave the govt orders, aka bill of rights that tells it what it can and cannot do. Many people forget that fact because it is so engrained in their brains to think otherwise. By the people for the people...the authors of the constitution and bill of rights.

[LibKill]

It's not just guns, it's "arms," and that would include swords and knives of all description - including those very cool switchblades from Smith and Wesson that are supposedly for law enforcement personnel only.

You raise a good point. In my beloved Texas I can carry a .44 magnum (with my CHL) but if I were to carry a double-edged knife I would be commiting a felony.

Go figure.

Before someone posts that I should not have to have a CHL to carry, I know that. But it sure is convenient especially when compared to having handcuffs slapped on one in an unconstitutional manner.

[Jerry W. Howard]

Close, but slightly off the point..The right to life, which the Bill of Rights recognizes embodies the right to the necessary means to preserve it, i.e., the right to arms, exists by nature (from G-d if you will) -- The 2nd amendment merely prohibits the government from infringing that right. :-)

[dbbeebs]

Persons who violate their pledge to support the Constitution are fraudulently nationalized and subject to deportation.

Oh? Cite: