Posted on 05/21/2013 6:51:34 AM PDT by kimtom
(article photo)
In one of the less rational attacks on the NRA to date, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence's Josh Horwitz used his May 20 column to make the case that the NRA doesn't understand the Constitution or the man who wrote it--James Madison.
According to Horwitz, this was proven at the NRA's Annual Meeting in Houston during the first weekend in May. There, speakers gave speeches on what "sounded a lot like vigilantism and anarchy" and very little like the adoration for governmental power that Horwitz claims our Founding Fathers enshrined in the Constitution.
To back up his claims,......
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Seems simple enough to me . . . what part is confusing to the NRA? or perhaps to this bozo?
Progressives believe the Constitution is a LIVING document that can be interpreted according to the prevailing culture.(which is absolutely incorrect) They don’t want the ORIGINAL INTENT to be the defining law. Hence they RE-interpret the Constitution to fit their ideology.
People who hate the Constitution tend to make fools of themselves when they try to make constitutional arguments. People who refuse to look at historical facts tend to make fools of themselves when they try to make historical arguments.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
A very important distinction and one that changes the meaning and intent of the entire sentence. The version that was ratified was more in keeping with the language of the times...as can be seen in other writings from that era.
Funny. There is an entire commentary on the Constitution - The Federalist Papers. They agrees in almost every particular with the stances taken by the NRA.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia (missing comma) being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
A very important distinction and one that changes the meaning and intent of the entire sentence. The version that was ratified was more in keeping with the language of the times...as can be seen in other writings from that era.
Their idea that personal ownership of firearms, the right to self-defense, and the privilege of every man being a nobleman are NOT GOD GIVEN is the problem.
Darned shame Henry IV kinda' went over ~ he could have held a blood purge right off the bat and this progressive nonsense would have been tubed forever.
"It's going to be the battle of the accents. I very much look forward to debating him.”
“I would like to see every woman know how to handle [firearms] as naturally as they know how to handle babies.” - Annie Oakley
Liberals stand common sense on its head. Only anarchists, not conservatives, claim no government is necessary. Conservatives simply believe the least amount of government necessary is the best solution. But conservatives have more faith in their fellow citizens to solve their problems than liberals. However, to claim that the Founders would like a central government to have all the guns is beyond ridiculous. Only a lover of big, dominant central government would make that claim.
“...However, to claim that the Founders would like a central government to have all the guns is beyond ...”
It is called “rewriting history..”, they are doing that even with current affairs!
The puffington post hates the constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.