It was also called the "Super Tweety"
Posted on 04/13/2009 10:12:45 AM PDT by presidio9
John Travolta I doubt is a Republican and you can buy a fighter jet. Armed? Probably not but I doubt the Framers envisioned fighter jets.
The Second Amendment means what it says Lib Dems so deal with it. The Dems are in overreach mode again.
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." Sounds rather "survivalistic" to me.
We, the militia, intend to keep our Arms (and every other terrible instrument of a free man) to preserve, protect and defend the Republic against Socialists, Communists and other Traitors.
Flawed logic? Where to begin...
Owning a Fighter Plane is Not Protected by the 2’nd Amendmant to the Constitution.The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is.What DOPES.
Only a matter of supply, not legality.
I doubt the Framers envisioned fighter jets.
They USED heavily-armed battleships, and wrote the Constitution presuming some were privately owned. They understood the principles if not the technology.
The right to vehicular transport was so blatantly obvious the Founding Fathers never considered they might have to add it to the Bill Of Rights (which, BTW, is a great example of their argument for not having one: those rights which are not enumerated could be construed as not existing).
Why wouldn’t owning a fighter plane be protected?
The modern language alone (99 and 99/100 percent (the Ivory soap commercial), reference to "pilgrims" (predating the 19th c. commemoration of Plymouth Rock) and "prairie wagon" (predating the western settlements - it was "Conestoga wagons" that crossed into the Shenandoah and Pennsylvania) should give you a clue.
The sentiments are admirable, though. There are very good authentic quotes from Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Mason, et al.
The anachronisms in that quote ought to LEAP out at everyone.
I simply can no longer wrap my mind around the kind of ostrich intelligence of the lib media...my guts tell me they know what the game is, and they simply wish to be eaten last...
they were arrived at through great suffering and cost spanning generations or longer.
I no longer accept the premise that we should spend our Constitutional treasure re-taking the same ground...we have retreated far enough...
I recently did a bit of research, and now I am “99 and 99/100th sure” that the Cicero treason quote I’ve been posting is bogus. Sounded great, but he never said it.
Legions?
These "legions" represent the political, and minor sub-class within law enforcement; and, Crouch knows it.
Talk to ordinary "cops" Mr. Crouch.
They will tell you that the dangers they face are due to Democrat law makers who favor law breakers over enforcement, putting bad guys back on the street.
.
Oh, and equating law abiding gun owners with fringe survivalists is an unacceptable premise that we will be seeing much more of, I'm afraid.
.
That's the problem with these quotes. Someone sees it, googles it, finds it on liberty-tree.ca and that's good enough for them. That site however does no fact checking. They hear it, post it and are done with it.
The Jefferson one about inflation/deflation really aggravates me. It's not true and it's full of anachronisms. One merely has to check Monticello.org to see the repository of all things Jefferson debunk it...but it's plastered across "right wing" sites as truth. I appreciate the sentiment in the quotes, but nothing makes us all look more foolish than to put stock into a falsehood.
Where’s the barf alert?
I'll tell you what "won't fly". It's the idea that our Founders were attempting enumerate our rights by insisting on a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is simply a way of clarifying that no part of the Constitution permits the federal government to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.
Our Founders would be completely baffled by your "delivery system" nonsense, because the phrase "delivery system" appears nowhere in the document.
Only communist governments treat their citizens in this fashion; that everything permitted is required and that everything not permitted is prohibited.
If we amended the Constitution to permit "delivery systems" would we then need an additional amendment for "delivery system fuel"? How about hangars to protect "delivery systems" when they are not in use? Would that require an additional amendment?
Our Founders never envisioned the use of computers to design "delivery systems". I suppose we would need another amendment to protect militia use of computers?
Add the fact that purported supporters of law and order manage to ignore the legions in law enforcement who oppose the sale of assault weapons to the citizenry. Why would they not? They know all of the details about the urban terrorism of street gangs and the tragedies unleashed by armed loons. We can add in the documented fact that weapons bought at unmonitored gun fairs are arming Mexican drug dealers who will end up fighting American troops very soon. Makes no difference. There is always a cost to following the Constitution. Enough said.
I’ll begin and possibly end here...
Absolute frappin’ bullsh!t!!!
Cheers!
It was also called the "Super Tweety"
Once again the logic of the anti-gun crowd starts with the premise that the Constitution grants the people rights instead of the other way ‘round.
Article 1, Section 1 “All legislative powers herin granted....”.
THAT is why every American should be FUMING over this kind of crap!
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.