Posted on 06/14/2014 12:41:39 PM PDT by holymoly
Am toothless ....
You know, that Old School Amendment written for rich white guys in powdered wigs...so they could hunt freely in the 18th Century wilderness...
Guess the world is still learning to fly.
and there are those that want to relegate me to the White Room, where the Sun never shines. Let no strings secure you at the station.
Cross the Road America! Chicken? Am having chicken for dinner.
If can borrow a flame thrower ... Will have roast chicken.
Yep! Give up God and embrace liberal “morals”, this is the end result.
The simple liberty of public safety is an oxymoron. There is no liberty in safety. There is no safety in liberty. Stopped reading right there.
Really is sad that we are forced by Federal Edict to send our children into defenseless death traps that are public schools.
How much does it cost to keep armed guards in the schools?
” - - - How much does it cost to keep armed guards in the schools? - - - “
Nothing, as the NRA offered to do it for free.
My comment in reply..
Is the U.S. still deserving of a 1st Amendment?
Given the author’s blatant willingness to trample unalienable (impossible to take away or give up) rights, perhaps the question we should be asking ourselves is more directly involved with the First Amendment and the author’s ability to pen a screed so directly anti-American and unconstitutional?
Surely the progressives won’t mind a small limitation [upon their 1st Amendment rights] such as governmental approval - say from a group of Constitutional experts who judge solely upon the expressed intent of the framers and those who ratified the Bill of Rights - prior to their being able to voice an opinion that is likely to be in direct opposition to our supreme law.
Think of it as a means of governmental protection against stupidity, ignorance, distortion, lies, and tyranny all in one.
The Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments) has a common theme: absolute prohibition against specific government actions. In fact the words ‘shall not’ appear in 4 of the first 10 Amendments (while the other 6 Amendments include language that is equally prohibitive with regards to the government’s ability - legal or otherwise - to act in a manner that restricts those specified, recognized, rights).
‘Shall not’ is a very straight forward directive - meaning under no circumstances can the government engage in actions that restrict the recognized rights (not even when some among us really, really want to).
What’s that you say?
Congress shall make no law abridging (to lessen or restrict) the freedom of speech, or of the press?
To which I note: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (restrict or lessen).
Fortunately (for those who cherish freedom anyway - not so much for the author and his ilk) the good men who made the Constitution our supreme law saw fit to clarify things a bit further; as if unalienable rights and prohibitions on government actions that serve to diminish those rights wasn’t enough clarification (seemingly they knew there’d be dishonest people advocating tyranny in our future).
The 10th Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
That slams the door shut on the author’s fascist fantasy.
I know, I know - you’re going to pretend the states could engage in your petty whims (legally) - right?
So much for your love of the 14th Amendment (go ahead - read it).
As I stated above - that slams the door shut on the author’s fascist fantasy.
Now for the “rights aren’t absolute” crap.
In my best Bill Clinton voice - that depends what the definition of is, is.
Or, in this case, what the definition of absolute is.
If by absolute we mean that the government has no power (or right) to impede upon my rights - then yes, our rights are absolute. That much is made clear by the fact that our rights are unalienable - meaning you (dear author) cannot take them away, nor can the fascist government that you so desperately crave take them away (nor can I give them up). And, as pointed out above - the Bill of Rights goes even further and explicitly denies government the ability to act upon your whims.
Where the government does have (legal) power is with actions undertaken. Even then the government has severe limitations upon its powers (but I digress).
Slander isn’t an example of free speech carried to the absolute; slander is an example of actions undertaken and harms caused by means of those actions. Likewise with the actions of some crazed idiot - most of whom have been progressives - with a gun. (We might want to have a national discussion with regards to banning progressives - as they clearly endanger everyone and the nation as a whole)
The dirty word here - to progressives anyway - is ‘responsibility.’ We can, and must, be held responsible for our actions. It is the person whose actions caused harm that is held responsible; not the tool used, and most definitely not the law abiding users of a similar tool.
Put another way: We don’t punish everyone with a keyboard simply because some use theirs to create dishonest articles (and false premises) as a means to restrict freedom for others. Nor do we blame the keyboard for those among us who author articles that call for harmful actions, and freedoms infringed, on the basis of ignorant, selfish whims.
I do wonder if the author is using an assault keyboard though - you know what I mean; black and all military-looking but insignificantly different for all other purposes, which in retrospect makes the adjective entirely meaningless but sufficiently scary so as to frighten the idiots who are prone to swallow that kind of crap in the first place.
If only someone would make a blanket that protected us from those idiots who foolishly desire government intrusion upon our rights. I’d buy a dozen of them.
“They take that and they’ll deny your ‘right’ to breath next.”
Actually, they are going to let us inhale, we just can’t exhale. Too many CO2 emissions killing mother earth, minorities, the poor, women and children, you know.
All of the above Travis. All of the above. But I enjoyed the Second one best or all five.
No, it does not.
The Constitution does not GIVE you any rights at all. It can do no such thing.
The Second Amendment in particular and the Constitution in general PROTECTS your inherent, God-given rights, including particularly your right to defend yourself. Even by carrying an infantry rifle around with you, if such is your desire.
Certainly, the Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear hunting arms, and to take to the field in due season to kill wild animals for food. But this is not why we have a Second Amendment.
Certainly, the Second Amendment protects our right to keep personal defense arms, to carry them about with us, to defend ourselves against murderers, robbers, rapists, burglars, and the like. But this is not why we have a Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear MILITARY arms, to practice with them, to hold them otherwise in abeyance ... unless and until tyrants threaten the Security of a Free State. This is why we have a Second Amendment ... and this is why tyrants and would-be tyrants always seek to chip away at the Second Amendment.
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.