Posted on 08/07/2014 8:26:18 AM PDT by rktman
Second, how long before some lib/socialist/prog/commie activist judge tosses out the voters desire.”
Those black-robes should be lamppost decorations. An effort that cost millions of dollars and millions more of human time and effort should not be removed at the whim of some black-robed pig.
That's why we have traffic laws, vehicle operator's licenses, auto insurance, highway patrols, and breathalyzers.
You may question my patriotism and my right to liberty, but do not infringe my right to carry a concealed deadly weapon. And don't try to keep me from questioning your attitude.
That has already been tried, and it failed. In Galena, Illinois, the home of Ulysses S. Grant, it is called "The War of Rebellion." That was also about states' rights.
The job of a judge is premised on precluding “self help”. IOW a judge is stabled to take decisions away from the parties and make them dependent on his/her/it decision.
While useful in normal situation, the antipathy judges have to the second amendment is based on their own fear of citizens making decisions without the need for judicial dependence.
Thus, there will be a judge who will make such a ruling because self determination is counter to the judicial world view.
Kinda like: “Screw what the majority of voters said. I don’t find it to MY liking so I’ll just overturn it.” And, no doubt, some non-descript group like MAIGgots or mda will search out a judge who leans their way and will be behind the law suit that gets filed on behalf of the “fearful”. Whoever that is.
"You may question my patriotism and my right to liberty, but do not infringe my right to carry a concealed deadly weapon.
Your beliefs appear to be inconsistent regarding the Second Amendment...
~~~~~~~~~
"And don't try to keep me from questioning your attitude.
How could I; I questioned yours... '-)
Not at all. The Second Amendment says nothing about questioning any issue. The freedom to intellectually question is a function even more basic than any other right we consider unbroachable. To say otherwise, is to engage in thought control, which the state amendment discussed pretends to do. It goes beyond control of behavior, and the concept cannot stand in a society of free men. As I said, this goes beyond the right to carry arms, into the area of infringing on the right to think.
====
imardmd1: And don't try to keep me from questioning your attitude.
TXnMA: How could I; I questioned yours... '-)
Exactly.
I do believe you are thinking clearly — maybe even more clearly than I was...
I hope that is true, since it is always exquisite to see through faulty logic and linguistics, and have someone recognize it and be instructed.
Our Founders have very, very wisely chosen their language. We should strive to understand their bequest of a freedom beyond theirs.
Thread bump
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.