Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Eastbound; robertpaulsen; everyone
Eastbound wrote:
For anyone following this conversation, the above relates to Mr. Paulsen's reply # 235, quoted below:

As per the U.S. Constitution, people have certain unalienable rights which cannot be ceded or taken away. These would include life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and property ownership as examples.
There are other, fundamental (or natural), rights which you have which may or may not be protected by the state in which you live. For example, you have a fundamental right to protect your self using any means necessary.

The state in which you live may protect that right, but exclude guns as a "necessary means".

If there is a "compelling state interest" in the legislation, then the state may override your fundamental right for the good of the community.
-paulsen-

______________________________________

Eastbound, -- as we see above from his quote, paulsen is the one here 'babbling'.

In one sentence he admits that: -- "you have a fundamental right to protect your self using any means necessary."
--- Then in the next he boldly claims that "compelling State interest" can infringe upon the right to possess the "means necessary".

--- Both Constitutionally, -- and rationally, -- there can be no State interest in prohibiting the possession of arms needed for self defense.

Millions of our enemies are armed with AK47's.
The paulsens of this world claim that a State [CA] can decree a compelling reason to prohibit us from owning such arms.
Their claims are the true babble.

267 posted on 11/01/2004 7:57:32 AM PST by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies ]


To: tpaine
"In one sentence he admits that: -- "you have a fundamental right to protect your self using any means necessary.""

"--- Then in the next he boldly claims that "compelling State interest" can infringe upon the right to possess the "means necessary"."

"--- Both Constitutionally, -- and rationally, -- there can be no State interest in prohibiting the possession of arms needed for self defense."

Looks like 'doublespeak to me, tpaine. Orwell was a prophet. Also looks like 'Animal Farm.' Beer is outlawed in Pigland, except on Sunday Night -- except for those who rule that beer is outlawed.

'Compelling state interest' has been abused. Therefore, it is no longer applicable and must be determined on an individual basis in the USSC. But even there, they refuse to rule on the truth of the matter concerning guns. So of what use is it? We must go back to basics and re-apply the founding principles of freedom.

I rested my case on this a long time ago. I choose life and claim my rights. Slaves cannot understand something they've never had. Their only hope is becoming a slavemaster, and once succeeding, they mistakenly believe everyone else is a slave and promptly resort to the rule of force to establish their 'kingdoms.' Even if they are only a paper-shuffler in some obscure government office.

268 posted on 11/01/2004 1:07:11 PM PST by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson