People?
Sure. Why not? :-)
Posted on 09/14/2006 11:08:33 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
Great idea! Lets repeal the right to a fair trial! Eliminate the right to an attorney! To a trial by jury! The right to appeal! Imagine all the thousands of lives we'd save if the criminal element didnt have acess to all those rights!
Schmuck.
I sure think so, and I bet if those Founding Fathers whose words we defend were alive today, they would agree.
Really? Lets see what one of them says about that:
"Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." - Benjamin Franklin
Post 41. Bring it on.
People?
Sure. Why not? :-)
Yet to me Kellerman's absurdity is just one step removed from what the Burleson City Council is talking about doing.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1701488/posts
Ban the fake and toy guns, and when tbey are removed from the public, it will be easy to remove and ban the real guns!
I suppose this idiot thinks crime would go down after such a ban???
Well it worked in New York city. I mean Washington DC. I mean Canada. I mean Great Britain. I mean....
In other words, an army made up of citizens with a rcognizable command structure, not a mob. This amendment does not give the government authority over it. It does not ban the government from forming a standing army. It just give the people a right to form a militia, something the communists and bureaucrats greatly fear.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
In other words own and carry knives, pistols, rifles, bazookas, mortars, tanks, etc. Anything less is an infringement. I could be persuaded to outlaw personal MOAB's and nuclear bombs.
"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once".
JUDGE ALEX KOZINSKI
Gungrabbers tend to be violence-inclined and intolerant people. As a very typical example, he wants to hit people in the face if they don't think just like he does...as mentioned in this sophomoric editorial:
"...People throw quotes from Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin into political debates with me all the time, and I want to hit them in the face..."
and
"...I'm also against a system that allows people to carry weapons that have the extraordinary ability to kill people at a very far distance. When it comes to all of those issues, I strongly believe that everyone else should think the exact same thing..."
This guy needs to go back to school for a bit more study on the history of our great country.
~ Blue Jays ~
This exact article could have been written 40 years ago. These gun-grabbers never learn a damn thing. Actually, I suspect this idiot couldn't come up with an idea for his column, so he pulled this one out of the files (or somebody else's files, since any commie could have written it, and many have)
70 million riflemen versus this POS author .... no problem, no contest.
I agree. Come get them as I want it to happen while I am young enough to make sure it is not easy.
I've reached the point where ridiculous articles like this no longer have any effect on my blood pressure or heart-rate. Instead, I feel a mild sense of pity for someone this dumb and delusional.
I'm with Arthurus, -- that ain't even the start of his rationalizations..
kAcknor:
Don't forget, along with acknowledging the second amendment, he is also the first one to be publicly honest enough to attempt to change it the correct way, buy another amendment.
'We the people' can not amend away our inalienable rights. -- 'Majority rule' does not apply to passing laws or amendments repugnant to the principles of our Constitution. [see Marbury]
Up to now all we have gotten from them is judges limiting it as a sneak around way to change things.
One of the sneakiest is advocated a lot right here on FR by 'majority rule prohibitionists'.. They claim that State & local gov't are not required to honor Amendments unless they are "incorporated", and that even then Congress can prohibit most anything by using the commerce clause.
When Carrie Nation and her ilk went after alcohol, they did it right, it failed of course, but her solution was far more honest than anything we have seen with drugs or firearms.
The 18th was appealed on its constitutionality in 1919, and an activist USSC flat out denied that we have an inalienable right to make & drink booze.
Perhaps what we need is another Amendment [like the 14th] making it crystal clear that our inalienable rights to life, liberty, or property shall not be prohibited by any level of any government.
funny how the liberals are now whining about the Constitiution concerning wiretapping terrorists and using "torture" . they only cite the Constitution when it suits them. Feingold, Schumer, Kennedy, Levin, ad nauseum, the ones who are yelling the loudest now are the ones who consistently voting to void and gut the second ammendment.
The mayor of NY Bloomberg always talks about egetting rid of "illegal" guns yet he never states that all guns in NY City are illegal unless you are one of the politcal insiders or celeberties. They can have guns to protect themselves but of course the average everyday citizen is not worthy of self protection.
The democrats have not learned the lessons of the past few elections. Defying the rights guaranteed under the 2nd ammendment is not a winning strategy for them.
I wonder if the writer of this "get rid of the 2nd ammendment" ideology even for a minute considers the rammifications of actually implementing his plan. Does he think that for a minute we are all going to just line up and hand over our guns peacefully like good little sheep. of course I cannot speak for anybody else but I will only hand over my guns barrel first and loaded! Does this nutcase actually realize that in trying to disarm this country he will probably start a civil war? Is he so meantally challenged that he actually thinks that I will just roll over and hand em all in?
Charlton Heston said it correctly when he said :from my cold dead hands"!
But what about the hundreds of thousands of guns that are primarily designed and used for sporting purposes, like high tech target rifles and pistols and trap and skeet shotguns?? Guns designed and primarily used as weapons are primarily instruments of intimidation that derive their intimidating power from their ability to be used to kill.
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.