Posted on 01/05/2008 8:35:40 AM PST by do the dhue
Please vote this gun issue question with USA Today. It will only take a few seconds of your time. Then pass the link on to all the pro gun folks you know. Hopefully these results will be published later this month. This upcoming year will become critical for gun owners with the Supreme Court accepting the District of Columbia case against the right for individuals to bear arms.
First - vote on this one.
Second - launch it to all the pro-gun folks and have THEM vote - then we will see if the results get published.
To vote in the USA Today poll, click on the link below. Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?
Thank you for your vote. It is appreciated!
LOL
ping
;)
See what Ted thinks:
Thank you. Your vote is appreciated!
Great video. I have seen it before. I highly recommend it for viewing. You have to love Nugent.
Thanks for your vote and contribution to this thread. It is appreciated.
Actually the second prohibits the federal government from infringing on our RKBA. Lots of good that did (sigh)! Must be enforced by the people from time to time.
Exactly. I also disagreed with the language - the Constitution simply reaffirms rights we already have; what is given is easily taken away - but I knew what they meant.
I believe you are correct. I believe our founding Fathers ensured our rights came from the Creator and no man or Government has the right to take them away. They ensured this when they said we have been ‘endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’. And they also ensured our ability to fight for those rights (with the 2nd Amendment) when Government and/or man tries to take them away.
I voted against Slick @ SCOTUS though.
At the time, it was debated whether or not the BOR was necessary, some thought that it would lead to the misinterpretation: That only the enumerated rights and privileges were to be enjoyed by citizens. Looks like modern education has flipped us on our backs, if we don’t see the individual right spelled out in the Constitution, we do not believe we have it - but the compact specified just the opposite. Problem is, the all-powerful federal government and our corrupt, scheming, lying scumbag representatives will not accept the constraints of the Constitution. Even of the explicitly stated constraints. They’ve become the embodiment of tyranny once obtaining office, a collective, foul monster that must be turned back by the people, should they ever regain sense.
Will do, thanks for the ping.
Thank you!
Thanks for the ping do the dhue, good seeing you again.
It doesn't "give" the right -- it protects the right.
Second, the question before the U.S. Supreme Court is whether D.C. laws violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia.
Voted ... The question is wrong as you know, but in liberal drive by speak it is probably the best we could expect.
In my view, if you read this between the proper comma placement, it is saying that a well regulated militia and the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, shall not be infringed. It does not say that the people must be part of the militia to bear arms. It clearly says that the a militia and the peoples right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Ii is just that simple to me. Maybe I am simple minded, but that is the way I see it.
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.