Posted on 07/25/2021 11:17:17 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
And they dare to use guns in an emergency as was evidenced during the nazi occupation of their country.
Sanity seems so weird.
I was thinking the same thing in an unironic way. I’m so accustomed to rights being lost or ceded that a government ensconcing a right to self defense in its constitution is almost too good to be true.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--
Pity that it is not in the “negative liberty” format that Obama hates so much, where the wording stipulates that the government cannot and can never abridge your natural rights thereof.
They need to word this so precisely so it can never be interpreted otherwise then the original intention. If our founding fathers had any inclination our nation would become so corrupt the Constitution and Bill of Rights would be iron clad.
I’m pretty sure the Czech’s remember Hitler and his Sudetenland fallacy.
I am unaware of any other nation in Europe that has anything close to the 2nd Amendment but this is very cool. The EU can go suk it.
England technically has Clause 7 of the 1689 Bill of Rights upon which the American version was based, unfortuantely Britain doesn’t have a constitutional system in has ‘Parliamentary Sovereignty’ is which parliament can pass any law it wants, and no parliament can bind a future one, so it would be legally and constitutionally impossible within the existing structural framework to introduce checks and balances that can limit what kinds of laws a government can pass by simple majority.
This people have weathered the Nazi and communist occupations. They now face a looming islamic threat from the EU. They know the score.
And how the West sold them out in Munich.
Oh Dear, the US will be forced to invade Czechoslovakia by the end of July to put this right.
‘...SHALL NOT be infringed’ is pretty iron-clad. Which is why back in the day it was expected that corrupt government personnel who violated it would be discovered hanging by the neck or riddled with holes.
The sovereign in Britain is still recognized to be the monarch, although not in practice since the monarchy has not asserted its powers of late save in granting assent to laws, even infamously bad laws like the 1967 Abortion Act and 2013’s Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act. The courts are also not powerless against the parliament, and even forming a parliament is dependent on royal assent.
The Czechs MAKE some darned good guns. Now they can legally OWN them, too.
Yes and no. Under the concept of the crown-in-parliament Parliament consists of The Crown, The Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and The Commons.
However the Queen is bound to act on the advise of her ministers, and said ministers must command the support of a majority of the House of Commons.
The Lords can only delay, not stop legislation (excepting only legislation that would extend the life of a Parliament beyond the statutory five years). So in essence the Cabinet and the Commons run the show.
The ministers bind the monarch?
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.