Posted on 12/15/2022 1:35:21 PM PST by Carriage Hill
The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security held a hearing Thursday on finding a solution to gun violence, and the difference of opinion between Democrats and Republicans was put on full display. Passions ran high given the sensitivity of the issues involved, as liberal lawmakers focused on weapons and conservatives on the people who use them. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-La., a former judge who handled felony cases, was in the latter group and focused on the need to instill morality in people, citing Judeo-Christian principles. He went so far as to say it is the bedrock of the nation's founding principles, and that the effectiveness of the Constitution depends on it.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
So, innocent folks getting killed by a scumbag is cleaning up society? really?
And BTW, I am not, never been, never will be in favor of restricting the 2nd Amendment and the NFA is about as dumb a thing ever written.
“Passions ran high given the sensitivity of the issues involved, as liberal lawmakers focused on weapons and conservatives on the people who use them. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, a former judge who...”
They just changed it a re-write.
I don’t consider the SECOND AMENDMENT an “amendment” except for the purpose of writing it down on paper so everybody can be aware of it.
GOD ALMIGHTY GAVE US THE RIGHT TO DEFEND OURSELVES, OUR FAMILIES, OUR PROPERTY, AND OUR SACRED HONOR!
Anyone foolish enough to attempt to deprive me of that RIGHT will be met with FORCE.
Um, Gohmert is out of Texas.
This is what Gohmert meant:
Our Constitution is effective for a society with a deep moral foundation. It is worthless for a society steeped in lawlessness.
The Constitution depends upon the citizens to protect it from corruption. There is no serious interest in protecting the Constitution from corruption.
Our Constitution provides the greatest good not simply to the greatest number but to every single citizen. Our society rewards the strong and destroys the weak.
Our Constitution is worthless to a people who have no respect for law. It is increasingly clear we are not fit to live free but must be enslaved to control the chaos of our unfettered appetites.
It sounds like he’s making a point rather than eluding to policy.
And he’s right.
I would ask, rhetorically of course, “Which children?”
FU Gohmert.
It’s not OUR guns; it’s YOUR sons.
Now, I’m thinking that’s what he was trying to say...
Reasonable restrictions...
Defined by unreasonable people is asinine. The tables should be turned on them.
So you’re in favor of giving up your rights?
How is he right?
He is saying we will have to ban guns if parents dont raise kids better. I wont give up the 2A for that reason, or any other reason that comes along.
Why would Gomert say such a stupid thing?
>How is he right?
I was replying to this statement:
“Gohmert claimed that ‘the Constitution won’t work’ unless children learn right from wrong.”
He’s right. The set of rules established by the FF in the Constitution require a moral society. We are anything but a moral society. If you don’t follow the rules, then the rule book is meaningless.
Our job is to change an amoral society back to a moral society. How to do that is documented in the Declaration of Independence which predates the Constitution. You know, that part about “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government”.
So we either do that or we get a divorce and go our own way.
And I don’t need a piece of paper to say I have a right to have weapons to defend myself and those around me. That’s a God given right. The 2A is there to tell .gov what they can and cannot do, not the people.
The title of this thread is very misleading and if one actually reads the article, he’s not suggesting that we give up the 2A. Rather, I think Gomert is playing the devil’s advocate and is providing a *warning* that if we don’t clean up our act, that the 1A, 2A et al are under attack. He insists that for the Constitution to work properly, we have to return to Judeo-Christian values.
“Sons’’, ‘’guns’’. Big difference.
Maybe he meant ‘’sons of guns’’?
The purpose of the 2A is to give the citizen protection from and over reaching, tyrannical government.
How could you possible presume that from my post?
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.