Gunning for the Constitution

CapitolHillBlue.com ^ | 12/12/02 | BALINT VAZSONYI

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

[Whats-wrong-with-the-media?]

"...Gun control is not about protecting school children. It's about transforming this Republic into a country like all others, where only the government possesses weapons."

"a country like all others, where only the government possesses weapons."

Well, not exactly, there are lots of countries out there that allow or even mandate that their citizens possess firearms.

Strangely enough, some of our nation's politicians support the citizens of other countries being able to arm themselves, while at the same time, working to disarm the American public.

What's up with that?

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

BumPing...

[SW6906]

"All rights under the U.S. Constitution are vested in individuals."

This is the argument I always use when discussing the 2nd. If you're discussing it with a thinking individual and have a copy of the Bill of Rights handy, you can work to get them to understand that the 2nd has nothing to do with a collective right.....

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Good argument untill the smoking analogy.

[1redshirt]

The cartoon needs one more box cutter labeled WOD

[xzins]

He hurt his article with the blurb about smoking at the end. It didn't really fit. He should have pointed out that the Constitution is not this "living" document that Rheinhardt says it is. Rheinhardt said We believe that the meaning of the Constitution was not frozen in 1789. That, as society develops and evolves, its understanding of constitutional principles also grows. We believe that the Founding Fathers used broad general principles to describe our rights...because they were determined not to erect, enact a narrow, rigid code that would bind and limit all future generations."

The Founders did not intend the Constitution to be a frozen document either. But they also did NOT intend for Judges to be the ones who reinterpreted it in new and creative polical ways in their own biased efforts to "update" it.

They intended for it to be CHANGED when it needed changing. To that end they including a provision for AMENDING the constitution. It required state action, congressional action, voting, and debate. It required a super-majority to accomplish an amendment. If they couldn't get that super-majority, then that would mean that the change wasn't truly that urgent or necessary.

This idea of judicial activism doesn't like the requirement of voting to change the constitution. They risk losing that way. They want to do everything by fiat. Therefore, they have muddied the waters with their harping on "living documents" and "frozen documents."

They are liars. Worse, they are liars with an agenda.

[Mulder]

They intended for it to be CHANGED when it needed changing. To that end they including a provision for AMENDING the constitution. It required state action, congressional action, voting, and debate. It required a super-majority to accomplish an amendment. If they couldn't get that super-majority, then that would mean that the change wasn't truly that urgent or necessary.

Exactly. Those who attempt to change the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, by any other method should be promptly arrested for sedition, and put before a jury of their peers.

Those found guilty should either be deported or hanged from a tree.

They are liars. Worse, they are liars with an agenda.

They are "domestic enemies of the Constitution" whose goal is to overthrow the US Constitution. They are even a greater danger than Al-Queda and should be dealt with as such.

[yoe]

Smoking does indeed make sense. This is a Free Nation and a nation whose first trade crops were tobacco, and until recently were the "Gold Crops" of many smaller farmers. Now we must buy the leaf from other countries. We let special interest take that FREEDOM of choice away from many Americans...it was never about health, it was and is always about control and trade. A Free Nation is a nation of Armed Citizens...smoking is just one little window that ill-informed people jumped at and took away that choice...it was soooooo easy, it makes you shiver at how easy it was to inflame a nation and trample the rights of others.

[xzins]

I don't think it fits. My opinion, of course, but I think he should focus on the 2d Amendment and not divide attention with another subject, such as smoking and tobacco.

Maybe we can offer an amendment. LOL. :>)

[the crow]

9th circuit sucks bump!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[MissTargets]

Yes, but why semi-automatic, so-called assault weapons? Perhaps no one needs them. Yet the history of smoking teaches us a bitter lesson.

IMHO he is right on on this. They started little by little, and now look what happened.
First it was airplanes, then public buildings, until there is almost, a total ban.
A legal product, just like firearms.
Assault rifles, handguns, your favorite hunting rifle, my shotgun..... they want them all.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

Good point.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

Soon cigarettes will be as illegal as marijuana and they won't care about anyone's 'addiction.'

Next it will be beer and farting on your own lazy boy chair.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

[lakey]

Good post.