[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?

[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.....

[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.

[the crow]

9th circuit sucks bump!

[Cacique]

right on the nose