Posted on 06/12/2008 7:01:08 PM PDT by Dawnsblood
“’Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it’s an individual right.’.....”
Well, 100% of the Founders believed it to be an individual right. That’s kind of why they had the amendment say “the right of THE PEOPLE....”
“...and they will use force to make sure you understand that.”
Well then, let’s have at it. It’s coming to that, anyway.
The anti’s will go into overdrive to push “reasonable restrictions.” When you add up numerous individual laws that are not clear infringements, their totality is worse than any single infringement.
I wish it was that easy. Remember though, they forcefully take your money through taxation, they make rules to hire only those people into the police force who will follow their will, and they send those people out to get you and not go themselves. They will then shield themselves from responsibility by blaming the person they sent out to get you, should anything “out of ordinary” happen (i.e. you fighting back.) Then the media will mark you as a mad man who attacked the “righteous” police, regardless of the reason the police came to get you. Remember what those in power did in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
http://www.nraila.org/multimedia/mmplayer_set.aspx?ID=105
JoMa
I wish it was that easy. Remember though, they forcefully take your money through taxation, they make rules to hire only those people into the police force who will follow their will, and they send those people out to get you and not go themselves. They will then shield themselves from responsibility by blaming the person they sent out to get you, should anything “out of ordinary” happen (i.e. you fighting back.) Then the media will mark you as a mad man who attacked the “righteous” police, regardless of the reason the police came to get you. Remember what those in power did in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
http://www.nraila.org/multimedia/mmplayer_set.aspx?ID=105
JoMa
Then why don’t they just leap off a bridge and get it over with?
Bump and ping
English lesson for today:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ... “ Even though this is the first part of the sentence, it is what we used to call a “subordinate clause” when it was taught in high schools the early 1960s. There are other things necessary to the security of a free State; they’re just not mentioned in the amendment.
The important part of the sentence is:
“ ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Questions? Anyone? Anyone?
Compare the construction of the Second Amendment with that of the copyright clause (I.8). The Court has held that the first part of that clause does not limit the second, despite the way it's written. How is the 'militia' language more of a limitation on the right to keep and bear arms, than the 'to promote progress in science and the useful arts' language in the copyright power?
Thats the left for you...it's always about their ORIENTATION....!
heh heh... nice to see them running scared :)
“We’re expecting D.C. to lose the case,” Helmke said. “But this could be good from the standpoint of the political-legislative side.”
Unless you have the public opinion and legislative power to repeal the Second Amendment: You’re grasping at straws, buddy! (talking to the Brady wonk).
And attempting to repeal a right NOT GRANTED by the Constitution, but, as recognized by the founders, PREDATING IT, would effectively NULLIFY the whole contract We, the People, entered into when we gave government certain LIMITED authority to do a few, well-defined things in our names and on our behalf. What GOVERNMENT gives, it can take away... but what the Constitution did was remind government of our PREEXISTING rights, granted us by our God, NOT by government.
But don’t you just love the way Dennis the Menace wants to now completely ignore the militia clause? IIRC, not 12 months ago, he was one of the last Antis who saw nothing but the word “militia” when looking at the text. Now he’s imagining the text to hold some limitation to only those small arms that are useful within a distance of 5 meters. Last year, it was “the militia amendment”; now it’s “the mousegun amendment”.
You're being a little bit simplistic. Some of the biggest gun grabbers in history have been Republicans. Being anti-freedom has very little to do with political party and everything to do with simple fear at least at the street level. In the stratospheric levels of Congress it boils down to elitist power mongering. At the bottom levels (where we reside) it's even more basic.
The choice is stark: Are you sheep or are you SHEEPDOG? I think that once you read the essay, you'll agree that by their nature most freepers are indeed sheepdogs. I'm proud to say so, in fact. Yet I am careful to make note of the fact that being a Sheepdog does not in fact, make me "better" than the sheep. It's my lot in life to care for myself, my family and all of those little sheep when they are confronted by the wolf in my presence. I do not shirk that duty, no matter how much the sheep may wish that I would. But Congress? That is an entirely different threat. That has nothing to do with sheepdog v. wolf. That is all about sheepdog v. Big Brother.
A good reporter would ask Paul Helmke at one of these press love fests if he owns any guns. And if so, what kind, model and make.....
I would love to know the answer to this question...
Helmke and his entire organization need to be in a Federal pen somewhere.
I am a bear. Do not poke me with a stick or yap at my heals or I WILL eat you.
What a terrible disapointment for the left. 40 years of dumbing down public schools, and people still understand the what those dead white guys meant.
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.