Posted on 03/31/2015 5:52:30 AM PDT by rktman
On March 26, the Tampa Bay Times responded to the numerous pro-Second Amendment bills making their way through the Florida legislature by suggesting that “gun rights are not absolute.”
In other words, “shall not be infringed” does not mean “shall not be infringed.”
According to the Times, the numerous gun rights bills–especially campus carry–show that Republican legislators are controlled by the NRA and do not understand that if certain limits are not placed on Second Amendment rights, public safety is sacrificed.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
LOL! Welcome to the dark side. :>}
“I insisted that we really didn’t understand the Constitution nor what the Founders really meant and intended.”
You were right then! English as written & spoken in the 18th Century is totally different from English today! Who can read Chaucer in the original?? There’s no way we can accurately interpret the Constitution & apply it to the 21st Century. Best to tear it up & start all over & besides the “Framers” are nothing but dead white male slaveowners.
But until we do, apply the 2nd Amendment correctly: what kind of firearms existed in the 18th Century? Single shot flintlocks, that’s what! Citizens have no right to own any kind of firearm other than a flintlock!
#sarc necessary?
;^)
Push a Lie until it becomes Truth.
IS
To a leftist: There are no absolutes................
I used to be for gun control. Then, the Federal government used armored vehicles against American citizens at Waco.
The Democrats will do anything, anything, to get what they want. They do not listen to reason. The only thing they understand is fear. They must be afraid of an armed citizenry or they will reduce our population by any means available to them.
LOL! Obviously you’ve been subjected to total immersion of Austin Powers type mind altering. “They call me number two.”
Imagine the outrage if a law was passed that placed a surcharge on the sale of a newspapers to fund the regeneration, preservation, and protection of forests.
If by being pro-gun, Republicans are controlled by the NRA, what does it mean to be anti-gun, since most gun crimes are committed by -- wait for it -- criminals. Does that mean that disarmists are controlled by the criminals?
No, Sir. Just channelling the thought processes of my liberal acquaintances.
Progressives are simply upside-down. I am not sure why they cannot understand the meaning of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was written to preserve the rights of man from the tyranny of the majority. Phrases like ‘Shall not infringe’, ‘Congress shall make no law’, ‘No soldier shall’, ‘shall not be violated, ‘no warrants shall issue’, and ‘No person shall be held’ are very clear in their meaning. Madison thought that one party control in government would trample essential rights. He was correct about the one party control; the Democrat-Republican Party. He was incorrect about how effective the Bill of Rights would be.
Neither does the Tampa Bay Times mean what it says. It’s actually the Nantucket River Lately.
At this point I could care less about what Libs and the MSM think of the matter.
I simply point out that, with 300+ million guns in 100+ million hands, plus an 85% registration non-compliance in CT plus NY quickly declaring NYSAFE compliance data to be “law enforcement sensitive”, Libs are more than welcome to try to take them away. And to see what happens.
Libs REALLY don’t like being told that ...
I contend that rights are absolute and our Founders saw it that way. While we may not like the idea of a just released ex-felon owning a weapon, he was supposed to have paid his debt to society and he has the essential right to defend himself. Even those that are mentally incompetent have the right to bear arms. Psychological problems in particular are very slippery slope when it comes to rights. Our soldiers and marines returning from war can be easily diagnosed by government, rightly or wrongly, and lose their rights to bear arms.
Each argument that anyone presents about how rights are not absolute can be countered by pointing at problem that has not been fixed. So that ex-felon that we fear will use a weapon perhaps should have never been paroled. The truly mentally incompetent should be treated. In the mean time, you should note that there is a staggering large number of criminals and folks with psychological problems with guns while gun crimes are decreasing. Rights are not an excuse to neglect other problems. Truly violent criminals, repeat convicts should be either executed or kept in prison for life. Of course, that rarely happens. People with psychological problems should receive appropriate medical attention and care from their families, churches, and communities. If that involves placing the mentally incompetent into a facility (private in my small government world) that doesn't allow guns, so be it. It wouldn't be the government denying rights.
The case of criminals in prison is different (note that I wrote, 'ex-felon' above). Prison in its essence is a denial of rights, but that is done with due process. Due process need not be extended to those that have not committed crime.
You had me going until the “#sarc necessary?”
Another media ignorant trying to interpret the Constitution yet again.
Thanks! Good satire always skates close to the truth IMO.
But remember that truth is always stranger than fiction: SCOTUS chief justice Warren Burger said in 1991 that the 2nd Amendment protects only owners of flintlocks because the Framers couldn’t have anticipated Glocks & AR-15’s.
But...in the 18th Century, “well regulated” meant trained, not restricted.
Anyway, always look for the ;^).
;^)
I believe that they would take umbrage with that statement. They work very hard to be every bit the leftist rag of the NYT or WaPo. Nothing right about them.
“I just wonder if the federal government is going to start subsidizing every newspaper when they all go bankrupt.”
Taxpayers are already subsidizing left wing trash newspapers. How do you think the execrable Washington Post survives? Its subscribers work in the Federal bureaucracy. In expenses, the bureaucrats include a line for the Washington Post subscription. The Post would have gone down the crapper long ago if not for subscriptions by bureaucrats, paid for by you and me. Congress could kill the Post at any time by passing a law forbidding the use of taxpayer money to subscribe to publications.
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.