One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main
Can't Have It...
Page 1 of 5 next> last>>
Jan 8, 2015 14:20:13   #
Don G. Dinsdale Loc: El Cajon, CA (San Diego County)
 
PATRIOT NEWS DAILY.Com


January 08, 2015

IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT MISINTERPRETED?

According to a recent op-ed in the Huffington Post, the weakest pro-gun argument “is the constitutional one.” Writer Nick Desai cites former Chief Justice Warren Burger to buttress his claim that the common interpretation of the right to bear arms is a “fraud.” It was never meant to protect private gun rights, and the only people who think it does are right-wing lunatics preparing for the impending apocalypse.

Desai goes on to make tired rebuttals to the self-defense argument and the argument that people need arms to protect themselves against the government, but let’s stick with what he claims is the weakest defense of them all. If Desai is right – if the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted for all these years – then gun owners don’t have a leg to stand on, right? If the federal government wants to shut down private gun ownership, there’s nothing in our founding documents to stop them.

It might be instructive if we go ahead and include the amendment itself in our discussion, a step Desai and the Huffington Post did not bother to take:

A well regulated m*****a being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The argument from the left centers around the fourth word: “m*****a.” According to them, the amendment applies only to those in a m*****a, thus it would not have any bearing on the millions of independent gun owners who now claim protection from the Constitution. But in making that argument, liberals must ignore not only the context of the document but the structure of the English language. Sticking with the latter, nothing in the Second Amendment restricts gun ownership to a m*****a and a m*****a alone. It gives us one reason for the importance of gun ownership without making any further claims as to the limits of that importance. If it said, “The sound of awesome gunfire being necessary…” silencers would still be permitted.

But there’s another aspect of the argument that liberals almost always miss. And that’s the simple fact that the Constitution is not the arbiter of an American’s full, comprehensive rights. In other words, the right to bear arms was inherent to America even before the Second Amendment was ratified. Government, remember, can only restrict a human being’s rights. It can never grant them. Our Bill of Rights merely puts down as law those rights which should never be infringed upon by courts and lawmakers.

With each passing year, liberals in this country get bolder in their fervor to attack American rights. They are desperate to impose stricter laws in the hopes that we can finally become more like the UK, Sweden, and the other European nations they so adore. To them, American freedom is the enemy, and they are willing to attack it through any means available. Fortunately, our founding fathers anticipated such anti-Americanism. They devised a strong Constitution to protect us against it. It’s not the weakest argument for guns; it’s the only one we need.

~~~~~

Those on the Left will never buy the argument that I have a right, even before there was a U.S.A., to own a fire arm, so they can kiss my 'rusty dusty' they ain't getting my weapon... Don D.


- See more at: http://patriotnewsdaily.com/is-the-second-amendment-misinterpreted/#sthash.Qex2vhEe.dpuf

Reply
Jan 8, 2015 15:10:23   #
Bad Bob Loc: Virginia
 
Don G. Dinsdale wrote:
PATRIOT NEWS DAILY.Com


January 08, 2015

IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT MISINTERPRETED?

According to a recent op-ed in the Huffington Post, the weakest pro-gun argument “is the constitutional one.” Writer Nick Desai cites former Chief Justice Warren Burger to buttress his claim that the common interpretation of the right to bear arms is a “fraud.” It was never meant to protect private gun rights, and the only people who think it does are right-wing lunatics preparing for the impending apocalypse.

Desai goes on to make tired rebuttals to the self-defense argument and the argument that people need arms to protect themselves against the government, but let’s stick with what he claims is the weakest defense of them all. If Desai is right – if the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted for all these years – then gun owners don’t have a leg to stand on, right? If the federal government wants to shut down private gun ownership, there’s nothing in our founding documents to stop them.

It might be instructive if we go ahead and include the amendment itself in our discussion, a step Desai and the Huffington Post did not bother to take:

A well regulated m*****a being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The argument from the left centers around the fourth word: “m*****a.” According to them, the amendment applies only to those in a m*****a, thus it would not have any bearing on the millions of independent gun owners who now claim protection from the Constitution. But in making that argument, liberals must ignore not only the context of the document but the structure of the English language. Sticking with the latter, nothing in the Second Amendment restricts gun ownership to a m*****a and a m*****a alone. It gives us one reason for the importance of gun ownership without making any further claims as to the limits of that importance. If it said, “The sound of awesome gunfire being necessary…” silencers would still be permitted.

But there’s another aspect of the argument that liberals almost always miss. And that’s the simple fact that the Constitution is not the arbiter of an American’s full, comprehensive rights. In other words, the right to bear arms was inherent to America even before the Second Amendment was ratified. Government, remember, can only restrict a human being’s rights. It can never grant them. Our Bill of Rights merely puts down as law those rights which should never be infringed upon by courts and lawmakers.

With each passing year, liberals in this country get bolder in their fervor to attack American rights. They are desperate to impose stricter laws in the hopes that we can finally become more like the UK, Sweden, and the other European nations they so adore. To them, American freedom is the enemy, and they are willing to attack it through any means available. Fortunately, our founding fathers anticipated such anti-Americanism. They devised a strong Constitution to protect us against it. It’s not the weakest argument for guns; it’s the only one we need.

~~~~~

Those on the Left will never buy the argument that I have a right, even before there was a U.S.A., to own a fire arm, so they can kiss my 'rusty dusty' they ain't getting my weapon... Don D.


- See more at: http://patriotnewsdaily.com/is-the-second-amendment-misinterpreted/#sthash.Qex2vhEe.dpuf
PATRIOT NEWS DAILY.Com br br br January 08, 2015... (show quote)





Reply
Jan 8, 2015 15:14:06   #
Armageddun Loc: The show me state
 
Don G. Dinsdale wrote:
PATRIOT NEWS DAILY.Com


January 08, 2015

IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT MISINTERPRETED?

According to a recent op-ed in the Huffington Post, the weakest pro-gun argument “is the constitutional one.” Writer Nick Desai cites former Chief Justice Warren Burger to buttress his claim that the common interpretation of the right to bear arms is a “fraud.” It was never meant to protect private gun rights, and the only people who think it does are right-wing lunatics preparing for the impending apocalypse.

Desai goes on to make tired rebuttals to the self-defense argument and the argument that people need arms to protect themselves against the government, but let’s stick with what he claims is the weakest defense of them all. If Desai is right – if the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted for all these years – then gun owners don’t have a leg to stand on, right? If the federal government wants to shut down private gun ownership, there’s nothing in our founding documents to stop them.

It might be instructive if we go ahead and include the amendment itself in our discussion, a step Desai and the Huffington Post did not bother to take:

A well regulated m*****a being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The argument from the left centers around the fourth word: “m*****a.” According to them, the amendment applies only to those in a m*****a, thus it would not have any bearing on the millions of independent gun owners who now claim protection from the Constitution. But in making that argument, liberals must ignore not only the context of the document but the structure of the English language. Sticking with the latter, nothing in the Second Amendment restricts gun ownership to a m*****a and a m*****a alone. It gives us one reason for the importance of gun ownership without making any further claims as to the limits of that importance. If it said, “The sound of awesome gunfire being necessary…” silencers would still be permitted.

But there’s another aspect of the argument that liberals almost always miss. And that’s the simple fact that the Constitution is not the arbiter of an American’s full, comprehensive rights. In other words, the right to bear arms was inherent to America even before the Second Amendment was ratified. Government, remember, can only restrict a human being’s rights. It can never grant them. Our Bill of Rights merely puts down as law those rights which should never be infringed upon by courts and lawmakers.

With each passing year, liberals in this country get bolder in their fervor to attack American rights. They are desperate to impose stricter laws in the hopes that we can finally become more like the UK, Sweden, and the other European nations they so adore. To them, American freedom is the enemy, and they are willing to attack it through any means available. Fortunately, our founding fathers anticipated such anti-Americanism. They devised a strong Constitution to protect us against it. It’s not the weakest argument for guns; it’s the only one we need.

~~~~~

Those on the Left will never buy the argument that I have a right, even before there was a U.S.A., to own a fire arm, so they can kiss my 'rusty dusty' they ain't getting my weapon... Don D.


- See more at: http://patriotnewsdaily.com/is-the-second-amendment-misinterpreted/#sthash.Qex2vhEe.dpuf
PATRIOT NEWS DAILY.Com br br br January 08, 2015... (show quote)




A well regulated m*****a being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


To me this says each state should develop and have a well regulated (Well Ordered and established recognized m*****a) in order to keep each state free.

As well as the right of the individual to keep in their possession and carry arms.

It is the responsibility of the law and legal system to take care of those who use weapons in an illegal manner. It is not the responsibility of the president or congress to interpret the constitution.

To change the constitution is the responsibility of the people beginning the initiative.

Reply
 
 
Jan 8, 2015 15:21:54   #
Bad Bob Loc: Virginia
 
A well regulated m*****a being necessary to the security of a free state,

Pretty sample English ain't it. Well regulated m*****a.

:-D :-D :-D :-D

Reply
Jan 8, 2015 15:25:07   #
MrEd Loc: Georgia
 
Don G. Dinsdale wrote:
PATRIOT NEWS DAILY.Com


January 08, 2015

IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT MISINTERPRETED?

According to a recent op-ed in the Huffington Post, the weakest pro-gun argument “is the constitutional one.” Writer Nick Desai cites former Chief Justice Warren Burger to buttress his claim that the common interpretation of the right to bear arms is a “fraud.” It was never meant to protect private gun rights, and the only people who think it does are right-wing lunatics preparing for the impending apocalypse.

Desai goes on to make tired rebuttals to the self-defense argument and the argument that people need arms to protect themselves against the government, but let’s stick with what he claims is the weakest defense of them all. If Desai is right – if the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted for all these years – then gun owners don’t have a leg to stand on, right? If the federal government wants to shut down private gun ownership, there’s nothing in our founding documents to stop them.

It might be instructive if we go ahead and include the amendment itself in our discussion, a step Desai and the Huffington Post did not bother to take:

A well regulated m*****a being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The argument from the left centers around the fourth word: “m*****a.” According to them, the amendment applies only to those in a m*****a, thus it would not have any bearing on the millions of independent gun owners who now claim protection from the Constitution. But in making that argument, liberals must ignore not only the context of the document but the structure of the English language. Sticking with the latter, nothing in the Second Amendment restricts gun ownership to a m*****a and a m*****a alone. It gives us one reason for the importance of gun ownership without making any further claims as to the limits of that importance. If it said, “The sound of awesome gunfire being necessary…” silencers would still be permitted.

But there’s another aspect of the argument that liberals almost always miss. And that’s the simple fact that the Constitution is not the arbiter of an American’s full, comprehensive rights. In other words, the right to bear arms was inherent to America even before the Second Amendment was ratified. Government, remember, can only restrict a human being’s rights. It can never grant them. Our Bill of Rights merely puts down as law those rights which should never be infringed upon by courts and lawmakers.

With each passing year, liberals in this country get bolder in their fervor to attack American rights. They are desperate to impose stricter laws in the hopes that we can finally become more like the UK, Sweden, and the other European nations they so adore. To them, American freedom is the enemy, and they are willing to attack it through any means available. Fortunately, our founding fathers anticipated such anti-Americanism. They devised a strong Constitution to protect us against it. It’s not the weakest argument for guns; it’s the only one we need.

~~~~~

Those on the Left will never buy the argument that I have a right, even before there was a U.S.A., to own a fire arm, so they can kiss my 'rusty dusty' they ain't getting my weapon... Don D.


- See more at: http://patriotnewsdaily.com/is-the-second-amendment-misinterpreted/#sthash.Qex2vhEe.dpuf
PATRIOT NEWS DAILY.Com br br br January 08, 2015... (show quote)




"The UK, Sweden, and the other European nations" is not what they want us to become, but it is Hitler's Germany that they want for us and for the same reason too. What really bugs me is that Liberals are not only willing to give up what they believe are only some of their freedoms, but everyone else too. They fear guns, because they haven't thought it through to the end.

It's not the gun that hurts people, but they want to take it away just to play it safe. They have an irrational fear of the gun, when it is the man holding the gun they should fear. Instead of putting the blame on the man (or woman) behind the gun, they are willing to let the socialist talk them into giving up on guns as though that is the threat, not the person behind it.

It's a good thing our Constitution was written the way it is, or the Liberals would have given away our right to arms long ago just to feel safe. The problem with Liberals is, they never think things through to the end. If we did indeed give up our right to be armed, we would be no batter then Germany was under Hitler, since he convinced the people to give up arms. They are using the same tactics as Hitler did, but we have an advantage over the German people. We have a Constitution that says no one can take that right away for any reason. Our rights were granted by God, therefor no man can take them away.

Reply
Jan 8, 2015 15:40:55   #
MarvinSussman
 
Don G. Dinsdale wrote:
PATRIOT NEWS DAILY.Com


January 08, 2015

IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT MISINTERPRETED?

According to a recent op-ed in the Huffington Post, the weakest pro-gun argument “is the constitutional one.” Writer Nick Desai cites former Chief Justice Warren Burger to buttress his claim that the common interpretation of the right to bear arms is a “fraud.” It was never meant to protect private gun rights, and the only people who think it does are right-wing lunatics preparing for the impending apocalypse.

Desai goes on to make tired rebuttals to the self-defense argument and the argument that people need arms to protect themselves against the government, but let’s stick with what he claims is the weakest defense of them all. If Desai is right – if the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted for all these years – then gun owners don’t have a leg to stand on, right? If the federal government wants to shut down private gun ownership, there’s nothing in our founding documents to stop them.

It might be instructive if we go ahead and include the amendment itself in our discussion, a step Desai and the Huffington Post did not bother to take:

A well regulated m*****a being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The argument from the left centers around the fourth word: “m*****a.” According to them, the amendment applies only to those in a m*****a, thus it would not have any bearing on the millions of independent gun owners who now claim protection from the Constitution. But in making that argument, liberals must ignore not only the context of the document but the structure of the English language. Sticking with the latter, nothing in the Second Amendment restricts gun ownership to a m*****a and a m*****a alone. It gives us one reason for the importance of gun ownership without making any further claims as to the limits of that importance. If it said, “The sound of awesome gunfire being necessary…” silencers would still be permitted.

But there’s another aspect of the argument that liberals almost always miss. And that’s the simple fact that the Constitution is not the arbiter of an American’s full, comprehensive rights. In other words, the right to bear arms was inherent to America even before the Second Amendment was ratified. Government, remember, can only restrict a human being’s rights. It can never grant them. Our Bill of Rights merely puts down as law those rights which should never be infringed upon by courts and lawmakers.

With each passing year, liberals in this country get bolder in their fervor to attack American rights. They are desperate to impose stricter laws in the hopes that we can finally become more like the UK, Sweden, and the other European nations they so adore. To them, American freedom is the enemy, and they are willing to attack it through any means available. Fortunately, our founding fathers anticipated such anti-Americanism. They devised a strong Constitution to protect us against it. It’s not the weakest argument for guns; it’s the only one we need.

~~~~~

Those on the Left will never buy the argument that I have a right, even before there was a U.S.A., to own a fire arm, so they can kiss my 'rusty dusty' they ain't getting my weapon... Don D.


- See more at: http://patriotnewsdaily.com/is-the-second-amendment-misinterpreted/#sthash.Qex2vhEe.dpuf
PATRIOT NEWS DAILY.Com br br br January 08, 2015... (show quote)


Why is the registration of a buyer's name an infringement on the buyer's right to buy and keep the weapon?

Reply
Jan 8, 2015 15:49:43   #
MrEd Loc: Georgia
 
MarvinSussman wrote:
Why is the registration of a buyer's name an infringement on the buyer's right to buy and keep the weapon?




For two reasons.

1. The government have NO authority to do this. The Constitution does NOT give them the authority to register ANYTHING, let alone guns.

2. When the government decides it is going to take those guns away, then they know exactly were they are and who to go after to get them. Don't think that registration does not lead to confiscation, because it ALWAYS has in the past and there is no reason to think that our government never will. As soon as they think they can get away with it, they will come take them.

Reply
 
 
Jan 8, 2015 15:53:56   #
Bad Bob Loc: Virginia
 
MrEd wrote:
For two reasons.

1. The government have NO authority to do this. The Constitution does NOT give them the authority to register ANYTHING, let alone guns.

2. When the government decides it is going to take those guns away, then they know exactly were they are and who to go after to get them. Don't think that registration does not lead to confiscation, because it ALWAYS has in the past and there is no reason to think that our government never will. As soon as they think they can get away with it, they will come take them.
For two reasons. br br 1. The government have NO ... (show quote)
We will and then ya get locked up in a FEMA camp too.

:lol: :lol:

Reply
Jan 8, 2015 16:08:20   #
rkevin Loc: florida
 
Don G. Dinsdale wrote:
PATRIOT NEWS DAILY.Com


January 08, 2015

IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT MISINTERPRETED?

According to a recent op-ed in the Huffington Post, the weakest pro-gun argument “is the constitutional one.” Writer Nick Desai cites former Chief Justice Warren Burger to buttress his claim that the common interpretation of the right to bear arms is a “fraud.” It was never meant to protect private gun rights, and the only people who think it does are right-wing lunatics preparing for the impending apocalypse.

Desai goes on to make tired rebuttals to the self-defense argument and the argument that people need arms to protect themselves against the government, but let’s stick with what he claims is the weakest defense of them all. If Desai is right – if the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted for all these years – then gun owners don’t have a leg to stand on, right? If the federal government wants to shut down private gun ownership, there’s nothing in our founding documents to stop them.

It might be instructive if we go ahead and include the amendment itself in our discussion, a step Desai and the Huffington Post did not bother to take:

A well regulated m*****a being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The argument from the left centers around the fourth word: “m*****a.” According to them, the amendment applies only to those in a m*****a, thus it would not have any bearing on the millions of independent gun owners who now claim protection from the Constitution. But in making that argument, liberals must ignore not only the context of the document but the structure of the English language. Sticking with the latter, nothing in the Second Amendment restricts gun ownership to a m*****a and a m*****a alone. It gives us one reason for the importance of gun ownership without making any further claims as to the limits of that importance. If it said, “The sound of awesome gunfire being necessary…” silencers would still be permitted.

But there’s another aspect of the argument that liberals almost always miss. And that’s the simple fact that the Constitution is not the arbiter of an American’s full, comprehensive rights. In other words, the right to bear arms was inherent to America even before the Second Amendment was ratified. Government, remember, can only restrict a human being’s rights. It can never grant them. Our Bill of Rights merely puts down as law those rights which should never be infringed upon by courts and lawmakers.

With each passing year, liberals in this country get bolder in their fervor to attack American rights. They are desperate to impose stricter laws in the hopes that we can finally become more like the UK, Sweden, and the other European nations they so adore. To them, American freedom is the enemy, and they are willing to attack it through any means available. Fortunately, our founding fathers anticipated such anti-Americanism. They devised a strong Constitution to protect us against it. It’s not the weakest argument for guns; it’s the only one we need.

~~~~~

Those on the Left will never buy the argument that I have a right, even before there was a U.S.A., to own a fire arm, so they can kiss my 'rusty dusty' they ain't getting my weapon... Don D.


- See more at: http://patriotnewsdaily.com/is-the-second-amendment-misinterpreted/#sthash.Qex2vhEe.dpuf
PATRIOT NEWS DAILY.Com br br br January 08, 2015... (show quote)





I don't care what the administration does to enact anti-gun laws, legislation and lobbying, "In America there will always be a rifle behind every blade of grass" [Hirohito]. and with [that] statement, Japan, and most countries, would never attack the American mainland; and the UN has always seemed to be good-for-nothing!!!

For some reason, American liberal progressive politics has always tried to annihilate the 2nd Amendment and about every other "right" in our Bill of Rights; for the "unwashed masses," but not for themselves. Hummmmmm.

Reply
Jan 8, 2015 16:08:56   #
CarolSeer2016
 
Does it look like Pelosi is trying to get away from Dear Leader in this cartoon? It does to me.

Reply
Jan 8, 2015 16:09:12   #
MrEd Loc: Georgia
 
Bad Bob wrote:
A well regulated m*****a being necessary to the security of a free state,

Pretty sample English ain't it. Well regulated m*****a.

:-D :-D :-D :-D




I don't think you understand the second amendment exactly right. A well regulated m*****a is only one of many reasons we have a right to bear arms. They couldn't put every reason in there or they would be taking a chance they would forget something and then the government would scream if we tried to use our guns for that. Aside from a m*****a, we have a right to self defense, hunting, sport shooting and ANYTHING else you can think of so long as it does not interfere with the rights of someone else.

I think if you truly read and understand our Constitution, you will find that we have a government of enumerated powers. ALL of their authority is listed in the Constitution and if it is not listed, then they do NOT have the authority to do that. Our 10th amendment states that ALL POWERS NOT VESTED IN THE GOVERNMENT IS RESERVED TO THE STATES, OR THE PEOPLE. That's pretty simple isn't it? If we do not delegate a power to this government, then they CAN'T have that power, because we have reserved it for the states, or the people.

Reply
 
 
Jan 8, 2015 16:11:46   #
CarolSeer2016
 
I think I started a thread on this very subject a couple of months ago. It may behoove us all to review. Maybe I'll find it.

Reply
Jan 8, 2015 16:13:27   #
Bad Bob Loc: Virginia
 
CarolSeer2016 wrote:
Does it look like Pelosi is trying to get away from Dear Leader in this cartoon? It does to me.


:shock:



Reply
Jan 8, 2015 16:20:40   #
MrEd Loc: Georgia
 
Bad Bob wrote:
We will and then ya get locked up in a FEMA camp too.

:lol: :lol:




It is going to be hard to lock all those people up when there are all those guns shooting at them. If the government tried to take our guns, that would be the start of the second Civil War.
We would never have lost the first Civil War if it had not been for Lee. He let the situation get out of hand and wouldn't back down through p***e. If we had a good General in change of the Southern army, they would have beaten the North easy. Now that is going to piss off a few Southerners.

Reply
Jan 8, 2015 16:25:07   #
Trooper745 Loc: Carolina
 
MarvinSussman wrote:
Why is the registration of a buyer's name an infringement on the buyer's right to buy and keep the weapon?


Why is the registration of a homosexual's name an infringement on his right to be homosexual?

Reply
Page 1 of 5 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.