hoodmik wrote:
So what are you insinuating he is lying about ? He respects the Constitution 100% so are you saying you respect President Obama 100% ?
If a person respects the Constitution 100% then they defend it 100%. All I have seen are progressives attacking the constitution.
They pass laws such as those defining h**e crimes (news flash, all "h**e" crimes are already defined as crimes) with the purpose of curbing 1st Amendment rights. Such laws specifically target religious institutions (particularly Christian ones) for the purpose of aggrandizing (in particular) the L**T agenda (among others).
They pass laws in the guise of gun control. These laws are a f**grant violation of the 2nd Amendment,particularly the part that states "shall not be infringed." This is further supported by the writings of our founding fathers who wrote that this freedom was necessary for the preservation of liberty against a tyrannical government. "Which government?", you may ask. Certainly not an invading country. That would be obvious. The only tyrannical government of interest to our founding fathers would be this very government. Their intent was for the people of the country to be armed with the same weapons as may be used against them should the government attempt to deprive them of their God given, Constitutionally protected liberties. This can be further substantiated by the most common dictionary of their day.
Johnson's Dictionary of the English LanguageArms. n.s. without the singular number. {arma, Lat.}
1 Weapons of offence, or armour of defence.
Those arms which Mars before
Had giv'n the vanquish'd, now the victor bore. Pope's Iliad.
2 A state of hostility.
Sir Edward Courtney, and the haughty prelate,
With many more confed'rates, are in arms. Shakes. R. III.
3 War in general.
Arms and the man I sing. Dryd. VIrgil.
Him Paris follow'd to the dire alarms,
Both breathing slaughter, both resolv'd in arms. Pope's Iliad.
4 Action; the act of taking arms.
Up rose the victor angels, and to arms
The matin trumpet sung. Milton's Paradise Lost, b. vi.
5 The ensigns amorial of a family.
Weapons of offence seems very well defined. I note a distinct lack of qualification here. It would appear that any weapon was deemed a weapon of offense regardless of caliber or capacity. That would include so-called "assault" weapons. Our forefathers wanted an armed populace. It was the only thing guaranteeing an open and honest government.
Remember one last key note of importance. Our forefathers considered "We the People" to be sovereign, not the government of the United States. Why else would we v**e on a new government every 2 years?