| Click to Post a New Message!
Page [ 1 ] |
|
|
|
Supreme court to hear 2nd admendment
"Just like the first amemdment and 4th amendment and third amemdment applied to indivual rights not any 'collective' right the gun grabbers would have the general population believe."
Let's not kid ourselves. Whatever individual rights we have, rest upon the right enumerated in the 2nd. At least in the political sense of rights, that is.
Not only is the sentence completely unambiguous--main subject, main predicate--it even includes an explanatory clause telling us why!
If you believe in the Rule of Law, and especially if you believe in individual freedom, then there is no question of what the 2nd means, both in spirit and in letter.
It is /the/ factor which singularly distinguishes America, in theory and practice. America is about who is sovereign, the individual or the State. Back in the old days, when folks were free to produce and trade, Americans produced like nobody else ever. Now we leave it to the geniuses in Govco, as if they can do it better than us. So can they?
Me, I'll keep my weapons. Personally I prefer dealing by wits, but I recognize that not everyone agrees!
"'today we are a safer nation due to gun regulation and confiscation' - Hitler."
Nah, completely different. That was the Fatherland; this is the Homeland.
jk
|
|
 Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Supreme court to hear 2nd admendment
"What surprises me is the number of people I know that own guns, hunt and don't belong, or even bother to vote in elections."
I stopped voting years ago when I began taking it as an implicit endorsement of mob rule. I could see voting in a Constitutionalist system--IOW agreeing to the concept of Rule of Law--but only one which was strictly limited in the enforcement of the few rules that are passed by the mob-rule system. Sorta like the United States in its founding days. The Fed could have laws, but none could trump the States. And the States could have laws, but none could trump the freedom of an American citizen. It was all focussed on the sovereignty of the individual.
Besides...once a government begins not to follow its own Constitution, then there's no Rule of Law anyway. You have a renegade government in that instance.
My dilemma is this. For twenty years I've yapped that the only two people I could honestly support as President are Walter Williams and Ron Paul. And darn if one of them isn't running this time, as even a major Party candidate.
For me it's a very tough moral dilemma, and I don't have a lot of those. So for now I've just put up some signs and choose to watch the show. I think when the money goes funny next year and people find out that Dr. Paul happens to be an expert on that very topic--even wrote a book years ago--then things might change a bit.
250 year cycle...wouldn't that be something?
jk
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Page [ 1 ] | Thread 148507 Filter by Poster:
3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
|
()
Picture of the Day
DennisCTB
Unanswered Questions
Active Subjects
Hot Topics
Featured Suppliers
|
Gas Generator Weather Protecti
11-21-2007, 23:21 
Digg It 
Del.icio.us