Posted: 3/18/2005 7:55:31 PM EDT
| The 2nd Amendment has spelled it out clearly and concisely;"The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed". So why is it even up for debate in Washington D.C.? If the framers of our very Constitution call this freedom a "Right". A Right is supposed to be untouchable. How is it that it's attackers aren't punished as traitors? If they can modify an amendment written by our Founding Fathers, then none of our laws, rules, regulations, or ideals mean anything at all. Aren't politicians who want to disarm the citizenry are BREAKING THE LAW OF THE LAND!!!??? |
|
DEEDS not words,...........Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. -- Patrick Henry
- Tench Coxe in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. -Tench Coxe, 20 Feb 1788 Richard Henry Lee on Arms To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. - Richard Henry Lee, Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, (1787 - 1788) Hamilton on Arms The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188 Constitutional Framer on Armies Whenever people . . . entrust the defense of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens. -- "A Framer," in the Independent Gazetteer, 1791 |
| Never underestimate OUR enemies. If people do not understand what's at stake, well ahead of time, they may be ineffective in stopping this tyranny. It would seem to me that overconfidence would be an error. How many gunowners actually believed the first ban would pass? Our opponents aren't gonna give up and disappear. |
So are you saying that the Constitution as written, with the original amendement - should never be changed or modified? If the curent administration/government can lobby to have the constitution changed to add an abortion ban, why can anti-gun groups not lobby to change the constitution to have a gun ban (or, act through the courts/legislatures to castrate the 2nd amendement). |
The problem isn't that an amendment can be changed, it is that it can be changed by interpretation. I'm fine with modifications done in a Constitutional manner. Oh, and the reason it is up for debate is that the people who would ban our guns really don't care what it says. |
| I view the issue much the same as DonS. Much of what I see done today involves representatives inflecting their own bias into the issues of their constituents. Legal wrangling is the order of the day in our capitol. I don't think an amendment should be considered lightly. They're tinkering with our most basic values as to how this nation should stand. I cannot and will not claim to know every aspect of our legal system, but I do see too many lawmakers tinkering with it's foundation. Firearms to many in Washington hold no place in our society. They'd seek to remove them from all of us. Why? Mainly because they simply don't like them? They fear them? Maybe they want to throw away our most sacred ideals and do something different? A lot of the newer policies appear more socialistic than democratic to me. Why NAFTA? Seems to be affirmative action for Mexican Nationals to me. It's made corporate America a lot of money, but how much better off is the common joe citizen now? Look at the tobacco industry. They couldn't affect a legal outright ban, so they just tax the hell out of a pack of smokes until it's cost is prohibitive to most. I don't use tobacco, but I don't need my federal officials making that decision for me. |
I think he meant it's "preaching to the choir" here, and that a polite discussion with folks who haven't yet been fully turned to the dark side would do more good. Flushed and spraying spit with "Me right, you wrong, fuck you, you hippie-commie-gungrabbing-liberal-NAMBLA-enabling bitch" probably isn't the way to go. |