Skip to content

Obama’s Assault on Our Second Amendment Rights

01/28/2013

This site is outstanding! This site is going to the blogroll for further reference!

11 Comments
  1. 01/28/2013 13:57

    Quite interesting, that. Thanks!

  2. Dr. Jeff permalink
    01/28/2013 15:37

    The 2nd Amendment is interesting in that alone among the amendments in the Bill of Rights, it states a reason for it’s existence. That reason being that people proficient with arms are important for the security of the community.

    That reason for being is used by hoplophobes (people who don’t like guns – thank you Col. Cooper) to claim that the 2nd Amendment only applies to State Militias. That leap of reality requires a really perverse bit of logic, especially when the 2nd Amendment concludes with:

    “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    That’s a very clear command. It says bluntly that the people have a right to keep and bear arms and that no one is permitted to mess with that right in any way.

    It makes the 1st Amendment’s wording of “Congress shall make no law respecting….” seem downright obscure. A literal reading of the 1st Amendment, would have you conclude that only Congress is restrained from limiting religion, speech or the press. Yet, very few people would care to make that argument. We understand that if anyone places any but the most limited and modest restrictions on faith, speech or press, that it would threaten one of the most important foundation stones of our democratic republic.

    Compare:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

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

    Jeez, a bright 4th grader can understand these concepts. Well, that is a 4th grader who went to school before 1965.

  3. poetopoet permalink
    01/28/2013 15:51

    Dr. Jeff:

    “Jeez, a bright 4th grader can understand these concepts. Well, that is a 4th grader who went to school before 1965.”

    That’s why all liberal demoncrats always take the 5th, they never passed the fourth grade or degree test.

  4. upaces88 permalink
    01/28/2013 17:39

    This video may(?) seem a little severe for right now…I don’t think so…because this is where we are all headed IF something doesn’t happen to turn Our Country Around:

    I SO Much want to be wrong!

  5. Dr. Jeff permalink
    01/28/2013 23:29

    Speaking of which…

  6. 01/29/2013 09:10

    Sweet!

  7. 01/29/2013 09:19

    That is where we’re headed, but so many sheeple don’t see it. Won’t see it.

  8. 01/29/2013 09:20

    That is truth.

  9. poetopoet permalink
    01/29/2013 11:06

    Scalia spoke Monday at Princeton University in New Jersey, where gay freshman Duncan Hosie asked about his dissent in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision, in which he compared laws that ban sodomy to those prohibiting bestiality and murder. The question received more applause than Scalia’s speech, according to the Associated Press.

    “I don’t think it’s necessary, but I think it’s effective,” said Scalia of the bans. He said that he was not equating sodomy with murder, but rather drawing a parallel between the prohibitions on both acts.

    “It’s a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the ‘reduction to the absurd,'” he told Hosie, who is from San Francisco. “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”

    Scalia answered questions following a lecture to promote his new book, Reading Law. As for the law, Scalia said the Constitution was already “flexible” enough, in his view.
    “My Constitution is a very flexible one,” he said. “There’s nothing in there about abortion. It’s up to the citizens. … The same with the death penalty.”

    “It isn’t a living document,” he said. “It’s dead, dead, dead, dead.”

    Meaning it is settled law and cannot change because it is dead and we cannot change it, but only by amendment and that’s another law that is not dead that can be changed, deleted or thrown out, calling it unconstitutional, for the U.S. Constitution can never be ruled unconstitutional!

  10. 01/29/2013 13:18

    It IS the Constitution, after all. Don’t like it? Amend it.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,712 other followers

%d bloggers like this: