Well well well look at the self proclaimed college educated 20 something Dr? and the wanna be actor claiming that they and only they know what is best for everyone, everywhere instead of letting the poor uneducated masses think and act for themselves and take responsibility for their own actions. God, I am sooooooooooo glad that they are here to protect me from myself.......NOT!!
From your most informative, and well thought out profile we only know one thing about you. Unless you are over 7' tall you are obese. We certainly know that isn't good for you. But, you are free to graze as much as you like. Of course, when you start to drain the health care resources due to heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and knee replacements I shall personally remind you of how you feel about comprehensive health care.
I'm not surprised that the Trolls are going off topic again so I will go back on topic relating to DR's OP on the Constitution! There is nothing that I'm about to say that is un-factual! If you don't like it, that's too bad because it's how our country is designed to run. The United States is NOT a Democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic! Which means that Representatives are elected through a Democratic process, to represent the people in Congress as well as the Presidency. The US Constitution lists specific powers of the Federal Government's 3 Branches. If the US Constitution does not specifically grant the authority to the members of those branches to do something then they don't have the power to do it which is absolute! It's not up to the Supreme Court to rule the Constitutionality of a law that Congress passes after the fact, Congress is required to pass laws that are Constitutional! (With enough of them already being lawyers, they should understand this already, but I guess many of them don't right up to the President) The founders created the Electoral College so as to give small states equal representation, and if we eliminate this process and elect presidents only on popular vote then we will be destroying a key piece of this republic by forming a very dangerous democracy where simple majority rules. (See Ben Franklin Quote in previous post)
The Constitution has gone through the Amendment process multiple times, the first of which being the addition of the Bill of Rights which specifically deals with individual rights and those of the States! (See 10th Amendment) and nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it give the Federal government any additional powers, in fact it entrenches the individual rights of it's citizens.
Someone mentioned polls to me in previous posts, apparently reminding me that I live in a state where polls are overwhelmingly contrary my viewpoints! Well good thing there is still an intact Constitution which protects my rights equally as anyone else rights to disagree with me, however, every other CT citizen could still disagree with me on the gun issue, I could literally be the only one with this viewpoint and they still can't take my right to bear arms away because of this protection! Will they try? Probably but that is why it's there to protect everyone!
Guns! Yeah, that pesky 2nd Amendment! Let's look at the definition of the term "Shall"Verb(in the first person) Expressing the future tense: "this time next week I shall be in Scotland".Expressing a strong assertion or intention: "they shall succeed".Synonymsmust - ought
In the First Amendment "Congress SHALL make NO law......" 2nd Amendment "The RIGHT of the People to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT be infringed" Yes future tense, it's Absolute, and notice that in the first amendment they mention Congress, but in the 2nd they don't, but all of them mentioned in both Amendments are Individual Rights and cannot be infringed in any way by any government! You don't like that? Too bad!
There is overwhelming evidence as has been stated multiple times in other posts that the Founders of this country added the 2nd Amendment specifically to protect the people from tyranny. Anything else such as self defense, hunting, etc. is covered but not the main focus! You can argue till you are blue in the face all of the silly false arguments that contradict this fact, but you are simply wrong! We 2nd amendment supporters do not care one iota if you don't like guns, don't want to own them, or even loathe them, but you cannot tell us that we can't own them. And any politician who feels the need to take them away, ban them, or restrict them from citizens of this country who are not barred from owning them (because they gave up their right to own) is violating their oath of office, and that is a high crime against the Constitution!
Presidential Executive Orders: Violate the oath of office except for Federal Employees only! The President Does Not have Constitutional Authority to enact them on any citizen unless it's part of the powers granted him or her by the Constitution through the legislative process!
Any law by passed by Congress must be within the scope of the 18 Enumerated Powers Granted them by the Constitution. Any law that is not within this scope is Unconstitutional and reserved to the States or the People respectively (SEE 10th Amendment) Note, Requiring citizens to purchase health insurance or guns owners to purchase liability insurance are NOT in the 18!
These are just examples of History that most of you ignore or refuse to accept. BTW, from this point forward, any personal attacks on me wasting space on this forum will be ignored by me. If you can't accept fact, that is your problem, if you want to debate without the attacks, I'm all in!
I don't. No one is at their best in a flame war. Goading people may be fun to do, but it's no fun at all to watch.
Yes it is. I laugh at this nonsense everyday. Keep it up Soupie. Oh, and I laugh at you too.
FF - I agree that the plain motivation for the Second Amendment was political freedom, as the text of the amendment itself makes clear, in the context of the mustering of militias to form the continental army in resistance to the British.
What do you think of the first, and the most recent, major tests of that?
The first being the Whiskey Rebellion, armed resistance to tax collection. Do you believe the resisters were justified in taking up arms? If so, is it OK for me to shoot my way out of paying my property taxes?
And the most recent being the 1957 showdown in Little Rock, where Governor Faubus mobilized the National Guard against integration, and Eisenhower, implementing a Supreme Court decision, ordered them back to barracks and sent in the army - with the Klan of course always in the background. All these people were legally armed. Should anyone have started shooting? Who should the Guard - the direct descendant of those "well-regulated militias" - have obeyed?
FF - I agree that the plain motivation for the Second Amendment was political freedom, as the text of the amendment itself makes clear, in the context of the mustering of militias to form the continental army in resistance to the British. What do you think of the first, and the most recent, major tests of that? The first being the Whiskey Rebellion, armed resistance to tax collection. Do you believe the resisters were justified in taking up arms? If so, is it OK for me to shoot my way out of paying my property taxes?And the most recent being the 1957 showdown in Little Rock, where Governor Faubus mobilized the National Guard against integration, and Eisenhower, implementing a Supreme Court decision, ordered them back to barracks and sent in the army - with the Klan of course always in the background. All these people were legally armed. Should anyone have started shooting? Who should the Guard - the direct descendant of those "well-regulated militias" - have obeyed?
What part of "shall not" do you not understand? As for your other questions, just more progressive double speak and twisting of the subject at hand.As long as we are breaking down the 2nd Amendment......What part of "well regulated militia" don't you guys understand?
FF - I agree that the plain motivation for the Second Amendment was political freedom, as the text of the amendment itself makes clear, in the context of the mustering of militias to form the continental army in resistance to the British. What do you think of the first, and the most recent, major tests of that? The first being the Whiskey Rebellion, armed resistance to tax collection. Do you believe the resisters were justified in taking up arms? If so, is it OK for me to shoot my way out of paying my property taxes?And the most recent being the 1957 showdown in Little Rock, where Governor Faubus mobilized the National Guard against integration, and Eisenhower, implementing a Supreme Court decision, ordered them back to barracks and sent in the army - with the Klan of course always in the background. All these people were legally armed. Should anyone have started shooting? Who should the Guard - the direct descendant of those "well-regulated militias" - have obeyed?
What part of "shall not" do you not understand? As for your other questions, just more progressive double speak and twisting of the subject at hand.As long as we are breaking down the 2nd Amendment......What part of "well regulated militia" don't you guys understand?
"Well Regulated Militia" meaning Well trained and Ready! I you can find in the Federalist papers or other proof from the Founders that it meant something different, I'm all ears! I Understand very well, apparently you are assuming the progressive meaning of the term!
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!