It is worth noting that our current Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano chaired the committee that came up with the draft of the 2008 Democrat Platform. Of particular note is the Firearms section of the "Renewing the American Community" Plank on page 48:
FirearmsThey only want to protect the Bill of Rights because of tradition? They believe that Americans have a right to own & use firearms, but not keep & bear them? They are in favor of the unconstitutional Chicago Handgun Ban but are fine with other areas of the US such as Cheyenne not tearing up the Bill of Rights? They want to ban the manufacture & sale of certain types of mid powered semi automatic rifles that are scary looking because they are black & have a pistol grip or an evil looking "shoulder thing that goes up"? They want to ban all Americans from being allowed to engage in the private sale of personally owned property if they happen to be at a gun show to close up the mythical gun show loophole? They actually think Criminals & Terrorists are not already armed or could be disarmed by making it more illegal for them to touch the weapons they're already not allowed to touch?
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ continued Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.
What a load of horse puky. They might as well say they're in favor of the 1st Amendment, but want to ban all use of free speech on the Internet to keep the Internet out of the hands of terrorists & criminals in the guise of keeping all children safe. Or that they are in favor of protecting the use of sunshine but want to ban all use of sunshine while outdoors in the guise of keeping children safe from sunburn & the possible result of skin cancer. Or that they are in favor of allowing Americans to consume water but want to ban the use of dihydrogen monoxide in all alcoholic drinks to prevent drunk driving accidents.
How about this novel idea. Why don't the Democrats simply advocate the creation of a law that makes it illegal to
children with the use of any weapon, regardless of whether it is done using a scary bird gun or an evil baseball bat. That way they could say they are in favor of protecting the 2nd Amendment protected but preexisting right to keep and bear arms while actually meaning what they say.
Subscribe
8 comments:
It's a slow battle of words, and if we don't keep fighting, the Dems will win. Britain didn't ban all guns all at once. It took time for the anti's to redefine the language, just like the Dems are trying to redefine the constitution.
Since when were our Revolutionary founding Fathers worried about our "sporting heritage"?
The DNC, by writing in their platform that they will enact and enforce common-sense laws to control firearms, is stating that they will write and enforce unconstitutional laws.
Their common-sense laws will infringe on the Right of the people to keep and bear arms and is therefore unconstitutional.
The Democratic National Committee believes it is their prerogative to either preserve or to repeal our God-given Rights. They state they are above the Supreme Law of the Land. They state they will destroy God-given Rights. By their statements, they do not represent our Constitutional Republic. They want to destroy it. The Democratic Party must be exposed for what they believe and for what they will do to our country
How's this?
"The Second Amendment is not about 'reasonable infringement'"?
or
"As per the First Amendment, all regulation is inherently unreasonable"
or
"As an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is to be interpreted using the same techniques as are used on the First." Too long, right?
Please, please please show me where "reasonable restrictions" are authorized by the Constitution. The government is subordinate to the Constitution BECAUSE the Constitution is the Creator of the government and the Constitution is subordinate to the People because the People are the Creator of the Constitution. The plain and simple language of the 2nd coupled with the preamable to the Bill of Rights says NO RESTRICTIONS can be made. The argument that reasonable restrictions flow from common governmental authority is specious an dbased upon historical governments that are NOT the US government.
Very true. What part of "shall not be infringed" do they find hard to understand?
What part of "shall not be infringed" don't they understand? Oh, they understand it perfectly well. They just don't like it and want to figure out how to violate it. But they can't just come out and say that now can they?
First, read the second amendment. It states " 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." A "well regulated Militia" provides a hint that the founders may not have been talking about the individual right to own arms but in the context of a regulated military defense force. Second, the language of the First amendment also seems quite clear but has been subject to regulation. Justice Douglas said something to the effect that freedom of speech does not give one the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Inciting violence and other criminal conduct could also be considered freedom of speech but is regulated. Freedom of religion could include polygamy or ritual murder such things are prohibited. So both the actual language of the Second Amendment and the limitations placed on other rights even more clearly guaranteed argues against your view of the Second Amendment. I seem to recall Republicans arguing for prayer in public school which has been found to be an establishment of religion. I have also heard Republican's argue that freedom of speech should not protect speech disagreeing with the current course of conduct of the government. Does this mean that the Republican's favor upholding certain parts of the Bill of Rights but not others? Seems that way.
JM
On your first argument you might want to check out the recent Supreme Court ruling which found that yes the 2nd Amendment does protect an individual right. Read through the majority ruling if you'd like details. As to your second argument, the 2nd Amendment is the ONLY amendment in the Bill of Rights that clearly states "Shall Not Be Infringed." - not even the 1st Amendment states it so clearly. As to the lame shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater argument that is already covered. You see, it's illegal to Yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, and it's also illegal to fire your firearm in a crowded theater, unless the criteria for self defense are met.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up Republicans. I'm not a Republican, I'm a conservative American. Not all Republicans are conservative. I'll vote for any Conservative, whether they are a Democrat, Republican, or 3rd Party. I vote freedom first - less government, protection of basic freedoms is key. However I will point out that I have never said the 1st Amendment should not protect speech disagreeing with the current course of conduct of the government or any other course for that matter (such as the socialist course Obama wants to take us in). Anyone who thinks such a thing would clearly not understand the basic freedoms guaranteed to all Americans in the Bill of Rights, be that in the 1st or the 2nd.
Post a Comment