tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063163257624231557.post7750138972601066976..comments2024-02-07T08:41:52.923-07:00Comments on Dustin's Gun Blog: 2008 Draft of the Democrat Platform Favors Firearms BansDustinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10234393631788374972noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063163257624231557.post-83089658616137224772008-09-08T21:29:00.000-07:002008-09-08T21:29:00.000-07:00On your first argument you might want to check out...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.<BR/><BR/>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.Dustinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10234393631788374972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063163257624231557.post-14531479493068643092008-09-08T20:02:00.000-07:002008-09-08T20:02:00.000-07:00First, read the second amendment. It states " A w...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.<BR/><BR/>JMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063163257624231557.post-39308776213653347422008-08-20T06:21:00.000-07:002008-08-20T06:21:00.000-07:00What part of "shall not be infringed" don't they u...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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063163257624231557.post-55259487392980990252008-08-18T21:32:00.000-07:002008-08-18T21:32:00.000-07:00Very true. What part of "shall not be infringed" ...Very true. What part of "shall not be infringed" do they find hard to understand?Dustinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10234393631788374972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063163257624231557.post-16385543352854599062008-08-18T15:35:00.000-07:002008-08-18T15:35:00.000-07:00Please, please please show me where "reasonable re...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.Nobody of Consequencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16254469213858879864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063163257624231557.post-69651719814851669722008-08-17T21:59:00.000-07:002008-08-17T21:59:00.000-07:00How's this?"The Second Amendment is not about 'rea...How's this?<BR/>"The Second Amendment is not about 'reasonable infringement'"?<BR/>or <BR/>"As per the First Amendment, all regulation is inherently unreasonable"<BR/>or <BR/>"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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063163257624231557.post-64707761100848056822008-08-14T09:39:00.000-07:002008-08-14T09:39:00.000-07:00The DNC, by writing in their platform that they wi...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. <BR/>Their common-sense laws will infringe on the Right of the people to keep and bear arms and is therefore unconstitutional.<BR/>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 countryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063163257624231557.post-57984217878661723382008-08-13T10:14:00.000-07:002008-08-13T10:14:00.000-07:00It's a slow battle of words, and if we don't keep ...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.<BR/><BR/>Since when were our Revolutionary founding Fathers worried about our "sporting heritage"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com