All that is to say that I'm no stranger to firearms and their use for recreation and hunting. I believe that experience qualifies me to comment on the Second Amendment as it's observed and misused today.Yeah, I'd say experience with recreational activities makes you a Constitutional scholar, Mike.
Kind of an ironic last name...
6 comments:
This dodo is full of it from bow to stern, as in garbage scow. He claims there are no discussions available from the time it was debated as an amendment. I humbly suggest he go to gunshowonthenet. Then he says "is the "right" of the people the keep and bear arms for the individual or the "collective" militia. I don't think Karl Marx was on any congressional committees, and "collective rights" are a concept both foriegn and hostile to the Constitution and capitalism, not to mention free people and free markets. How about collective rights to speech, Mike? That would mean the people have the collective right to free speech through the organs of the MM. Fat chance anything resembling free speech would get through the socialist megaphone there. This guy is an idiot hoping that everyone reading is as dumbed down and stupid as he is. Yes he is qualified to comment on the Constitution, but no farther than Osama bin Laden is. Another useful idiot.
"If you don't think it's a false sense of security try this: Take the most powerful, sophisticated weapon at your disposal. Now try to imagine how effective it would be against an AH-1W "Super Cobra," an F/A-18 or an M1A1 Abrams battle tank."
Another one without any knowledge of guerilla warfare. Pick up a book, sir, and read about it.
Forgot to mention his idiot comment about "if you feel comfortable about owning guns, try thinking about using it to take out a AH1 Super Cobra, an F-18 , or a M1A1 Abrams tank." As the loyal opposition demonstrated in Viet-Nam countless times, superior firepower and technology are vastly overated, as they are in Iraq, and not only will these hot shot weapons be overcome, if they are used by our military on US, they will be in the hands of the very sons and daughters of US. First, knowing they are firing on their own citizens they are sworn to protect, second knowing what kind of treatment they will recieve from said citizens when encountered or captured. Oh, and Mikey, there are about 10 million veterans out here who precisely know the strengths and weaknesses of all the weapons systems the US has. He was 30 years in the Marine Corps? Another John McCain traitor.
It's not so 'murky' anymore....
Mr. 'Freeman' just received a 'history lesson'.
You can give him a 'lesson' to if you'd like;
mikefree@bellsouth.net
And here is his reply:
"Thanks for shaing your views. I'll check out some of the web sites. FYI, I don't get to write the "title" for the columns. I guess the editorial board does that. I wouldn't have used "murky". Ambiguous is a more accurate term, I believe.
Mike
So he obviously feels there is room for 'interpretation' of our Right....
I sent this letter:
Sir, you wrote:
"I strongly support the freedom (I'm just not sure it's a "right") of every responsible person to own as many rifles and handguns as they want to."
First I ask rhetorically, what is the name of the document in which the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution is enumerated? I believe it is the Bill of Rights.
You also wrote:
"My frustration is that, because of the NRA, we are so ineffective in keeping those guns away from the crazies and young children."
I ask you, who gets to make the call as to who is a "suitable" person? The government? Your neighbors? Your spouse? What other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights would you be willing to qualify this way?
Do you seek government approval before you practice your religion? No, why not? What if you are one of those "crazies" of which you speak? Surely the government has an interest in controlling what kind of crackpot religion you practice.
Do you seek government approval before you get together with your friends? No, why not? Can't we make reasonable arguments for restricting the inalienable rights of assembly, religion, the press, warrantless searches and seizures?
The 2nd is the guarantor of the other nine. Without it the rest are empty promises.
Please consider the following explanations of "what the authors of the charters of freedom of were intending"
"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 ruined." -- Patrick Henry, 1788.
“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms ... .” -Thomas Jefferson.
“What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” -- Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775
“The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms.” James Madison Federalist #46
Post a Comment