The Second Amendment doesn't "give" us a damn thing. Not that we'd expect highly paid professional "Authorized Journalists"--you know, the people whose very existence was originally to be a watchdog against government abuses of our rights--would understand what a right is.
That's why those who say we should repeal it are full of...baloney.
[Via SameNoKami]
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The poll question is: Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?
At 9:14, the vote tally is:
Yes: 99%
No: 1%
Undecided: 0%
Total votes: 24,655
It doesn't really matter what are the percentages, because the wording of the question is such that it is not possible to use the results to distinguish a majority opinion. Observe:
* NRA types who are not familiar with Constitutional history will read the question as: "Does the Second Amendment refer to an individual right?"
* Knowledgeable pro-defense types will likely overlook the defect in the question phrasing and vote "yes" meaning: "An individual right is specified."
* Disarmers who recognize the defective question will vote "yes", hoping that repealing the Second will be good enough to trick the populace into accepting a police state.
* Those who understand the Constitution will vote "no" because the Second codifies a right.
* Constitutionally-ignorant disarmers will vote "no" because they think the Second Amendment is antiquated; is -- in a rather unique fashion -- a right that is subject to collective ownership, normally associated with tangible property or money, in a form of government never practiced in this country; or just "no" because they are closet fascists. Either way, it has nothing to do with people in their view.
Considering the prevalence of just types 1 and 3, the results are worthless. (Type 3s are quite common. For example: Dennis "The People" Henigan.)
In the past I have gotten the exact same question from the NRA. You would think the NRA would know better.
The NRA primarily exists to promote marksmanship, without which a firearm is little more than symbol of hope in the hands of a layman, rather than that which makes a man the guarantor of his own security. To that end, they perform their duty.
However, I don't want the NRA to speak on my behalf, because their understanding of man's natural rights is apparently faulty. Such is to be expected when our natural rights are submitted by a lobby group for the approval of the mob, when the Founders warned us all about the undesirable consequences of democracy.
Without an understanding of the philosophical basis of the laws of this land, the NRA tends to also get the legal aspects wrong...
Please view the segment beginning at 5:34, with particular attention to the claim made by the NRA narrator at 5:59:
Video
Then view this:
Kansas State Constitution
I quote:
"§ 4. Bear arms; armies. The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security..."
I could comment further, but I don't think I need to.
Post a Comment