The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.
Click to enlargeI suppose just posting the Bill of Rights without agenda-driven editorial interpretations would be too complicated?
What presumptuous frauds these scoundrels are. Tell me there isn't intent here.
What the government giveth, the government taketh away? Not while I breathe.
And yes--I've checked to see if this is carryover language. So far, it looks like it's new.
13 comments:
Gives?!?!
*&#^$(*&#^% The 2nd doesn't GIVE anything.
I still can't figure out if they're evil or just stupid.
It's a pretty terrible document all around. It states outright that the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments only apply to citizens and not at all to legal or illegal aliens, and that even a consensual search without a warrant would be unconstitutional. So it just looks to me like general sloppiness.
It seems to me like the right to bear arms is the more controversial one, since Obama maintains that we have that right but he would outlaw the carrying of concealed weapons.
Yeah, the problem here is that some of them are wrong. I guess this is just another example of "interpretation".
Look at how the Fourth Amendment was mangled. Good Lord, grab its dental records, we need to make sure we're looking at the right amendment. It does sound familiar, though, doesn't it? The gov't thinks its only duty under the limitations of this law is that it dream up an excuse. Never mind that it must also indicate a specific location, name a specific person, and list the specific items to be seized.
Another freedom website links a story about the NRA providing $10,000 to a shooting range for drainage improvements. Imagine, if they decided for some reason to educate the public about the Bill of Rights. Four million members, $35 a year each in membership dues, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.
But people learning that their right shall not be infringed begin to question the need for permit systems and the rightness of some states' semi-auto bans which the NRA said honest citizens would obey while working within the system to change the law, hopefully in their lifetime. Oops.
On the flip side, at least it says "citizens" and not "the government" or "the people". It may be embarassing, but it's hardly the propaganda I've grown to expect.
(Sent via the Contact link at the bottom of the whitehouse.gov website)
To Whom it May Concern,
On the www.whitehouse.gov website, there is a glaringly incorrect statement on this page:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/our_government/the_constitution/
It says:
"The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms."
This is entirely incorrect. The Bill of Rights does not give the people ANYTHING, and I doubt you could find a valid Supreme Court decision that backs up that claim.
The Bill of Rights exists as a list of limitations on the Federal Government. A list of things it cannot do. It does not grant anything to the people.
For whatever reason this incorrect description was put in, it is going to gather some national attention very quickly, and should really be changed as soon as possible. I would like to suggest some more correct descriptions:
The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
or
The Second Amendment guarantees the government cannot infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.
or even,
The Second Amendment guarantees the people's right to keep and bear arms for protection of their life and liberty, including protection from a tyrannical government.
Please correct this incorrect description of the Second Amendment on the whitehouse.gov website.
Thank you.
I, also, sent a message to the contact link there.
There is a terrible misinterpretation of the Bill of Rights on this page:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/our_government/the_constitution/
where it states, "The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms."
This is a huge embarrassment to President Obama, as he is a Constitutional Scholar. I don't hold President Obama responsible for all the mistakes on the White House website, but his name is on it . This reflects poorly on his credibility as a scholar and his understanding of the Constitution.
A more accurate wording, and in line with the concurrent explainations of each Amendment, would be:
"The Second Amendment provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The current wording implies, and in fact states, that the Constitution GIVES rights, when the Founders clearly held that we are "endowed by our Creator" with our rights and that the purpose of government is to secure those Creator-endowed rights.
In short, the Constitution enshrines and protects our rights, but does not "give" rights. That is a dangerous misinterpretation, because the uninformed citizen might fall prey to the belief that government could also "take away" rights.
Please, feel free to contact me concerning this issue. I am retired from the US Army, and in accordance with my Oath to support and defend the Constitution, I must demand that this error be corrected. I will be forwarding this letter and any response to other agencies.
Thank you.
That kind of spin is just evil.
Not surprising - actually a concession of sorts since for years they claimed it was a right of "the states" - but still evil.
My back to them all.
What stands out to me most is that the Second Amendment entry is the only entry among these ten that does not state or imply a restraint upon the government. Think that's an accident?
(Whether it is deliberately purposeful or not is immaterial--it is simply no accident that whatever minion crafted these paraphrases, cannot conceive that the Second Amendment is any sort of restraint, while at least nominally ceding that the others are.)
And how telling is it that these people think that we idiots* are so stupid that we cannot understand the perfectly clear language of the BoR itself?
Yeah, there are other points that we could pick apart in the paraphrases--no question there--but the big one is certainly the blatant sore thumb of the false 2A description, followed by the perfectly reasonable question "why do you think that the People, who demanded the Bill of Rights as a specific set of protections from the State, somehow need the advice of that very State on how to 'interpret' its provisions?"
Maybe we could use this as an exercise for our elected officials. Send them a copy of the text, and say, "okay, here's a two-question quiz:"
"- Which statement in this passage is factually false? Support your answer using both direct (Constitution and Bill of Rights) and indirect (Declaration of Independence, writings of the Founders, etc.) sources."
"- Why, exactly, do the People need an 'interpretation' of perfectly clear language, from the very party that the language was written to protect them from?"
Whaddya think?
__________
* Remember--always remember--the word "idiot" means "private citizen" in classical Greek.
The Fifth Amendment provides that citizens not be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment without due process. Citizens may not be tried on the same set of facts twice, and are protected from self-incrimination (the right to remain silent). The amendment also establishes the power of eminent domain, ensuring that private property is not seized for public use without just compensation.
"Public Use" does not seem to indicate private use.
Where's keep?
As in,
A Republic, if you can keep it.
I posted the following, on the whitehouse.gov contact page:
"I just noticed your page on the US Constitution, http://www.whitehouse.gov/our_government/the_constitution/ . It says, "The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms." That is incorrect. We the people, all the people, whether citizens or not, have the right to keep and bear arms, as a natural consequence of our right to life. The Second Amendment says that the government is not allowed to infringe on that right. It doesn't GIVE us anything. It simply acknowledges a pre-existing right. The difference is important. That which Uncle Sam giveth, Uncle Sam may taketh away. Please fix your page."
I guess that with the dumbing down of education, they figured people couldn't understand the plain language of the Bill of Rights. I don't know though, they might be surprised. The language of the BoR is impentatrable only to leftists and commies. Everyone else gets it.
PolyKahr
Post a Comment