Yes, I've read the Second Amendment but no right is absolute. Police officers and other symbols of government take on a certain amount of risk to do their jobs, if restricting the flow of guns or making it more difficult to purchase guns eases our collective minds somewhat, we should consider it. [More]The best rejoinder I can think of was spoken by Dan Akroyd.
And thing is, look who they pick to do the counterpoint: A guy who would ban guns in a future civilization he could design from scratch, as if human nature changes based on where you are.
[Via The Bitter Clinger]
12 comments:
Nice to hear these two commies get together to carve up the Republic in their own little facist way. Love how she equates this career nut case with the terrorism of 9/11 and states that "many" people understood and accepted an "altering" of our freedoms. I wonder if she's considered the stance of people like me, when she vomits her treason? No matter. She, like the rest of the sheep can find out the hard way.
I didn't see any "point-counterpoint" there. Both sides wanted to eliminate guns.
"symbol of government."
like i've said before, LEOs, this is what they think of you. little plastic toys to line up and pretend-shoot their big, bad enemies who believe in things like god and human rights -- you'll do what they say because they pay you enough!
thank god for oath keepers.
OK - so the major point is: "...if restricting the flow of guns or making it more difficult to purchase guns eases our collective minds somewhat, we should consider it."
So she simply craves an "eased mind" - not actual security.
Whadda maroon...
Spoken like a person who wouldn't know a "right" if they stepped in it. Sorry to tell the parasite, but rights ARE absolutely absolute.
She is obviously learning impaired. Her entire premise is based on a falsehood invented in her own mind.
All our rights are absolute, precluding the infringement of the rights of others. However, the right to keep and bear arms is the only one codified in the constitution by word to be stated as absolute. That codification comes in the last sentence of the 2nd amendment.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". There are no qualifiers, no exceptions, no caveats as to when they where they may be infringed. In other words the right is absolute.
Look at the 3rd amendment. There is an exception implied as the proscription against unwillingly quartering soldiers in one's home is prohibited in times of peace. The fourth amendment provides for search and seizure upon "oath or affirmation...." and no other time.
So, it seems our lady is comprehension/impaired and because the very thing she said is in direct conflict with reality. That the principle has been criminally violated by various state entities does not mean that its absoluteness is any less valid. It only means that our various state entities are invalid and indefensible by anything other than force. Force which may need to be returned in larger portion to realign those entities with the constitution.
The ignorant lady should hope she never suffers the consequences of trying to enslave people who will not be enslave because she wants to "ease her mind". That would prove to be quite uneasy for those willing to give up the liberty of others.
David, the Hulu link came up dead for me and found it here:
http://www.slashcontrol.com/free-tv-shows/saturday-night-live/4120730573-point-counterpoint-lee-marvin-and-michelle-triola
WP
Huh--just tested and it worked for me.
What about YOUR right to breathe? How about if I place "reasonable restrictions" on your right to draw breath? After all, no right is absolute. I'll decide which restrictions, and to what degree, are "reasonable".
There now, don't you feel better?
There is no right to breathe mentioned in the Constitution.
Ahummm...
can you spell 9th Amendment?
Oh hell, never mind! (standing down and going back to cave)
Are you going to make me start putting smileys after my comments?
Post a Comment