Americans Should be Allowed to Have Guns, Say Large Majorities [More]Sorry, but I don't recognize anyone with authority to "allow" that. And unalienable rights aren't subject to majority rule.
As I said here, because I believe it, "At some point we must acknowledge that, democracy notwithstanding, two cannot lawfully withhold rights from one, NOR MAY THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES."
This may seem like nitpicking over grammar, but establishing the proper mindset is crucial.
5 comments:
In a local controversy over whether Richmonders would continue to be "allowed" to carry firearms into public libraries and other government buildings, I asked city council members whether the illegal drug trade, rape, murder and abduction were "allowed" by them, since it all persists regardless of their opinions and ordinances.
No reply.
All that arrogance is gonna come back to bite them one day.
Aaah yes, 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.
No one is ALLOWED to decide what I am ALLOWED to do when it comes to my rights, be they free speach, the right to keep and bear arms, etc.
It is my actions not my ability which matter. If I live my life and harm no one then I should be free to do as I please.
That said, we must remember that congresscritters make laws based on popular opinion, with little or no regard for our Republics Constitution. It would then follow that it is in our own interests to inform the public as to the logic and reason for the bill of rights, and yes to have public opinion on our side. Saves fighting later.
You hit the nail on the head with your comment about nitpicking grammer. The media today is very good at using words to convey meaning which is not there. Yhe proper mindset is crucial and we should never loose sight that our rights are not subject to majority approval. If we accepted that premise that the opposite would hold true and the majority could change and we then would lose our rights. Not me.
Paul in Texas
"Democracy is a couple of wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner."
We'd better learn to "nitpick over grammar".
The state's word-twisters make a living out of nit picking grammar. And, those word-twisters are the people who will convince a judge who has lost all connection with the real world to send you to prison.
[W3]
why did this Harris Poll restrict themselves to 2nd Amendment related questions? I am sure that the results would be curious regarding people's opinions on the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th Amendments and the others that follow.
The point is ... who cares? These are rights that we have despite the opinions of others.
I am more concerned about the opinions held by judges, prosecuting attorneys, and police officers, as they are in positions of authority capable of suppressing our liberty and freedom despite what others' opinions are of rights. Remember that a judge instructs jurors of what the law is, and they are instructed to apply the law based on the judges instructions, not by the jurors' opinions of the laws and any applicable rights. The "ability to follow orders" from the judge is evaluated during the voir dire portion of jury selection. Your having a well formed opinion on rights may get you excused from a jury.
Post a Comment