Unfortunately, the author repeats a commonly quoted falsehood that does as much harm as good, IMHO: “The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.”[More]No I do not. Read the damn thing. I specifically take the administration to the woodshed for that. Good grief, I even cite SCOTUS to prove they know they're lying.
A lot of work and thought go into these things. What does more harm than good: forum bloviators who express opinions based on either skimming them, reading headlines, or reacting to the comments of others.
That no one has called him on it yet reinforces my point.
4 comments:
Tried to sign up to comment, but as yet have received no confirmation email...
Finally got through - posted this: To: SonAboveAnItch
To which post were you referring? The Examiner article takes people to task for stating the “the Second Amendment “gives” citizens the right to bear arms.” The author even references Heller in the article, while destroying that premise:
“That a fundamental right is treated as a stigmatized vice should be no surprise—after all, the White House makes no secret of how they wish for us to perceive it, and how they will lie to us to ensure that perception:
The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.
“Lie” is not too strong a word. They know that’s not a true statement. From District of Columbia v. Heller:
The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”
So we have proven liars who admit their intent is to “brainwash” the citizenry into rejecting their rights, and who intentionally deceive on the nature of those rights and their ability to usurp them: after all, if permission is required, that which can be granted can be withheld.”
Posted in replies - apparently I'm too new for this to post "publicly."
Funny thing - while I was posting, the reply was supposed to be, and stated it would be, linked to the offending rant but one must click through the replies button to view it. in essence, it's not public. One must search to find it buried in the minutiae.
Huh.
Guess I'll not bother posting on that neocon butt-buddy site again.
Apologies for the following - but some asshat chastises an author for being "intellectually lazy" - and the fucktard either didn't bother to, or wasn't capable of, reading the post before spouting off with his bit of idiocy. That shit pisses me off. And no one else busted him on it.
Yeah - those butt-rubbing neocon warmonger ass kissers can ALL kiss my skinny ass. Idiots.
Apparently, few people actually reads that stuff, so, it'll go unnoticed.
Maybe he means it is a natural right and the bill of rights only codifies it, like you said, but failed at reading comprehension?
Post a Comment