"Repeal the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway."
How about this: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed.”
Seems a little ambiguous that way, doesn't it? Still, nothing about guns in it that way, so I guess that it would allow for the government to hunt us down and kill us for having guns, as Donald Kaul wants to do. He sounds like a malicious, old Marxist.
I grew up reading Kaul in the 70s. He was always a lefty, but back then he was funny and wrote light - his column was titled "Over the Coffee". As he got old he stopped being funny and light and shifted to angry, mean and heavy. I haven't bothered with his stuff in decades. I probably should have, know your enemy and all that.
This guy Kaul is just appalling. He's fomenting hate and killing; I'd believe that his comments fall under a Terroristic Threat statute we have here in Texas. Just appalling...
Ahh, yes, the wet dream of lefty collectivists. Disarm the general public so they can use the government monopoly on violence to eliminate their political opponents. "Experts Agree Gun Control Works"; Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. Birds of a feather.
If they are serious, I predict a civil war is coming VERY soon. My grandpa and my dad used to talk about the long-off inevitability of it back in the 1970's, and I see now that they were men of vision. It would also explain why a lot of right-thinking Americans have been arming to the gills for the past 4-5 years.
Many conservative writers when covering the subject, and also many lawyers and judges who really should know better, speak of “Second Amendment Rights”. The right to keep and bear arms, are, in fact, not dependent upon the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, and is necessary to be able to enjoy the right to self defense. Like the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, they are fundamental rights. They, like the the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence are among the "self evident" rights. Are the rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" no longer in existence because they are not enumerated in the Constitution? All the rights enumerated still exist,even without the Bill of Rights. The US Constitution exists, not to grant rights, but to limit Government power. Strictly speaking, the term "Constitutional Rights" is a misnomer.
Note also, when the Founding Fathers spoke of self defense, they didn't mean just defense from common criminals. They also included self defense against the Government, and in their writings they show that they felt that the public, the people had the right to any weapons the military had, so as to be in a position to resist them.
The whole Bill of Rights was considered superfluous by many of the Founding Fathers. It was insisted on by men who had the mindset of what, in this day and age, we would call a safety engineer. Belt and suspender types. Thank heaven for them. Writing under the name “A Pennsylvanian”, Tench Coxe, delegate from Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress was one of those men insisting upon that bill of rights. He wrote “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” Notice that the “power of the sword” the right to keep and bear arms is not under the authority of the Federal OR State Governments, it resides with the people
Our natural rights, fundamental rights, god given rights, call them what you will, have been under assault almost before the ink of the signatures on the Constitution was dry. Every branch of Government, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, has attempted to limit the rights of the people, while enhancing their own power. They are, as a whole enemies of the people, and of individual liberty
Anon--comment not published. You want me to post names and addresses under my name that could result in real-world retaliation and that you won't post them under yours?
Anytime little Don wants to take away my guns I'll send him my street address and even a nice map to show him exactly where to find me. Of course he'd sent a couple of SWAT teams to take me out because he's such a non-violent little pansy who only wants NRA members/officials and Republicans to be killed, maimed, and/or otherwise injured by the state.
"Repeal the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway."
ReplyDeleteHow about this:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed.”
Seems a little ambiguous that way, doesn't it? Still, nothing about guns in it that way, so I guess that it would allow for the government to hunt us down and kill us for having guns, as Donald Kaul wants to do. He sounds like a malicious, old Marxist.
I grew up reading Kaul in the 70s. He was always a lefty, but back then he was funny and wrote light - his column was titled "Over the Coffee". As he got old he stopped being funny and light and shifted to angry, mean and heavy. I haven't bothered with his stuff in decades. I probably should have, know your enemy and all that.
ReplyDeleteHe's just as much a monster as the Sandy Hook killer. He's just more cowardly so he wants the government to do his killing for him.
ReplyDeleteThis guy Kaul is just appalling. He's fomenting hate and killing; I'd believe that his comments fall under a Terroristic Threat statute we have here in Texas. Just appalling...
ReplyDeleteAhh, yes, the wet dream of lefty collectivists. Disarm the general public so they can use the government monopoly on violence to eliminate their political opponents. "Experts Agree Gun Control Works"; Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. Birds of a feather.
ReplyDeleteIf they are serious, I predict a civil war is coming VERY soon. My grandpa and my dad used to talk about the long-off inevitability of it back in the 1970's, and I see now that they were men of vision. It would also explain why a lot of right-thinking Americans have been arming to the gills for the past 4-5 years.
Many conservative writers when covering the subject, and also many lawyers and judges who really should know better, speak of “Second Amendment Rights”. The right to keep and bear arms, are, in fact, not dependent upon the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, and is necessary to be able to enjoy the right to self defense. Like the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, they are fundamental rights. They, like the the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence are among the "self evident" rights. Are the rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" no longer in existence because they are not enumerated in the Constitution? All the rights enumerated still exist,even without the Bill of Rights. The US Constitution exists, not to grant rights, but to limit Government power. Strictly speaking, the term "Constitutional Rights" is a misnomer.
ReplyDeleteNote also, when the Founding Fathers spoke of self defense, they didn't mean just defense from common criminals. They also included self defense against the Government, and in their writings they show that they felt that the public, the people had the right to any weapons the military had, so as to be in a position to resist them.
The whole Bill of Rights was considered superfluous by many of the Founding Fathers. It was insisted on by men who had the mindset of what, in this day and age, we would call a safety engineer. Belt and suspender types. Thank heaven for them. Writing under the name “A Pennsylvanian”, Tench Coxe, delegate from Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress was one of those men insisting upon that bill of rights. He wrote “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” Notice that the “power of the sword” the right to keep and bear arms is not under the authority of the Federal OR State Governments, it resides with the people
Our natural rights, fundamental rights, god given rights, call them what you will, have been under assault almost before the ink of the signatures on the Constitution was dry. Every branch of Government, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, has attempted to limit the rights of the people, while enhancing their own power. They are, as a whole enemies of the people, and of individual liberty
Anon--comment not published. You want me to post names and addresses under my name that could result in real-world retaliation and that you won't post them under yours?
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely right Mr. Codrea. What the hell was I thinking using Anon....
ReplyDeleteDonald Kaul
841 Asa Gray Dr
Ann Arbor, MI 48105 (734) 994-0144
Suzanne E Kaul
841 Asa Gray Dr
Ann Arbor, MI 48105 (734) 994-0144
Anytime little Don wants to take away my guns I'll send him my street address and even a nice map to show him exactly where to find me. Of course he'd sent a couple of SWAT teams to take me out because he's such a non-violent little pansy who only wants NRA members/officials and Republicans to be killed, maimed, and/or otherwise injured by the state.
ReplyDeleteWhat a studly and brave guy. Typical liberal.