[sensop]

I scanned quickly here to not duplicate a previous post (I hate that!).

WND's Daily Poll for Tuesday, 19 August 2003, asks, "Do you think Constitution grants PERSONAL right to bear firearms?" Note the emphasis on "PERSONAL". Most of us here will immediately notice the fundamental flaw in the question: "... grant ... right to bear arms?" It is obvious that the intent of the poll is to address the personal right to keep and bear arms vs the militia interpretation of the 2nd. In doing so, they went right by the fact that the 2nd doesn't convey a right, but guarantees the non-interference of it by the federal government. A common mistake.

For the record, I fired off an email to Ms Mary Drum, Executive Secy for Joseph Farah, and got a very nice reply that she would mention the problem to the staff. We'll see. Want to help? Email Ms Drum at mdrum@worldnetdaily.com. Be nice. They are on our side. We just need to keep 'em straight when they make a boo-boo.

[Futo Inu]

Good call, sensop. It protects a common law right which pre-dates the constitution, from infringement by the federal gov't. The 14th amendment in 1868, among other things, extends the protection of fundamental rights contained in the BOR to the states, as a prohibition against the states gov'ts infringing them either.

[sensop]

Big Dog, long time no see. You still carrying that tupperware with the contraption on top?:D

[2dogs]

FYI- the poll now says "guarantees" a personal right rather than "grants".:)

[Standing Wolf]

Human rights are inherent, not granted.

[ACP230]

I fired off a e-mail letter to the editor making the same point yesterday morning about 9 o'clock.

I'm glad to hear they changed the poll.

[Quartus]

Well, WND means well, but they do need a basic education over there.


Glad they changed it, though. Must have gotten a TON of mail.