MIL-DOT
member
i don't understand. why would they try to repeal something that does nothing more than guarantee the right of the national guard to bear arms ?
Want to try to repeal the 2nd - go for it! At least he admits the individual right, & that it is absolute. So for now remove all gun-control laws and leave us the hell alone - until the amendment is repealed.
frankie the yankee said:But no where do they say that they think that it is absolute.
None of the rights in the BOR are absolute.
Yes, indeed, and they might well get it good and hard, too...The Harvard elites had best be careful what they wish for; they might get it.
Unlike the American Revolution, the civil war will reflect the coarsening of the rules of war and will look more like Iraq or Bosnia. The war would certainly extend to those whose direct and support it-- civilian or not-- as they are primary targets.... Bill Clinton extended our own rules of war in the Kosovo intervention to include the news media and other propagandists as legitimate targets. Under these rules, (the Harvard elites and their) anti-gun ilk would all be dead men.
Nope, not for me, even if they "legally" remove the RKBA
Amendment V...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
I wonder if those Einsteins at Harvard thought this through.
don't understand. why would they try to repeal something that does nothing more than guarantee the right of the national guard to bear arms ?
The authors of this missive commit the typical and tired error of believing rights are a gift of the government
Just because these people admit that the Second Amendment is a right of individual people and not "collective" is also not an admittance that the right is not absolute.
Logic says that if these authors of the article believe the amendment must be repealed, they must believe that there is no room in the amendment for the creation of the restrictions they would like to place upon the right.
Ergo, the right is absolute.
Unlike rifles and shotguns, a handgun has little use in hunting: It is a military and police weapon, built expressly to kill another human being.
As we have discussed before - if those rights articulated weren't supposed to be absolute, Madison wouldn't have recommended them.
Originally Posted by frankie the yankee:
But no where do they say that they think that it is absolute.
Talk about clouding the issue!
So what would these idiots say we should use to fend off criminals and would-be tyrants? Magic fairy dust?Unlike rifles and shotguns, a handgun has little use in hunting: It is a military and police weapon, built expressly to kill another human being.
It is a military and police weapon, built expressly to kill another human being.
'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers'. Quote from Henry VI by Shakespeare.86thecat: What was that Shakespere quote about lawyers?