Why do you need to carry a gun when you have security guards and you live in a gated upscale community? Oh, you don't live there? Well sucks to be you then i guess....
"To preserve Liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, and member of the first Continental Congress, which passed the Bill of Rights)
Gun Control: Democrats are noticeably silent as freshman Sen. James Webb packs heat and leaves an aide literally holding the bag. So why should their constituents not have the same right to self-defense?
Link
15 comments:
thank god.
now i can finally stop agreeing with the liberals.
the DC example is especially egregious because there is so much police and military power concentrated there.
the Dems seem as unified on gun control as the GOP on abortion: most people agree, but there are prominent dissenters.
you don't hear the NRC talking up giuliani's social views for the same reason you won't hear Dems mentioning Webb's gun politics.
I agree that there is an individual right to bear arms, based on the second amendment, as well as an inherent right to self-defense. The right has to be understood in the context of the language of the amendment regarding a "well-regulated militia." Accordingly, I think reasonable regulations, as to registration of fire arms, and types of fire arms (as in banning machine guns, for example) are constitutional. Banning all fire arms would not be.
well the webb question was rhetorical, we all know the politics of it. I just think this is one of those things that shouldn't be up for debate. The wording couldn't be any clearer.
Unlike abortion, arms are specifically mentioned as a right in the bill of rights, and it's ammendment #2, right behind speech and religion!
The founders wrote the bill of rights so that individual states couldn't infringe on these specific rights and yet that's exactly what happened!
Anyone who argues against this one is either stupid, openly defying the constitution for their own agenda, or lying.
i think gun registration is a good idea, but citizens should be allowed to have nuclear bombs.
seriously.
there should be no restrictions on the type of firearms private citizens can own--there aren't any restrictions on the govt's.
and the "well-regulated militia" point you bring up completely depends on how you read the sentence. the way i read it, it's so we can regulate the militia.
and that's the intended meaning, if you put it in the historical context of how the redcoats treated the colonists.
I've always thought the second amendment was rather poorly worded, actually, which is why people are still arguing as to how it relates to militias.
It was perfectly worded. The founding fathers didn't realize that some day the libs would try to twist their words.
The milita was referring to ordinary citizens, who if necessary could defend the nation from foreign invaders and would supply their own weapons.
no, archie, that's the liberal interpretation.
they argue that the 2nd amendment was so people could form their own militias if need be, but now that we've got the police and military to protect us, people don't need guns any more.
and that is the WRONG interpretation.
the british army was out of control in the colonies, and to avoid a situation where the military could trample over individuals' rights, our founding fathers wisely enshrined our right to bear arms.
this is so we can regulate the militia, just like the black panthers (when they initially formed) regulated the activity of the oakland police dept and dramatically reduced police brutality.
we need guns to protect us from the state!
I agree Rhino but clearly some regulation of the right to bear arms is constitutional as the amendment refers to a "well regulated" militia.
Actually, i think i was correct. I know the lib argument is that the government is protecting us so we don't need guns, but we need to have protection also from our protectors, isn't that the deal?
Yes, I think we are in basic agreement. I do think some regulation of guns is constitutional ("well regulated") but people have a right to fire arms.I'm not an absolutist, registration is a good idea, and people do not need bazookas or machine guns.
Except for me...I need both bazookas & machine gun. It's my constitutional right.
All Blacks are Democrats except 1 or 2. Most Blacks have guns. Why is that? Because they are in danger, that's why.
I dont know, I have security and I still have a gun. I fire at ranges and I absolutely think its my right to own it and obligation to be trained.
I also feel its my right to grow pot but thats another topic.
Anyway, the argument is also that kids will use them. Well kids drown in pools and its not the pool's fault and we dont take them away either.
People will be irresponsible with their cars, make tragic mistakes. But this should be seen as another issue.
Also, once you are in a dangerous situation and a gun saves your life- you tend to rethink. We want our safety but would begrudge others. And thats not right. Do watcha gotta do. All you ladies ought to carry.
You pack heat?
Always figured you to wield a Honzo.
We hate Jim Webb here in Virginai, because if ever an election was stolen, it was George Allen's.
BUT I LOVED HIS FAT ASS THE OTHER DAY! EAT THAT GUN COMMIES!!!!!!!!!!
Post a Comment