Citizens Have Right to Same Weapons as Military
How do you fell about this stance ? I don't think it's going to fly anytime soon with The FEDs.
serf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uhscYt4_OVk
Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL), who unseated longtime Rep. Cliff Stearns last year thanks in large part to Tea Party support, sat down with Florida political blog The Shark Tank over the weekend to discuss gun violence. The freshman GOPer said he'd spoken with a number of constituents recently and approvingly relayed their sentiment: "when you read the Second Amendment," Yoho said, "the militia had the same equipment as the military to protect them against the tyrannical government." Preserving those protections, he argued, is "more important today than ever":
serf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uhscYt4_OVk
Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL), who unseated longtime Rep. Cliff Stearns last year thanks in large part to Tea Party support, sat down with Florida political blog The Shark Tank over the weekend to discuss gun violence. The freshman GOPer said he'd spoken with a number of constituents recently and approvingly relayed their sentiment: "when you read the Second Amendment," Yoho said, "the militia had the same equipment as the military to protect them against the tyrannical government." Preserving those protections, he argued, is "more important today than ever":
0
-
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Take it from someone who has been dealing with the 'law' his whole live. The most important aspect of any law is the spirit/intent, not the letter of the law.
I guess we will have to disagree on this one. I am 100% in support of the Bill of Rights but I look at the intent the founders had in passing those amendments, not what some 'judge'(or anyone) try to say when they look only at the letter of the law.
Since "intent" can only be subjectively interpreted, you would put the sanctity of the BOR on a sliding scale open to 300 + million interpretations. That is hardly supporting the BOR 100%.
The argument about crew served weapons or weapons of mass destruction is really unnecessary to quibble over. It is self regulating in all regards. If you consider that the individual is actually more important than the state then these infringements based on a lack of trust of the individual must be abandoned.
Conditional trust is no template with which to safeguard our rights. "We will trust you with a rifle but not that grenade." Once a person proves themselves untrustworthy, only then can the state take steps to correct a communal problem. Until such an event, the individual is still in posession of all rights and not subject to infringement.
Notice the framers used "infringed" and not "denied". Their intent ,if you will, was to thwart the smallest reductions in liberty. The argument you proffer, opens the door to endless termite like erosion of liberty. Time to re-examine this arbitrary position.0 -
quote:Originally posted by skicat
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Take it from someone who has been dealing with the 'law' his whole live. The most important aspect of any law is the spirit/intent, not the letter of the law.
I guess we will have to disagree on this one. I am 100% in support of the Bill of Rights but I look at the intent the founders had in passing those amendments, not what some 'judge'(or anyone) try to say when they look only at the letter of the law.
Since "intent" can only be subjectively interpreted, you would put the sanctity of the BOR on a sliding scale open to 300 + million interpretations. That is hardly supporting the BOR 100%.
The argument about crew served weapons or weapons of mass destruction is really unnecessary to quibble over. It is self regulating in all regards. If you consider that the individual is actually more important than the state then these infringements based on a lack of trust of the individual must be abandoned.
Conditional trust is no template with which to safeguard our rights. "We will trust you with a rifle but not that grenade." Once a person proves themselves untrustworthy, only then can the state take steps to correct a communal problem. Until such an event, the individual is still in posession of all rights and not subject to infringement.
Notice the framers used "infringed" and not "denied". Their intent ,if you will, was to thwart the smallest reductions in liberty. The argument you proffer, opens the door to endless termite like erosion of liberty. Time to re-examine this arbitrary position.
Your comment about trust is right on!!![8D]
One of the points I have been trying to get across for MANY years is "All good relationships are based on trust, and all bad relationships are based on the lack there of". Our discussion about the 'intent' of the Bill of Rights is mute because OUR government does not TRUST US to exercise our basic rights![:(] And as a result we have NO TRUST of our government![V] The question is where is this leading?? Will the vast majority of the people become 'useful idiots' for the progressives and allow them to take control or will WE say 'enough is enough' and fight back!!![?]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
32 comments