💥 Battle over the Second Amendment

[CENTEXFAN]

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article206828314.html

 

She was tearing up a gun range target instead of the constitution as reported on far right-wing websites.  

[CENTEXFAN]

28 minutes ago, Greezychef said:

I think you misspelled "of", or were you trying type 4?  

I " copied & pasted" from Yahoo.com title.  LOL

[Mr. P]

First I've heard (or seen) of it. 

[Wild74]

A doctored animation of González tearing the U.S. Constitution in half circulated on social media during the rally, after it was lifted from a Teen Vogue story about teenage activists. In the real image, González is ripping apart a gun-range target.

Poor little thing are they saying some bad things about her, maybe that Cuban patch she likes to wear will explain a lot. She is not tearing up the constitution physically just symbolically.  

 

[Hagar]

Had a friend of mine make a great 2nd Ammendment suggestion:

Given the fact that we, as human beings, do not possess the capability of predicting who will become violent, and history has shown that Liberal practices are detrimental to the health of a society, shouldn't we just dispatch with background checks and rely on voting records to determine who has the mental capacity to exercise their 2nd Ammendment rights?

Makes perfect sense to me!

[Coach Rab]

On 3/10/2018 at 12:54 PM, Wild74 said:

They may not have reproduced even the women who they get pregnant probably have an abortion or turn lesbian just runs in that group thinking 

With some of this libtard thinking, I can see why abortion is an option for them...

[KirtFalcon]

Why It Shouldn’t Matter If We Repeal The Second Amendment

In a properly functioning America like the Founders envisioned, a repeal of the Second Amendment would be virtually meaningless.

 

By Benjamin R. Dierker

There is no legal right to own a firearm in the United States. The Constitution does not give citizens the right to own weapons, and no legal or historical arguments support the idea that it does. Instead, a much deeper and more important philosophy provides for gun ownership: natural rights. These rights are not given, but protected. Not to expand citizens’ rights, but to limit government’s power.

Gun ownership is so integral to the United States’ DNA because armed Americans overthrew the world’s most powerful military empire using guns. The freest, most prosperous nation in human history, and a good deal of prosperity around the globe, owes its origin to guns. But the issue is far deeper than guns; it is about rights.

In a properly functioning America like the Founders envisioned, a repeal of the Second Amendment would be virtually meaningless. The right existed already; the Constitution merely secures it. Unfortunately, our society has loosened its grasp on natural rights philosophy and devolved into dependency on government-sanctioned rules. Today, however, even unambiguous text is under scrutiny by Democrats as prominent as former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

The Distinction Between Natural and Legal Rights

The Constitution mentions both natural and legal rights, and the distinction is critical. Within the Bill of Rights, some activities, like speech, are innate human rights protected against government interference. Other rights, like a speedy trial, are legal rights, which are products of the structure the Constitution created.

This distinction is crucial, because natural rights are articulated as endowed by God, while legal rights are endowed by government. The Founding Fathers understood natural rights to exist independent of—or in spite of—government. They simply exist for free people walking the earth. Legal rights are granted by men, and can be altered or destroyed by changes to law or the structure of government. The natural and legal rights in the Constitution are so fundamental that the Bill of Rights was added as an explicit bar to encroachment from the federal government.

The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right. It can be derived and is protected in multiple ways. Inherently, humans have natural grounds for self-preservation and defense. This right is beyond the reach of any person or government. Individuals can protect themselves using any necessary tools or actions.

Individuals also have a natural right to own property. Far be it for the federal government to regulate the personal items a free citizen enjoys in her home. To regulate personal property in private use on the grounds of its danger would be to inspect every knife, lighter, hammer, gardening tool, and gas-powered stove.

Owning a gun is well within the canon of natural rights that any free people should enjoy. Natural rights are so critical because they are innate in us. If the government dissolved or a new one took its place, it should have no effect on the basic entitlements of man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of his own happiness. The righteous task of the founding, therefore, was to craft a government impotent to crush these rights.

Constitutions Don’t Establish Rights, But Secure Them

Many state constitutions included a list of natural rights, not to provide for these rights, but to promise the people that the government would not tread on them. The federal Bill of Rights comes as a series of amendments, not because they were afterthoughts, but because the U.S. Constitution was written to limit the power of the federal government such that it would be powerless to act where it was not authorized.

Debate persisted for years over whether the people’s natural rights should be enumerated at all. Some argued natural rights were so obvious that an enumeration was unnecessary, not to mention the government’s limited reach and small scope at the time. In a 1787 letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no government should refuse, or rest on inference.”

Jefferson and others believed that leaving natural rights to “inference” put far too much trust in government and future generations in power. Still others believed that enumerating certain rights would create a presumption against other rights. If the government only mentioned a few natural rights, the government could encroach on every other right a free citizen ought to enjoy, citing no bar against its encroachment.

That’s Why We Have the Ninth Amendment

The solution was the Ninth Amendment, which preserves “other rights retained by the people.” Combined with the rest of the Bill of Rights, the federal government is clearly prohibited from trampling on free citizens’ natural or legal rights. According to the Ninth Amendment, a free citizen retains the right to self-protection and property, among a vast reservoir of other rights, and the government cannot interfere.

At its most basic level, a gun is a tool and item of personal property, which any person has a natural right to acquire independent of, and especially in spite of, government. A repeal of the Second Amendment should not truly harm gun ownership. Nevertheless, there is a reason it was explicitly included in the Bill of Rights, and listed so prominently. The reason is that human nature cannot be trusted, and both time and power destroy the protections created for free people.

Today, it is all too clear that if the Second Amendment were not so explicit, the tyranny of the majority would have suppressed the right long ago. The government did not create the right to own a gun, it secured that right, and thank God the Founding Fathers had the foresight to unambiguously prohibit the government from infringing on that right.

 

The calls to repeal the Second Amendment are voiced by radicals. Despite their high level of education, these radicals have not internalized the philosophy of natural rights or the significance of the Ninth Amendment. Yet the people retain their God-given rights, no matter how tyrannical protestors become.

Benjamin Dierker is a law student at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. He holds a master's degree in public administration and a bachelor's degree in economics, both from Texas A&M University. He is a Christian and a Texan and loves to talk about both.

March 30, 2018

http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/30/shouldnt-matter-repeal-second-amendment/

 

 

 

 

[Monte1076]

Kirt, the good thing is, we also have the 10th Amendment. So if the people who want to repeal 2A get their way, the 10th Amendment would still allow for States themselves to pass legislation saying it's perfectly legal to own a firearm.

[DaveTV1]

In my opinion they've already infringed on gun rights by requiring back ground checks and registering guns in some States.  Enough is enough.  

[Hagar]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/london-murder-rate-overtakes-york-stabbings-surge-170909810.html

And tell me again why people want to ban guns?

[Hagar]

5 hours ago, Greezychef said:

 

If you need a good laugh...

The thing that stood out to me was when one person said, They don't want to have dialogue.  Sums up the whole anti-gun thing.

[KirtFalcon]

[RETIREDFAN1]

#RememberInNovember #VoteThemOut  

16 RINOS who voted 4 gun control. 
Corker (TN) 
Alexander (TN) 
Collins (ME) 
Toomey (PA) 
Flake (AZ) 
Graham (SC) 
Ayotte (NH) 
Burr (NC) 
Chambliss (GA) 
Coburn (OK) 
McCain (AZ) 
Heller (NV) 
Hoeven (ND) 
Isakson (GA) 
Kirk (IL) 
Wicker (MS)

[KirtFalcon]

11 hours ago, Greezychef said:

Lol@Flake and McCain.  

I can't believe Az keeps electing this type of losers ...

[DaveTV1]

22 hours ago, Greezychef said:

Lol@Flake and McCain.  

I expected them to be on the list, and thought Marco Rubio would be as well.

[Hagar]

I've had an epiphany.  It's obvious to anyone that can pour urine out of a boot that the leaders of the far left want a law banning all firearms.  I got to thinking, if the English had had a law like that back in the mid 17 hundreds, I don't guess we'd bothered throwing that tea overboard.

[Mr. P]

[Mr. P]

[Monte1076]

33 minutes ago, AKA said:

Awesome!

[Stoney]

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/world/2018/04/08/london-mayor-sadiq-khan-targets-knives-as-murder-rate-spikes-there-is-never-reason-to-carry-knife.amp.html

Has been in my pocket all morning. Hasn’t attacked anybody.

[Mr. P]

Better ban trucks and airplanes too. 

[Stoney]

Raise the age limit on kids getting their drivers license while we’re at it. I guess schools need to start teaching them how to do laundry since they can’t figure out how not to eat the laundry detergent. These kids are so dang confused as to what gender they are, they are snorting condoms.

[CarthDawg77]

55 minutes ago, KingStoney said:

Raise the age limit on kids getting their drivers license while we’re at it. I guess schools need to start teaching them how to do laundry since they can’t figure out how not to eat the laundry detergent. These kids are so dang confused as to what gender they are, they are snorting condoms.

Humanity is doomed if left in these idiots hands....

[KirtFalcon]

What's next ... screwdrivers?, forks?, ..... any scrap metal or other material that can be fashioned into a shank? ... 

Edited April 9, 2018 by KirtFalcon

[CarthDawg77]

25 minutes ago, KirtFalcon said:

What's next ... screwdrivers?, forks?, ..... any scrap metal or other material that can be fashioned into a shank? ... 

Sock full of rocks? Tree limbs? Dirt clods? Broken glass? 😱 “Oh, The Humanity!”🙄