 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
I've been off line for a few days.
I grudgingly have to agree with DF. Governments are systems, and the constitution, for all it's flaws, is a system that by and large works, while being able to adjust positively to what is going on in the world. It lags, and still cannot take the place of good leadership. But it definitely slows down the excesses of wrong leadership, that does not pay attention to the very system that protects it.
That is why Ben Franklin made his famous statement about those who prefer safety over liberty deserve neither. Coincidentally, I may not be the only person with this opinion. Supposedly O'Conner commented during the previous election that she wanted to retire duing a Republican Administration. Neither she nor any of the older conservative have. It may be sheer downright oneriness, or it may just be that they fear the kind of justices the neocons want appointed. Consider that, roll it around and taste it, and realize that DF has a legitimate point. Lincoln saved the United States, and along with FDR, Jackson, and this administration may have been one of the gravest threats to it's continued existance as a free nation. The Germans got it wrong in 1933, the Italians in the 1920's. Freedom is not guaranteed, and eventually we may not get so lucky.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
and that clause is the most important part of the amendment, |
Not according to the English language.
quote:
if we were to strictly interpret the constitution only militia members should be able to have guns. |
That's not what it says at all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
According to your interpretation. |
Not really - get an English textbook.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Hell, if the preamble to the Constitution wasn't important it wouldn't be there, but we don't use it for anything. |
Except, apparently, in Texas vs. White.
TS,
quote:
Explanatory clause!
That's the whole point!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Really? So you admit, then, that the 2nd Amendment DOES protect the individual right to bear arms?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-10-2004 23:15
The British threatened the safety of the colonists? No, the British govt protected them. They merely wanted compensation for it. BF was a propaganda genious. His propaganda sticks with us even though it makes less sense today. The fact is that we do trade off liberty for security. That's the whole basis of law.
|