Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Grammar wasn't as well regulated then.
You yourself believe in the right to self defense with a gun, but that's nowhere in the Second Amendment. None of the framers even believed that. Why have you reinterpreted the Second Amendment? Because times change. The United States today is not the same as the United States 300 years ago, and laws must reflect the time they exist in.
|
The right to self preservation is inherent and is sometimes called the primary right of man. This has been known since even before the constitution. Nowhere am I saying that the 2nd applies to self defense. That is an abomination imparted by Scalia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
The well-regulated militia of the time the BoR was written slowly changed into the National Guard long before you or I was born. So the Second Amendment didn't apply as it once did. And then the SCOTUS ignored it for a hundred more years. Finally, in 2008, they ruled. And that's it.
|
really will? who decided that the right of the people in the 2nd now belonged to a national guard? Because last time I checked, changes in the constitution had to be done by 3/5ths majority in the house and senate and then by 3/5ths of the states. How does a right of the people become a right of the national guard without having gone through the amendment process? It doesn't, so the so called right of the national guard is BS. It's invalid. Illegal even.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 03 : 21 : 56-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
DK, thanks for the outline. I'll need some time to digest that. (This is a learning experience, as a Canadian here.)
But one more thing: If rights are absolute, does this mean they cannot be taken away for any reason? What do you say about the inalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? Should everyone do away with the death penalty, for example? (I won't even get into liberty....)
|
As you digest what I posted earlier, consider the 5th Amendment in regards to your above question.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
Last edited by dksuddeth; 12-09-2008 at 12:21 PM..
Reason: Automerged Doublepost
|