There is simply no such goddam thing as a collective right.
America’s confusion about the Second Amendment is now nearly total. An amendment that ensures a collective right to bear arms has been misread in one legislature after another . . .
The Founding Fathers never spoke of collective rights, the Constitution nowhere mentions collective rights, and the concept of collective rights existed nowhere until liberal enemies of the Constitution decided that the Second Amendment needs to be eviscerated.
The ACLU is the very paragon of hypocrisy - they bend over backwards fighting for the most wide open interpretation of the First Amendment, and then mysteriously lose their testicular fortitude when it comes to the Second.
Ken McCracken - 09:11am on 11/22/2006
Roger Baldwin, one of the founders of the ACLU, was an avowed communist. Free speech can be manipulated to permit the dissemination of communist ideology; the right to bear arms can’t be so manipulated.
robert108 - 10:11am on 11/22/2006
It has been said that the 2nd amendment is the last line of defense against America’s enemies. In the world we find ourselves today, an armed citizenry may be a necessary line of defense if nothing more than a deterrent against terrorists. Thank you Sen. Allen!
The states that allow armed citizens do just fine. All the arguments that say if you arm citizens it’ll be like Dodge City are bunk.
HG - 10:11am on 11/22/2006
There is simply no such goddam thing as a collective right.
Absolutely correct, Ken; The US is a country of individual and States’ rights. Gun ownership is an individual right.
robert108 - 10:11am on 11/22/2006
Of course the first amendment did not grant the New York Times the right to print that.
What it does mean that if I want to use their printing press I have a right to do that without being charged.
The Whistler - 10:11am on 11/22/2006
Of course the first amendment did not grant the New York Times the right to print that.
Actually, it does. It doesn’t insulate the NYT of the consequences, legal and otherwise, from doing so, however.
robert108 - 10:11am on 11/22/2006
What it does mean that if I want to use their printing press I have a right to do that without being charged.
Ah, I was wondering what ‘free press’ really meant. I always thought that it meant free publicity in whatever medium the press operated.
electnixon - 10:11am on 11/22/2006
Actually, it does. It doesn’t insulate the NYT of the consequences, legal and otherwise, from doing so, however.
Robert, I was being whimsical again. Sorry.
The Whistler - 10:11am on 11/22/2006
You still don’t know what the word “well-regulated” means, do you?
Don Myers - 11:11am on 11/22/2006
I personally think there should be a lock box at the post office (or a bar or a fed building) near the door so if I am legally carrying to the door I can then lock up my gun, go inside (where its illegal to have a concealed weapon), do my business, and leave (claiming back my gun on the way out). It makes no sense to have certain buildings be gun-free if they don’t supply a gun-securing means at the door.
There is simply no such goddam thing as a collective right.
The Founding Fathers never spoke of collective rights, the Constitution nowhere mentions collective rights, and the concept of collective rights existed nowhere until liberal enemies of the Constitution decided that the Second Amendment needs to be eviscerated.
The ACLU is the very paragon of hypocrisy - they bend over backwards fighting for the most wide open interpretation of the First Amendment, and then mysteriously lose their testicular fortitude when it comes to the Second.
Roger Baldwin, one of the founders of the ACLU, was an avowed communist. Free speech can be manipulated to permit the dissemination of communist ideology; the right to bear arms can’t be so manipulated.
It has been said that the 2nd amendment is the last line of defense against America’s enemies. In the world we find ourselves today, an armed citizenry may be a necessary line of defense if nothing more than a deterrent against terrorists. Thank you Sen. Allen!
The states that allow armed citizens do just fine. All the arguments that say if you arm citizens it’ll be like Dodge City are bunk.
Absolutely correct, Ken; The US is a country of individual and States’ rights. Gun ownership is an individual right.
Of course the first amendment did not grant the New York Times the right to print that.
What it does mean that if I want to use their printing press I have a right to do that without being charged.
Actually, it does. It doesn’t insulate the NYT of the consequences, legal and otherwise, from doing so, however.
Ah, I was wondering what ‘free press’ really meant. I always thought that it meant free publicity in whatever medium the press operated.
Robert, I was being whimsical again. Sorry.
You still don’t know what the word “well-regulated” means, do you?
I personally think there should be a lock box at the post office (or a bar or a fed building) near the door so if I am legally carrying to the door I can then lock up my gun, go inside (where its illegal to have a concealed weapon), do my business, and leave (claiming back my gun on the way out). It makes no sense to have certain buildings be gun-free if they don’t supply a gun-securing means at the door.