Will you Liberals please make up your mind.
As the Supreme Court readies itself to hear oral arguments in the Heller Case, the liberals are going through an amazing number of convoluted reasons that the court shouldn't find that the right to keep and bear arms isn't a personal right like the other seven individual rights in the bill of rights. All the other rights the liberals have argued for years, are good no matter where you go in this country, but the second amendment, well that one isn't an individual right. Even if you feel it's an individual right, it doesn't apply to the states or cities, only the Federal Government.
OK, as I understand the argument now, the first, third, forth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendments apply to the individual always, no matter where they are. This means that the Miranda warning must be given to the suspect by even the community constable, because that individual has the rights mentioned above always. So freedom of religion means that I can file a lawsuit if the city council says "Merry Christmas" which the ACLU has held is the establishment of a state sponsored religion in violation of the first Amendment. Even though the city council is not a Federal anything, it still violates my first amendment right, is that correct?
This is a great day my friends. What this means is that that the prohibition against self incrimination, is now null and void so long as you aren't questioned by Federal Officers, or tried in a Federal Court. So we can beat a confession out of you, and that's just fine and dandy. Illegal search and seizure? Not unless that evidence gathered is going to be used by the Federal Government. Cruel and Unusual punishment? Sorry Charlie, the State Prison isn't a Federal Prison, and you aren't there for a Federal Crime, we can do whatever we want, the Rights in the Bill of Rights only apply to the Federal Government. Isn't that great news?
It also means that the States can establish prohibitions on religion, for example, Utah can ban any non LDS thinking person. It also means that Georgia can ban any Religion it doesn't like. So long as the Federal Government isn't involved, it's perfectly legal according to the Liberal argument against the Second Amendment.
Friends, this is so patently stupid that you wonder if the Liberals actually read anything before they sign it. Whatever fool wrote that had to be off his rocker. The Brady Center claims that the important phrase is the well regulated militia. Really? Well how many times have you been called up to serve the Militia? At the time of the fight for independence, every able bodied man over the age of 16 was a member of the militia, and could be called up at a moments notice. This is the genesis of the phrase Minute Men if you were wondering. A rider would come up to the farm house, tell the man the dangers that were posed to the community, and the man would be out the door in a minute with rifle, pistol, and ammunition headed towards the fight.
If anyone had claimed in the Miranda case that the rights against self incrimination, such as they were, only applied to the Federal Government, they would have been laughed out of the Court House and still be the butt of jokes today. If a City Police officer argued that the defendant didn't possess a right against illegal search and seizure because the officer wasn't a Federal Agent, he would be fired for incompetence before the day was out. Why do the Liberals act like an individual right as painfully obvious as the Second Amendment isn't what it seems?
Simple, the Liberals are Socialists, which means they want total state control, and an independent and self reliant community isn't the goal of a Socialist.
The Brady Center also pretends that only by banning all firearms can we be safe. That's the point, Washington DC, the ban in question, hasn't reduced violence at all. In fact, it's turned the population into victims waiting to be plucked. The Brady Center also claims that if we allow guns on school grounds, that we'll increase the numbers of deaths. I dunno, that ban doesn't seem to be working all that well. The bad guy intent on violence seems perfectly willing to violate the ban.
What is a firearm? It's an equalizer. No matter how long I study hand to hand combat, no matter how long I practice martial arts, no matter how deadly I become with my bare hands, if you are armed, and prepared to use that arm, I am no threat to you. You don't need to practice for hours every day to be sufficiently skilled with your firearm. You don't need to carry a hundred rounds of ammunition, or practice your quick draw, you just need to know how to use it, practice now and then, and be prepared to use it. I could be six foot five, weight 250 lbs, and not have an ounce of fat on me. I could look like Rambo, and you'll still have a chance of stopping me with a firearm. It makes a fair fight, and that's not what the Liberals want.
How do you prevent or minimize violence? Simple, you arm the population. Switzerland has a Militia, and it's every adult male. Every man has a gun issued to him, and it's in his closet. They have had limited gun violence, and why is that? Who besides the lunatics out there, and there are a few, are going to rush out and get shot down by a dozen or more people with guns? The areas with the highest rates of gun violence are in America, and are not in areas where guns are authorized, they are where the guns are banned. This should tell you something.
Liberals, I appreciate your attempts at logic, but let's face it. You should look at the answer before you submit it.
OK, as I understand the argument now, the first, third, forth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendments apply to the individual always, no matter where they are. This means that the Miranda warning must be given to the suspect by even the community constable, because that individual has the rights mentioned above always. So freedom of religion means that I can file a lawsuit if the city council says "Merry Christmas" which the ACLU has held is the establishment of a state sponsored religion in violation of the first Amendment. Even though the city council is not a Federal anything, it still violates my first amendment right, is that correct?
This is a great day my friends. What this means is that that the prohibition against self incrimination, is now null and void so long as you aren't questioned by Federal Officers, or tried in a Federal Court. So we can beat a confession out of you, and that's just fine and dandy. Illegal search and seizure? Not unless that evidence gathered is going to be used by the Federal Government. Cruel and Unusual punishment? Sorry Charlie, the State Prison isn't a Federal Prison, and you aren't there for a Federal Crime, we can do whatever we want, the Rights in the Bill of Rights only apply to the Federal Government. Isn't that great news?
It also means that the States can establish prohibitions on religion, for example, Utah can ban any non LDS thinking person. It also means that Georgia can ban any Religion it doesn't like. So long as the Federal Government isn't involved, it's perfectly legal according to the Liberal argument against the Second Amendment.
Friends, this is so patently stupid that you wonder if the Liberals actually read anything before they sign it. Whatever fool wrote that had to be off his rocker. The Brady Center claims that the important phrase is the well regulated militia. Really? Well how many times have you been called up to serve the Militia? At the time of the fight for independence, every able bodied man over the age of 16 was a member of the militia, and could be called up at a moments notice. This is the genesis of the phrase Minute Men if you were wondering. A rider would come up to the farm house, tell the man the dangers that were posed to the community, and the man would be out the door in a minute with rifle, pistol, and ammunition headed towards the fight.
If anyone had claimed in the Miranda case that the rights against self incrimination, such as they were, only applied to the Federal Government, they would have been laughed out of the Court House and still be the butt of jokes today. If a City Police officer argued that the defendant didn't possess a right against illegal search and seizure because the officer wasn't a Federal Agent, he would be fired for incompetence before the day was out. Why do the Liberals act like an individual right as painfully obvious as the Second Amendment isn't what it seems?
Simple, the Liberals are Socialists, which means they want total state control, and an independent and self reliant community isn't the goal of a Socialist.
The Brady Center also pretends that only by banning all firearms can we be safe. That's the point, Washington DC, the ban in question, hasn't reduced violence at all. In fact, it's turned the population into victims waiting to be plucked. The Brady Center also claims that if we allow guns on school grounds, that we'll increase the numbers of deaths. I dunno, that ban doesn't seem to be working all that well. The bad guy intent on violence seems perfectly willing to violate the ban.
What is a firearm? It's an equalizer. No matter how long I study hand to hand combat, no matter how long I practice martial arts, no matter how deadly I become with my bare hands, if you are armed, and prepared to use that arm, I am no threat to you. You don't need to practice for hours every day to be sufficiently skilled with your firearm. You don't need to carry a hundred rounds of ammunition, or practice your quick draw, you just need to know how to use it, practice now and then, and be prepared to use it. I could be six foot five, weight 250 lbs, and not have an ounce of fat on me. I could look like Rambo, and you'll still have a chance of stopping me with a firearm. It makes a fair fight, and that's not what the Liberals want.
How do you prevent or minimize violence? Simple, you arm the population. Switzerland has a Militia, and it's every adult male. Every man has a gun issued to him, and it's in his closet. They have had limited gun violence, and why is that? Who besides the lunatics out there, and there are a few, are going to rush out and get shot down by a dozen or more people with guns? The areas with the highest rates of gun violence are in America, and are not in areas where guns are authorized, they are where the guns are banned. This should tell you something.
Liberals, I appreciate your attempts at logic, but let's face it. You should look at the answer before you submit it.
posted by Max Conservative at 2:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home