I just read this article from the Seattle Times. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004104727_gaillard03.html The title reads like this: Public safety trumps outdated, irrelevant Second Amendment, and it deals with an upcoming case due before the Supreme Court. What bothers me is how the author feels that they can just call our Constitution irrelevant. I think it shows incredible short sightedness by the author and so called gun control supporters. What happens in the future when a group of people decide that our freedom of speech is out dated and irrelevant? I wonder what they'll think then?
I'll step down off the soap box now.
Me!
- Musings from the Smartest Man in the World
- Central California/San Joaquin Valley, United States
- Just a retired Chief Petty Officer.
Ask the Chief
Stuff I read just about Daily (In no particular order)
- A Wee Dram or Three
- Army Wife Toddler Mom
- Back Home Again
- Captain of a Crew of One
- Chromed Curses
- Day By Day Cartoon
- Delta Sierra Hotel
- Dr. Helen
- Drunken Wisdom
- Jihad Gene
- Keep my soldier Safe
- Lee Ann
- Look! a Baby Wolf!
- Not Exactly Rocket Science
- Pamibe
- Petey's Powderhorn
- Post Secret
- Quality Weenie
- Quid Nunc
- Rachel Lucas
- Super Gurl
- Tammi's World
- Texts From Last Night
- The Liberty Zone
- Together We Served
Where are you???
Other smart people
Bad Example Family
Site Meter
4 comments:
Outdated? Irrelevant?
My oh my oh my......you're right. Scarry doesn't cover it....
Gah! If it weren't for the damned constitution the author of the article be ABLE to express his opinion openly!!
Outdated and irrelevant.... that just makes me angry...
"They" are systematically hacking away at our freedom. I remember a time where I could go out and eat dirt pies, wander miles from home, and seat belts were optional.
All right, technically I could still go out and do that but I was talking about when I was in elementary school. You find kids doing things like that these days and someone is calling child protective services.
The guns are next.
I'm just waiting for someone to require farmers to stuff catalytic converters up all their dairy cows' poop chutes.
We're all going to end up living in rubber rooms with soft round corners.
Oh! I also have that new domain name! Oh yes I do! :D
Not all aggessors are foreign. A nation's government can be the aggressor against its citizens. The founding fathers knew this very well, as they had seen it so many times. And we can find too many incidents of it in today's society. In Iraq, the government of Saddam Hussein was an aggressor against hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Iraqis. And it could happen here, if we didn't have the 2nd Ammendment. It is not outdated.
The National Guard is not the Militia. Read the Militia Act of 1791. Our Founding Fathers defined the militia as ever able bodied male between the ages of 16 and 48 (I may be off a year or two on the ages, but it is very close). The National Guard is a part of standing Army of the United States of America. They could be used by the government as aggressors against the citizens. The 2nd Ammendment is not outdated.
The debate is not about what is used for hunting. Saying there is no need for firearms other than for hunting is: 1)a backdoor way to full bans, 2) like saying you don't need pens, markers, crayons, or chalk because a pencil can write. And a pencil can be used as a weapon. When I was in elementary school, I remember the DARE officer in my school telling about a teenager in the county jail for holding a sharpened pencil to a teachers neck. The charge was assault with a WEAPON. A firearm is not dangerous, unless a PERSON takes control of it.
Post a Comment