Digg

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Gun Rights Drive Liberals Crazy

onebigdog.net — affirmed the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. The supporting statements in Court decisions hold weight. In the Scott case the Court affirmed the individual right even though that is not what they were asked to rule on.

Bury

diamondbigdog 96 days ago

51 diggs
digg it

m0llusk, on 07/06/2008, -15/+3It's the gun wrongs, actually.
- caferrell, on 07/06/2008, -0/+8If you wish to live in a free country, please realize that can only happen when the citizenry is capable of threatening the state and its employees. If you think that our loss of individual freedoms is threatening the nature of our body politic, then I suggest that you rethink your position on guns.
  The second amendment is designed to maintain our freedom from our government if (when) it becomes totalitarian.
- mikesbaker, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4those gun rights protect your right to say stupid stuff like that - what's sad is that 3 people currently agree with you. seems to me that this article was right on the money.
Minarchian, on 07/06/2008, -1/+9"It is also interesting to note that Chemerinsky states; “the court both ignored precedent and invalidated a law adopted by a popularly elected government.”

Remember, liberals want this country to be a "Democracy", or rule by mob.

So whenever a law is created it is automatically Constitutional because it is the "will of the People".

It's a purely ***** idea, but that is what they believe.

It boggles the mind that people who think this way are considered "Constitutional Scholars".

Besides...what about U.S. v. Emerson? The liberals seem to love to ignore that precedence.
- Minarchian, on 07/06/2008, -0/+7Oh yea....for info on U.S. v. Emerson:
  
  http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa101701 ...
  - Erich100, on 07/06/2008, -0/+5From U.S. v Emerson article
    In addition, the appeals court wrote "There is no evidence in the text of the Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that the words 'the people' have a different connotation within the Second Amendment than when employed elsewhere in the Constitution."
    
    Very nice point.
cashman57, on 07/06/2008, -2/+8When we look at what the second amendment says we get a better understanding of what the right means.
The SCOTuS decision was weird in a way because it did not take the definition of our right and affirm it.
In order for there to be security in a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
When that right is infringed we get planeloads of disarmed Americans murdered by thugs, customers of the mall being massacred and students on campus murdered.
OBushma sees only two legitimate reasons for us to have guns, target shooting and hunting. This is the same man who is allegedly a scholar of law and allegedly read the second amendment.
He is surrounded by people with guns 24/7 for his security but he believes gun bans are Constitutional.
The second amendment does not have hunting or target shooting in it, it is for there to be security in a free state that the people have the right to keep and bear arms.
If you want to have more crimes and more mass murders and less security and freedom then support McSame and OBushma.
mikesbaker, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2No need to look any further than our founding fathers to see what the second amendment means.

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
Thomas Jefferson
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson
‘‘[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.’’
James Madison

Now just for good measure I am going to Godwin this thread
‘‘Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State.’’
Heinrich Himmler
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Gun Rights Drive Liberals Crazy

Login or register to add a comment