[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: USA Today Poll Regarding the 2nd Amendment A friend sent me the following email about a poll regarding gun rights and the second amendment. Gun poll TAKES 2 SECONDS They are hoping you won't remember when you vote in November. Obama's new idiot Attorney General, Eric Holder , has already said this is one of his major issues. He does not believe the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms. This takes literally 2 clicks to complete. Please vote on this gun issue question with USA Today. It will only take a few seconds of your time. Then pass the link on to all the pro gun folks you know. Hopefully these results will be published later this month. This upcoming year will become critical for gun owners with the Supreme Court's accepting the District of Columbia case against the right for individuals to bear arms. Here's what you need to do: First - vote on this one. Second - launch it to other folks and have THEM vote - then we will see if the results get published. The Question is: "Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?" Click on the link below and PLEASE vote! Actually the question is worded wrong. No amendment gives or confers any rights on anyone to do anything. The founding fathers would tell you that too. They included the amendments, specifically the Bill of Rights, in order to guarantee/protect rights you already had. But the Constitution is not self enforcing and evil people have conspired to deny our rights in various ways. I have voted in that poll before and will again but I have also told them that they worded it wrong. And I guess I will again. The following excerpt is from 111 U.S. 746 - Butchers' Union Slaughter-House Live-Stock Landing Co v. Crescent City a case decided in 1884. At that time people knew that no words written on any piece of paper, no matter how eloquent they might be or how nice the paper or parchment they put them on, gave anyone any rights. It would be strange indeed if the people, some of which comprised the militia, would have had to wait until the second amendment was adopted before they could "keep and bear arms." "...As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the declaration of independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident'—that is, so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement—'that all men are endowed'—not by edicts of emperors, or deerees of parliament, or acts of congress, but 'by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.'—that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away, except in punishment of crime—'and tha among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and to secure these'—not grant them, but secure them—'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.' Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper.' Smith, Wealth Nat. bk. 1, c. 10...."
Poster Comment: And it should be noted that if one group of well-intentioned men could grant you some rights by acknowledging them and writing them on one piece of paper, another group of men with bad intentions could take them away by writing contradictory words on another piece of paper.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 8.
#8. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
The poll question is mis-worded: You can be "given" a privilege, but not a fundamental human right. Such rights are possessed intrinsically, and can neither be granted nor taken away. Governemnts can choose to either respect rights, or infringe them. The most fundamental intrinsic right is the right to liberty, which is the right to do whatever does not violate the rights of others. To deny that right is to deny yourself the right to do anything at all, including denying the right to liberty.
#9. To: sourcery (#8)
Excellent post.
Yes, I said it was not worded correctly.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||