See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Obama In Portland. A first take. (OBAMA REPEATS HE WILL CLOSE GITMO, RESTORE HABEAS, AND OBEY THE CONSTITUTION)
Source:
Ideas With Consequences
URL Source: http://ideaswithconsequenses.wordpr ... bama-in-portland-a-first-take/
Published: May 20, 2008
Author: Michael Beaton
Post Date: 2008-05-21 14:24:20 by aristeides
Keywords: None
Views: 2555
Comments: 182
Obama In Portland. A first take. I saw Barak Obama in Portland on Sunday. I do not normally get caught up in shouting and crowd dynamics. And this event was no exception. But I was moved. Deeply. Quietly. I found myself about 30 yards off the main stage watching, watching closely. And listening closely to what was being said. While Obama spoke the obligatory crowd pleasing lines it was notable to me that he did not seem to be trying to whip up the crowd into emotional frenzy. In fact it seemed the opposite. A couple times the crowd wanted to get into the “Yes we Can” chant. Obama seemed to let it run its course and then proceed w/ his remarks. Not that I have anything against the emotion that people are feeling. I tend to want what is underlying the emotional outbursts. I want there to be substance to support it. In this case I felt it was there. Clinton, and others, have tried to cast Obama as having “just words” “he has only given a good speech”. I now understand better why they need to try and detract from the power of Obama’s oratory. It is not like so much political speech, full of vacuous thought, full of promises and non sequitur thoughts designed to appeal to a predetermined crowd. Obama actually talks in full paragraphs, with thoughts that hold together across the entire speech. It is not simply a collection of applause lines or attack lines. He actually engages the issues we are facing in a way that evinces an understanding of this simple maxim : You cannot solve a problem at the level at which the problem was created. My first take on the speech follows. Basic takeaway : His stump speech is smarter, more intelligent, logically cohesive, as well as inspirational and meaningfully hopeful than the best, thought out positions of the others candidates. Or any politician I am aware of for that matter. Reagan is held out as a “great communicator”. I never have understood this, never really feeling that much of what Reagan communicated was worth hearing. As a communicator I would posit Obama is orders of magnitude better than Reagan. And… he has the added benefit of actually communicating something that calls to our “better selves” while not eviscerating what it means to be an American. It seems that Obama has the power to hold this position of transformation. I have never heard a political candidate make the case that what he is offering is not pre-molded answers but a process by which we may affect change for the better. Now it will be up to the country to decide if we have drunk a full cup of the bitters and ready for such a change. Or if it will take another quaff, and another round of drunken stupor, for the citizenry to get it that the course America has followed for so long, (insert lots of detail here), and that has been especially manifest in the horror that has been this BushCo Administration, is fundamentally flawed and in need of deep systemic change. We have to begin to think again as citizens bound together in some essential way that is deeper than our epicurean pursuits and our silly infatuations with flawed beliefs like “we are number one” or/and “they hate us for our freedoms”. I am hopeful, but cynical. I live a contradiction. I am aware of the basic goodness and desires of people, the American people. I am also aware of the powers and forces and individuals who lie in wait to destroy what would destroy them. And they have their hands on the levers of power, money, communications. It is amazing to me however, that even though that is so, there is still the possibility for hope, and for change - change at a deep structural level. It lets me know that as formidable as the masters of the status quo are there is something that they do not own, that is not fully under control. It is from this, whatever that is, that something deeper, more integral, more essential will, if it will, if it can, emerge. My favorite line in the speech: In these two lines Obama has made the essential case: The constitution is the essense of what makes America America. Without it we become only another failed republic tending toward a new tyranny…. as we are now. And that it will take a change in our mindset in order to affect change. He does not promise it will happen. Only, and this is key, that if we, the citizens of America will embrace the notion of citizen once again, that promise that has been America may once again emerge. Maybe even in a more transcendant incarnation. Maybe we can retreat from empire and become less militaristic and more holistic in our foreign affairs? Maybe we can transcend the essential racism that has been in our deep psyche from the beginning, and has been a profound hinderance to our ability to function at the level of our principles. Maybe we can begin the process of being ruled by something more positive, more true, more substantial than fears. Fears stoked by demogauges who know better, and use the knowledge for their own purposes. Maybe we can recover from this financial precipice we find ourselves perched on. But it will take a systemic transformation akin, though different, to the social contracts that came out of the Great Depression. Maybe we can do it before we immerse ourselves in another , more horrible global Great Depression? Or maybe not. But these are the propositions that are before us now. What is certain is that to continue the path currently charted will be to proceed, pell mell, to a certain destruction. It is long past the time for vacuous promises that hardly last longer than the reverberation of the sounds of the words with which they are spoken. It is time for a commitment to a thinking that is different. A thinking that is motivated for a real comprehension of what it is we face, and propelled by a profound and essential desire to live true to “the angles of our better nature.” I know this post needs a good editing, and I will do that in subsequent posts. For now this is meant only as first thoughts on a moment that, to me, was seminal, and which seems to presage what seems to me to be a major choice point that we, as citizens of this country, have now come to. What has happened, even over the last 8 years, has happened. Now what? There is a choice that must be made. And will be made one way or another. Even trying, again, to not choose, or make a default choice of the known; even trying to hold fast to the well worn creeds of the past - our racism, our unsubstantiated beliefs, our formidible ignorance, our memories of world dominance, our lust for war as opposed to transformation, our lazy desire to have someone else figure it all out - just dont mess w/ my football game, or whatever drug of choice used to dull us to the consequences of our national choices; still a choice will be made. I hope we choose well. And for better reasons than we have in the past. Excerpts from Sen. Barack Obama's speech in Portland. As a final note: When have you ever heard a politician in recent times appeal to the constitution in such a profound way. And more, to recognize its authority. And to rever it as something to be upheld in the present tense, not as some historical but anachronistic idea. Not since Lincoln have I heard such language from a presidential contender. “We are now gathered to see if that nation, or any nation so constituted can long endure….”
We will close Guantanamo and restore habeas corpus. And say no to renditions. Because you will have a president who has taught the Constitution and believes the Constitution and who will obey the Constitution of the United States of America. I don’t want to just end the war. I want to end the mindset that got us into the war. I’m tired of the politics of fear that uses 9/11 as a way to scare folks rather than a way to bring us together. I don’t like it in our own party, I don’t like it in the other party.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-100) not displayed.
.
.
.
#101. To: aristeides (#98)
(Edited)
With the current state of the economy, each and every one of us is going to become a hedonist in time. This notion of a United States died years ago. I'm beyond being insulted by anything this government does, or by the lies our politicians use to gin up faux patriotism.
Do you really think everyone in Depression America was a hedonist?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
you guys? who is you guys?
They didn't say the PRIVILEGE to keep and bear arms shall be given due to any sort of specific reason, they said the RIGHT to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. They acknowledge that self-defense (by extension the keeping and bearing of arms) is a RIGHT, and they are declaring that it SHALL not be infringed. They do not attempt to state that the only reason this RIGHT will not be infringed is due to the convenience of the state, but they do describe the necessity of a militia, in that the militia is necessary for the security of a free state (as in a body of the people).
iow, don't read their lips. just curious, when's the last time a presidential candidate made a promise and kept it?
Me too, I noticed that some use 'we' and 'they' in their posts. I happen to believe that we (this one is the generic 'we', not the 'we' that is used to imply that the writer speaks for or is in agreement with many others) should all speak for ourselves, unless we receive some delegation from others to speak for them. Those who use 'we' are probably not secure enough to take responsibility for their views. As far as 'they' or 'them', it's probably not right unless it is clear that it is in reference to those who were part of a specific discussion on one side or the other.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Why is that, do you suppose? The promises of a politician mean that much to you? How old are you and what color is the sky on your home planet? There is far, far more that needs to be done to restore the Constitution than the little bit your hero is talking about. But of course that moron wants to ban so-called "assault weapons" which aren't even really assault weapons so that alone disqualifies him. And I wouldn't trust McCain and any of his promises either if he made any. He is a Manchurian candidate as far as I am concerned (no better or worse than Obama or Clinton, they are all owned by the same folks and will take their orders from them just like Bill Clinton did and just like both Bush's have).
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Do you think Obama would pursue or allow a neutral investigation into 9/11? I believe his masters are the same people that Bush and Cheney report to, after a layer or two of intermediaries perhaps.
You know what they say about great minds... :)
No, they do NOT talk about self-defense. They talk about the security of the State. Do you want me to quote it again? Here it is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," No word about self defense. It's the defense of the free State that justifies the granting of the right to bear arms.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
I reckon it is still alright to be white, ain't it? I mean the obummer people ain't campaigning to make that a crime yet, are they? If they are I ain't heard 'bout it.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Got any direct quotes from ANY of the founders who said they were "granting" anyone any rights? No? I didn't think so. Here is a picture of your hero I thought you might like. Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. They are talking about the security of a free body of people. They further state in no uncertain terms that the RIGHT to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. They do not say they are giving this RIGHT, they say that RIGHT will not be INFRINGED upon. It is a rather profound and concise statement. The security of the STATE is not a RIGHT, it is a NECESSITY if that STATE is to function and if it is to remain FREE.
Isn't it obvious? Anyone who isn't a government-worshipping Obama supporter.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Seems I have heard something about that. >(;^[}
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. You would talk about anything BUT the second amendment that you are supposed to be discussing. You either lack elementary reading comprehension or intellectual honesty. Which one is it? Possibly both? The second amendment protects the right to bear arms because armed people can help defend the state. Period. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. That's all there is. It doesn't matter what the founding grand mothers or uncles must have said before or after. The language is clear enough not to leave the possibility of a 'God penumbra' or of a 'self defense penumbra'. It is clear that the protection of the right to bear arms in the second amendment is narrow and conditional. I understand that not everyone likes this. I am one of them but I'm not one of those who believe that the constitution and its protections are worth much to begin with.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Indeed. And the 'well regulated Militia' means...? Who does the regulation? Could it be... the State? Yes, the right exists in the universe of Platonic concepts but the second amendment implies that the state may or may not protect it. If the state decides not to protect it, then the right goes away. The implication is that the State was better off with this right protected or granted. The implication is that the State might have decided not to protect or grant the right to bear arms but, since it was good for the state, the second amendment was included into the bill of rights. If the right to bear arms was universal and unconditional, the second amendment would have read: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Again, a right can not be GRANTED by the government, it already exists. As you touch upon, the 2nd Amendment PROTECTS this RIGHT, but the RIGHT is not limited to the purpose of protecting the "free state", but exists by itself on its own. The protection of this right is not dependent upon the existence of a militia, nor the necessity of the free state, as the sentence ends with "shall not be infringed". It doesn't end with "shall not be infringed in regards to the security of the state".
So the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to list what was good for the state, and not necessarily for the people?
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It DOES say that. Geesh. It prefixes the clause with a declaration that a militia is necessary, and defines why it is necessary. Basically it declares the militia to be a necessary body, and as such protects it. The wording of the remainder of the clause is much stronger in terms of the right to keep and bear arms, where that right is protected outright by stating that "it shall not be infringed".
It doesn't because the statement that establishes the security of the state is placed before the 'shall not be infringed' part. Yes, all the rights, responsibilities, shapes, colors, gods... they all exist in the virtual universe of our imagination - that's were 'Platonic love' comes into play. They are all floating in hyperspace, all waiting to be instantiated. The second amendment instantiates the right to bear arms in the context of defending the free State. You can instantiate it for yourself and bear arms regardless of whether the State agrees or not. You may have the abstract right to bear machine guns, I can't see why not but, for as long as the BATF says that you don't have the right, they enter your residence, rough you up, confiscate your machine guns and throw you in jail. The State - and the constitution is the high level manual explaining how the State is suppose to work - says that you may bear arms. Remember, the second amendment CAN be repealed and replaced with one that denies you the right to bear arms. All it takes is for a number of States to agree on it and... goodbye God-given right. If you are looking for God-given rights, you won't find them in the constitution. Those are all State-given rights.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Sorry to be a jonnie come lately on the thread, but I understand your point and will ask you to consider this. Line B - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The "right" was already in existence prior to the formation of our country. Who or what gave our forefathers that "right"? Did King George issue a decree that stated settlers are given the right to arms? It was already a "right" agreed to by common sense.
If there was any danger of him making good on these promises, then he'd be "whited out" like Ron Paul. What this popular and well received campaign rhetoric tells me is, the PTB know how to market him while never forgetting that campaign promises don't mean jack doodly. Don't forget that Dennis Hastert did his part before the least election when BushCo was "all things to all people." He said that if re-elected BushCo was going to abolish the income tax! When Sen. Lugar was doing his presidential exploratory he also promised to run on an "anti-IRS and income tax platform", so the Pubs know all too well how despised the tax and the agency is. They keep it in reserve as a backup winning issue never intending to abolish the god-cursed thing at all. I can certainly understand why Mr. ari is thrilled by Obama's promise. After all, Obama is the only (mainstream Kosher-approved) candidate to promise closing G-Mo and abolishing renditions. But, in his heart Obama knows it's DAWGGY dew, as do you, Mr. ari and I. I disagree on one point with others though. Even though Obama is a damn sure anti gunner, any gun grabs will almost certainly be obstructed by the remaining Publicons in the house and senate. (as long as BushCo doesn't propose the exact same bills, which would likely sail through to passage) Pubs are at their best when frustrating Democrats' wet dreams. It creates the illusion that they're principled defenders of something, and it requires no substance or bold ideas for governing in the 21st century.
Wrong. They are state limits. They regulate the state not the people. Period.
Such a thing would not have happened a hundred years ago as the people back then were more aware of their rights under GOD AND the US Constitution. There are many writings as to what was meant by the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment, I've tried to summarize what the authors meant when they wrote it. If I had more time, I could delve into Google and find the links and historic writings that prove my point. I leave it to you to do it yourself, as it may be better if you actually found the information on your own so you don't brush it aside as something I may have found at some pro-2nd Amendment site that you might suspect is either exaggerated or ficticious. Hell, the entire Bill of Rights is being trashed anyways, not just the 2nd Amendment. What you state is in fact true, that the state can do whatever it damn well pleases regardless if it is contrary to the Supreme Law of the Land, because in effect we have forfeited our ability to prevent such abuses and high crimes by allowing them to trample our rights slowly but more egregiously each passing year.
I ask you again, "Got any direct quotes from ANY of the founders who said they were "granting" anyone any rights? No? I didn't think so." Show us the quotes if you have them. Show us any of the founders statements that said they believed they were "granting" us any rights. I can wait...and wait...and wait.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. You think the Founding Fathers thought The State would protect us from The State? Think again. :) More government is not the solution to out-of-control government, anymore than that that old woman that swallowed a fly knew what she was getting herself into.
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
Dawg they won't go after guns yet. They will tax per round. And those pubbies you consider your protectors will smilingly aye that bill. Over and over and over again.
Yep, gotta agree.....here come the dark days of Bob Michals.
Nobody can "grant" a RIGHT. BUT, a state may or may not decide to PROTECT that right. And as is seen in practical matters, the state (being the cabal of puppet masters that actually run the show) can do whatever it wants to do, for the right bribes, kickbacks, and blackmail, along with pure thirst for power.
The state is a political entity which has no rights to give anyone. The state has powers, not rights. It cannot give that which it does not have.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Why point that out just now? You're defending an anti-2nd candidate?
The subordinate militia clause and the RKBA was to guarantee the states' power to raise and arm their own militias so as not to be dependent upon the national govt for funding. If the feds took it upon themselves to fund state militias then they could with a stroke of the pen deny that funding and eliminate and disarm state militias, which serve as a check and balance against federal tyranny. The founders were not about to write a blank power draft for the new govt as is evident by the careful wording of the 2nd amendment, which only in passing acknowledges arms for every man. That was a given and was a cultural right of passage for boys and men for centuries prior.
Excellent points.
The Keynesians will be demanding your vital bodily fluids if you keep making remarks like that.
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
There were in fact two militias. The (ordinary) militia which provided their own arms powder and shot, and the select militia, made up of citizens with state supplied arms. Neither were ever confused with the Continental Army which were soldiers in federal service with federal-supplied weapons. One cannot acknowledge these facts and still deny the true purpose of the 2nd amendment and the sovereignty of the states which were by design without the jurisdiction of the federal government.
The Keynesians will be demanding your vital bodily fluids if you keep making remarks like that. Actually, he's right, and this is the very point of just how the govt has usurped so many powers by fiat or decree. Nowhere in the constitution is the word "rights" used in connection to the govt. Govt has powers, only people have rights. Because the 2nd amendment uses the phrase "right of the people" there is no way it can honestly be interpreted to mean "the feds' power to disarm us and stand over us." Otherwise we could be forced to buy federal guns (disarmed people can be taxed without their consent) and pay the soldiers that are quartered in every home who could then kill us if we resist. "Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't."
We're already there, except for the "quartered" part. It might not be long before that happens if Bush/Cheney find some excuse to implement Continuity of Government plans and suspend what's left of the Constitution.
Great post.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Nor does the power to regulate interstate commerce imply the bureaucratic right to dictate the number of vacation hours I should be allowed to earn, but it happens all the same.
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
LOL!
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Comments (142 - 182) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#102. To: Jethro Tull (#101)
#103. To: aristeides (#95)
You guys are increasingly acting as if you believe the government's 9/11 story.
#104. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#96)
Those who wrote the second amendment, NOT ME, stated that the right to bear arms was granted because it benefited the security of the state, not because it was a God-given right.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#105. To: Peppa (#93)
And days after taking office, war plans were on the desk.
#106. To: christine (#103)
#107. To: aristeides (#92)
While Obama is promising to restore habeas corpus, McCain is promising no such thing.
Lord Acton
#108. To: aristeides (#95)
You guys are increasingly acting as if you believe the government's 9/11 story.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#109. To: James Deffenbach (#107)
(no better or worse than Obama or Clinton, they are all owned by the same folks and will take their orders from them just like Bill Clinton did and just like both Bush's have)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#110. To: FormerLurker (#104)
They acknowledge that self-defense (by extension the keeping and bearing of arms) is a RIGHT,
#111. To: Peppa (#94)
Well, you gots a point. Long as you got good coloresterall...;)
Lord Acton
#112. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#96)
Again, and again, and again. This discussion is about the second amendment. Those who wrote the second amendment, NOT ME, stated that the right to bear arms was granted...
Lord Acton
#113. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#110)
No word about self defense. It's the defense of the free State that justifies the granting of the right to bear arms.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#114. To: christine (#103)
you guys? who is you guys?
Lord Acton
#115. To: FormerLurker (#109)
You know what they say about great minds... :)
Lord Acton
#116. To: James Deffenbach (#112)
#117. To: FormerLurker (#113)
They are talking about the security of a free body of people. They further state in no uncertain terms that the RIGHT to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. They do not say they are giving this RIGHT, they say that RIGHT will not be INFRINGED upon. It is a rather profound and concise statement.
#118. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#116)
The second amendment protects the right to bear arms because armed people can help defend the state. Period.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#119. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#117)
The implication is that the State might have decided not to protect or grant the right to bear arms but, since it was good for the state, the second amendment was included into the bill of rights.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#120. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#117)
If the right to bear arms was universal and unconditional, the second amendment would have read:
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#121. To: FormerLurker (#118)
#122. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#51)
A - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, B - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
#123. To: James Deffenbach, aristeides, christine, Jethro Tull, rowdee, Peppa (#5)
#124. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#121)
Those are all State-given rights.
#125. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#121)
You may have the abstract right to bear machine guns, I can't see why not but, for as long as the BATF says that you don't have the right, they enter your residence, rough you up, confiscate your machine guns and throw you in jail.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#126. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#116)
You either lack elementary reading comprehension or intellectual honesty. Which one is it? Possibly both?
Lord Acton
#127. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#117)
(Edited)
Indeed. And the 'well regulated Militia' means...? Who does the regulation? Could it be... the State?
#128. To: HOUNDDAWG (#123)
I disagree on one point with others though. Even though Obama is a damn sure anti gunner, any gun grabs will almost certainly be obstructed by the remaining Publicons in the house and senate. (as long as BushCo doesn't propose the exact same bills, which would likely sail through to passage)
#129. To: HOUNDDAWG (#123)
Even though Obama is a damn sure anti gunner, any gun grabs will almost certainly be obstructed by the remaining Publicons in the house and senate. (as long as BushCo doesn't propose the exact same bills, which would likely sail through to passage)
#130. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#121)
If you are looking for God-given rights, you won't find them in the constitution. Those are all State-given rights.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#131. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#121)
If you are looking for God-given rights, you won't find them in the constitution. Those are all State-given rights.
Lord Acton
#132. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#117)
If the right to bear arms was universal and unconditional, the second amendment would have read:
#133. To: FormerLurker, a vast rightwing conspirator (#120)
#134. To: HOUNDDAWG (#133)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#135. To: James Deffenbach (#131)
The state is a political entity which has no rights to give anyone. The state has powers, not rights. It cannot give that which it does not have.
#136. To: buckeye, a vast rightwing conspirator (#132)
(Edited)
#137. To: Dakmar, James Deffenbach (#135)
The state is a political entity which has no rights to give anyone. The state has powers, not rights. It cannot give that which it does not have.
#138. To: HOUNDDAWG (#137)
Otherwise we could be forced to buy federal guns (disarmed people can be taxed without their consent) and pay the soldiers that are quartered in every home who could then kill us if we resist.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#139. To: HOUNDDAWG (#123)
But, in his heart Obama knows it's DAWGGY dew, as do you, Mr. ari and I.
Lord Acton
#140. To: HOUNDDAWG (#137)
Because the 2nd amendment uses the phrase "right of the people" there is no way it can honestly be interpreted to mean "the feds' power to disarm us and stand over us."
#141. To: Dakmar (#135)
The Keynesians will be demanding your vital bodily fluids if you keep making remarks like that.
Lord Acton
.
.
.