Quote:
Originally Posted by k7leetha
Europe Rick,
I can't figure out what's with the attitude. Who crapped in your cereal bowl this morning, and why the hell you taking it out on me?
|
What
you posted was nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k7leetha
Those quotes he provided are valid because a) the ones that defend the 2nd amendment came mostly from our founders and b) as you're so smart I'm sure you know that in providing evidence it is common, and in many cases expected, that you provide quotes from valid sources.
|
I did not question the validity of those quotes I questioned why he was addressing them to me and equating my position with Hitler and Stalin. Nothing in those quotes addressed anything I wrote.
See, I am 110% against gun control and 110% pro gun rights. Greatamerican (and now it appears you also) have made a profound mistake in reading what I wrote as arguing against gun rights; apparently neither of you are capable of grasping the fundamental concepts that I am discussing. My statements are purely pro-constitution and pro-gun rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k7leetha
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Europe Rick
"The Supreme Court has said the right to arms (specifically the right to arms of freed slaves) "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
|
The Supreme Court is straight out lying. The Constitution is very clear about it's rights to the people and it's protection thereof. "neither...dependent on that instrument for its existence." That statement simply ridiculously stupid. It it's not, then why did the writers see fit to write an amendment about it, and then put it and 9 others in a separate bill of their own, The Bill of Rights? |
Saying the RKBA is "not granted by the constitution" and that it is not "in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence," is stating that the RKBA is a
pre-existing right, the strongest type there is; the founders found the right being exercised freely before the Constitution was crafted and ratified. The RKBA was not "created" by the ratification of the 2nd Amendment . . . the right exists whether the amendment is there or not.
The 2nd Amendment merely recognizes and guarantees the right;
IT DOES NOT GRANT, GIVE, CREATE, ESTABLISH OR CONFER THE RIGHT!
Is any of this sinking in?
Quote:
Originally Posted by k7leetha
The Supreme Court is not allowed to "interpret" what the Constitution says,
|
Yes they are, it is their Constitutional duty to consider the principles of the Constitution and apply them to law. That is their only job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k7leetha
in fact it's funny you say that cause I'm arguin bout that on another thread too.
|
Oh goody, sounds like fun, I'll be sure to find that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k7leetha
Interpretation implies possible deception, something that the writers of the Constitution knew was an inevitability and that is why it's not allowed.
|
It surely does invite misconstructions and deceptions, that's why it is so important that liberals are not permitted to attain a majority on the Court. The most violent injury is the "living constitution" theory of judicial review. But hey, that's another thread . . .