Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar
Well, thats your first mistake, the constitution was not intended for each person to mean it's own thingy.
Really? How about you tell the Supreme Court Justices that when they rule outside the bounds of their legal responsibilities by legislating from the bench.. See: Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause.
But gun control is okay? Even though it expressly says in the 2nd Amendment: 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.
No you don't have history on your side as evidenced by the thousands and thousands of statutes, legislation, bills, acts and laws that derive their legality from the constitution over the last two hundred and twenty years or so.
Actually, I do. How about you check up the opinion of US vs Lopez (1995) or maybe read up on how Justice Marshall laid the ground work for "dormant" Commerce Clause theory which was bastardized by progressive Judges in the 1930s and later.
Nobody can remove a natural right, not even the constitution because they are endowed by the creator and are inalienable. All rights, natural and legal are protected in the ninth amendement unless stated elsewhere in the constitution or Bill of Rights. The constitution doesn't grant rights, it simply protects them. So there again you you have shown just how misinformed and ignorant your understanding of the constitution is and why it's best to leave it's interpretation to the people who know a lot more than you.
So now nobody can remove a natural right? Such as self-defense and ownership of a firearm or free speech.. but gun "control" is allowed. How crazy of me to think that natural rights are questionable in an age when Government curtails natural rights all the time (such as "Free Speech Zones") and this very topic is about Government wanting to curtail a natural right. The 9th Amendment is one which a natural right has to be claimed for it to mean anything. But this one time in American History some people got together to claim their "natural rights" and an listed right (10th Amendment) a President forced war and cost 600,000 Americans their lives. So we know 9th Amendment protects jack.
No, I am making a point in which you failed to get. Furthermore you don't even realized I just sockpuppeted you. Government curtails "natural rights" all the time despite the protection that's suppose to be afforded to them. You have no problem with this as you clearly stated earlier. So it's you that is trying interpreting the Constitution wrong. So are the Courts, Congress and the Executive branch. Yet here we are.. you trying to educate me on what "rights" are or aren't.
You can believe whatever you want, it's a free country but it won't make you right.
Go read up on things like the Patriot Act, wiretapping and all the fancy things Government is doing to remove privacy rights. :lol:
It's called a list of rebellions and civil unrest for a reason...probably because that's what they are.
Civil unrest is a broad term. In law it can mean: illegal parades, sit-ins, riots, sabotage, and other crimes.
I know, it's hard to dispute direct quotes from the man who said them, isn't it. So forgive me if I don't take you or your opinion on the matter seriously, either.
Here is Thomas Jefferson's full quote:
Thomas Jefferson said:
"I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted."
Thats fine, but I'll take the sources and quotes in his blog over your biased clueless little opinions any day of the week, month or year.
Ah so now I am clueless? Even though I am about to educated you full on the whole quote.
Thomas Jefferson was speaking of the Shay's Rebellion which he thought nothing of and that the Government's actions should be one of forgiveness, not of cruelty. But ironically if it wasn't for that "Rebellion" Articles of Confederation would have lasted longer.
Now a mere 12 years later, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in response to the Alien and Sedition Laws (American's first great denial of rights).
The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798
Good ol' Thomas Jefferson was calling for "Revolution", go figure right?
