I’ll make this my first post, just to see what happens.. I just joined...
To those who say they have ‘Constitutional Rights’, or that ‘negative rights’ of any kind exist, I ask you to consider the following, as you cast your vote in 2020 (and beyond)... The goal of the left is not to amend the Second Amendment away. They don’t have the votes, and they know it. Their goal is to get five SCOTUS judges to agree that the Second Amendment provides for the collective right of an armed populace, through an armed police, and an armed military. [ 484 more words ]
1
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
4 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Though, I voted agree and I do overall agree, I do have one thought on your phrasing the proposition. Whether the government that was formed under the principle that it is the duty of government to protect and defend the natural rights of the people, or whether it fails to do so, does not affirm nor negate the rights -- only the free exercise thereof.
The progressives have long abandoned amending the Constitution in favor of reinterpretation of it, e.g. Roe v. Wade (a person could find shadows of anything they want in it, if they tried hard enough) or the stretching of the commerce clause to lengths unimagined by our Founders. Of course, outright ignoring it also works. When was the last time there was any serious challenge aimed at restraining the federal government to the enumerated powers? Perhaps, the Convention of States could accomplish that -- if there are 38 state legislatures with some sense and backbone...
Lickspittle
Level 6
Mar 19, 2019
2
I agree. The talk on the left of stacking the court is just more evidence of your assertion. If they cannot win elections and replace Supreme Court members, they will attempt as Franklin did to stack the court and create laws through the judicial branch instead of the Constitutional way.
Mrs_SO
Level 5
Mar 19, 2019
2
If that’s their plan I’m not to worried, no Judge who sits on the Supreme Court could keep their position if they issued a ruling wherin “the right of the people to keep and bear arms necessary to the the keeping of a well regulated milita to protect against tyranny” is used to justify keeping arms only in the hands of state actors. There is a limit to how far laws can be stretched.
StrykerWolfe
Level 5
Mar 19, 2019
0
The entire DNC Leadership is betting you are wrong.
@wgarneau How’d that go for them in 2016 lol?
@StrykerWolfe: Another way to look at it is how it went for them in 2008, and 2012.
@wgarneau True, but from what I’ve seen of our political climate, they’re not in any position to be making moves like that. Gun grabbing doesn’t poll well in the U.S. unless you’ve had a mass shooting within the last month.
@StrykerWolfe: Many young people want guns banned. As the demographics change, banning guns becomes more popular. Democrats also often do things that are not immediately popular, in the hope of making them popular after the fact.
@wgarneau Granted on both, and I’m not saying they won’t try, I just don’t think they’ll succeed. Taking guns is something that’s always been talked about in the U.S., but to do so from the bench of the Supreme Court seems almost as difficult as getting your 2/3rds in Congress to amend the constitution.
The problem is nobody on the Democratic side can be honest about what their true goal is regarding firearms.
Phonics
Level 6
Mar 19, 2019
3
I think it is more than that.
Another thing the left does is to weaponize nuance, and though Alinsky did not specifically say to weaponize nuance, doing so stems from his teaching. To the left, everything is nuanced, and particularly definitions. But then try using nuance to defend, for example, Thomas Jefferson. The fact that he owned slaves leaves no room for nuance at all, in spite of the fact that Jefferson wanted to END slavery. Jefferson’s point was a good one - if he freed his slaves, and other plantation owners did not, then he would go out of business, and someone else would take over his plantation (and use slaves). As such, the best Jefferson could do, unless Congress would end slavery entirely, was to treat his own slaves as well as possible. Tell that to a leftist, and you’ll be accused of defending slavery - no nuance allowed at all.
They use nuance the way Muhammad Ali used what he called ‘rope a dope’.
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.