Individual Right
Here’s a little bit of hope for America.
The graph does not show that 32% of USA Today readers also thought the second amendment gave the right to bare legs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2007 at 1812 hrs
The wording of the question made me groan. What are they teaching kids at journalism schools these days?
Posted by Brian on December 28, 2007 at 1952 hrs
The Constitution doesn’t “give” anyone the right to do anything… it protects our rights
Posted by Keith Conrad on December 28, 2007 at 2004 hrs
Yeah, and then ask those 97 people what “the right to bear arms” means and you’ll get 97 different answers.
Congratulations, USA Today, on proving nothing.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 28, 2007 at 2133 hrs
Nice catch.
It would be interesting to have USA Today poll Wisconsin.
Of course, Pol Pot Doyle would not pay attention to the findings of such a poll since it would be about the same here in the formerly Great State of Wisconsin.
Posted by The Asian Badger on December 29, 2007 at 0036 hrs
Yeah, and then ask those 97 people what “the right to bear arms” means and you’ll get 97 different answers.
Congratulations, USA Today, on proving nothing.
I agree…
Of course, having done the research I KNOW what the right to bear arms as intended by our forefathers really meant, but I also am not naive enough to know that most people are woefully unaware of the truth.
Many people (wrongfully) think the right to bear arms means that you can own a gun… so long as the barrell is longer than X inches in length and you keep it locked and unloaded in a secure undisclosed location. (okay, I jest about the undisclosed location but)
When I questioned Tony Staskunas on his justification for his votes against ccw he cited a ‘constituent survey” he had distributed regarding the issue. It became very clear to me at that point that the poll results rest entirely in how you ask the question.
Again, having said that we all know most people are uniformed. Ask the educated and you’ll get the right answer, but ask the average joe-sheep on the street, you never know.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 29, 2007 at 0057 hrs
If you want to know what the Second Amendment means and how it came to be-get a copy of THE SECOND AMENDMENT PRIMER by Les Adams. An outstanding little book filled with facts that would convert even the most ardent gun banner. I wish Pol Pot Doyle would read it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 29, 2007 at 0933 hrs
Does it count as Godwin’s law when someone is compared to Pol Pot? I think so. Thanks for advancing the discussion with your cool-headed analysis.
xxpilot, if you have such an irrefutable lock on what the second amendment allows and doesn’t allow, perhaps you should ring up some supreme court justices, most of whom have come to a different conclusion than the one you seem to. But i guess you just count them among those “woefully unaware of the truth.” No doubt they could benefit from your groundbreaking research.
Posted by scott on December 29, 2007 at 1106 hrs
Scott-Get the book!! After you are converted and have become a patriot, report back.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 29, 2007 at 1115 hrs
Kiss my patriotic butt.
Posted by scott on December 29, 2007 at 1236 hrs
The 3% have it right. The 2nd amendment doesn’t give anyone the right to keep and bear arms. That right is inalienable. The 2nd amendment merely prevents the government from taking those arms away.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 29, 2007 at 1258 hrs
There are so many Americans who simply would not allow thier guns to be taken it is a foolish agenda to even try. I don’t own a gun now [or want one] but if they were being banned I’d hurry to find several.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 29, 2007 at 1657 hrs
The 3% have it right. The 2nd amendment doesn’t give anyone the right to keep and bear arms. That right is inalienable. The 2nd amendment merely prevents the government from taking those arms away.
Ah! Spot on!
xxpilot, if you have such an irrefutable lock on what the second amendment allows and doesn’t allow, perhaps you should ring up some supreme court justices, most of whom have come to a different conclusion than the one you seem to.
Wow… Suprising… I always took your for a more knowledgeable fella… I love those who would dispute the second amendment. Proves that they are willing to suspend logic, precendence, and every pattern of parallel thought to fulfill their personal bias and desirous intentions.
This is good data. Thans for the expose’ SCOTT.
You know my dad always told me not to over-analyze people… Just sit back and let the uniformed reveal themselves.
It actually works.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 30, 2007 at 0058 hrs
Well, word to your dad.
But does he or you have anything to say about my comment? It’s just fine for you and others to say “this is how it is, and everyone who disagrees is a fool!” but what I want to know is why the supreme court has sided against your view of the 2nd amendment. Can you explain the reasoning there? I’m no expert, so I cannot. What I do know is that when you fail to address it at all, it either means you a) have no idea, or b) prefer not to get into it as it may not bolster your argument.
As far as people criticizing my patriotism, I stand by my earlier comment about that.
Final note. When you write ” they are willing to suspend logic, precendence, and every pattern of parallel thought to fulfill their personal bias and desirous intentions” I have to giggle. I don’t know what “every form of parallel thought” might be, but the rest of your comment might have been lifted verbatim from a criticism of the Bush administration and its shrinking number of apologists.
Posted by scott on December 30, 2007 at 1107 hrs
“Stompy” says people will not alllow their guns to be taken.
Bullcrap. In New Orleans they rolled right over. The “Cold Dead Hands” crowd will wimper and throw out their guns in the face of armed LEOs or military as though haven taken a purgative. Hell, most of them are too chicken to vote! And if you think they will come to your aid when the cops knock on YOUR door, remember New York City, California and Morton Grove. It’ll be the same here.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 30, 2007 at 2112 hrs
but what I want to know is why the supreme court has sided against your view of the 2nd amendment. Can you explain the reasoning there?
I do believe the supreme court will be addressing this issue in the near future.
If there is a particular decision you’d like to cite, please do so.
It doesn’t take a mental giant to figure out that the Supreme court is made up of POLITICAL appointees.
There-in lies your answer. Throw up a bunch of liberals on the court and the court will make liberal decisions. Put up a bunch of conservatives and they’ll come to conservative decisions.
The supreme court has injected politics into a topic that is crystal clear. No matter what the politically injected supreme court decides on this issue as they issue a decision in the future it doesn’t change what the 2nd amendment was intended by its authors.
My beliefs are based on the constitution and the bill of rights.
Final note. When you write “ they are willing to suspend logic, precendence, and every pattern of parallel thought to fulfill their personal bias and desirous intentions” I have to giggle. I don’t know what “every form of parallel thought” might be,
This is what is so unproductive about debating this issue with guys like you. This information exists. It has been trotted out over and over and over again. If you really wanted the truth of the issue you’d be well aware of it.
Read the bill of rights. Look at the logic behind each individual right. (but yet we are to believe the 2nd amendment was a group right regarind ‘militias’) please.
Read the other writings of the men who wrote the bill of rights. If over time liberals have been able to, as the syntax and context of words and their usage has changed, been able to skew the intent of the second amendment, Surely anyone who would look deeper and read other documents drafted by these same individuals you would surely know that it was intended as an individual right.
I can accept the basis of logic of a person were to suggest that we should change the law, or that ‘those were different times’. That’s a debate that has merit.
But for people to say that the 2nd amendment was not intended by the authors to be an individual right. Thats rediculous. Its void of logic. No educated person (and when I say educated, I mean educated on that subject) who has studied and researched the topic would make that contention.
What I do know is that when you fail to address it at all, it either means you a) have no idea, or b) prefer not to get into it as it may not bolster your argument.
So you see Scott, knowing that the information is all out there, and has been trotted out over and over to all the anti-gunners, there comes a point when it just seems futile to try to logic with people who don’t want to know the truth. Hence the reasons I don’t spend the time to spoon feed the information again.
I am very confident in the knowledge of the existence of plenty of evidence to support the irrefutable truth that it is an individual right. If you want to have issue with that, likewise, I encourage you to provide data to the contrary.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 31, 2007 at 1317 hrs
1. I’m not really satisfied with your “answer” to why the supreme court differs with you.
2. There’s nothing unproductive about debating with me unless you bring that un-productivity yourself.
3. I really have no firm opinion on the issue of “gun control,” as it were. I’m marginally in favor of concealed carry in Wisconsin, in case you missed that in previous discussions. Mainly I find the laws we currently have are adequate, and am in no way seeking further limitations. I mention this because I want to disabuse you of any notion that I’m a “knee-jerk” liberal on this issue. Frankly, I find the whole thing totally without merit as an issue; all smoke, no fire; all sizzle, no steak.
Posted by scott on December 31, 2007 at 2323 hrs
1. I’m not really satisfied with your “answer” to why the supreme court differs with you.
You aren’t satisfied that the court is political as much (or more) than it is trying to determine what the forefathers intended?
Regardless:
You haven’t even provided any citation to show that the court does differ. I don’t know what you are referring to. US v Miller????
I do know the supreme court has agreed to hear the dc gun ban case which according to those who make assessments of the like (media etc) will set precedence on the individual right vs. collective.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21901379/
2. There’s nothing unproductive about debating with me unless you bring that un-productivity yourself.
Well seriously… how many times do we have to trot out the quotes from other writings of the forefathers? How many times do we have to point out the incongruency of saying that the 2nd amendment was a ‘collective’ right while each of the other 9 amendments are individual rights?
As I mentioned, I accept the premise that people would contend “these are different times” if that is the basis of wanting to amend the constitution.
But in my opinion (which I think is very well supported by fact) its rediculous to argue that the 2nd amendment wasn’t intended as an individual right. To think that is just uninformed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 01, 2008 at 0927 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134037
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:32 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 86
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 02:21 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).