“I Am Against Having A King”

4 Responses to “I Am Against Having A King”

1. Xander Bekkett says:

   January 16, 2013 at 9:50 am

   Anonymous, in a feverish fit of paranoia, calls for insurrection over limiting the size of an AR-15 clip and requiring a background check? to buy a gun.
   Anonymous re-writes the 2nd amendment by omitting the FIRST part:
   “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”.
   Mentioning ONLY the SECOND part:
   “the right of the people to keep & bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.
   Which together they mean, simply put:
   People can have guns as part of a “well regulated Militia” for the purpose of maintaining the security of a free state.
   The Framers intended to restrict Congress from legislating away a state’s right to self-defence.
   Anonymous, being UNFAMILIAR with the US Constitution is UNAWARE that Article 2, Section 2: says; “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the “Militia of the states” which, as you know, is made up of all those who are allowed to have guns under the 2nd Amendment and who are probably members of the NRA.
   Holey shit. That means the NRA has Obama as their commander in Chief.
   Anonymous, being UNFAMILIAR with the US Constitution is UNAWARE that the President has taken an oath of office in which he “Swears to promote the general welfare.
   Wouldn’t limiting the size of an AR-15 clip and requiring a background check to buy a gun fall under the heading “promote the general welfare”.

   Reply
   • stevengoddard says:

     January 16, 2013 at 12:14 pm

     You are a complete idiot

     “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

     Reply
   • gator69 says:

     January 16, 2013 at 2:09 pm

     Our founders had just used their personal arms to defeat a tyrant, and were not about to seat another. The intent is to maintain a “free” state, not a government.

     “The earliest published commentary on the Second Amendment by a major constitutional theorist was by St. George Tucker. He annotated a five-volume edition of Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, a critical legal reference for early American attorneys published in 1803.

     In footnotes 40 and 41 of the Commentaries, Tucker stated that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment was not subject to the restrictions that were part of English law: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government” and “whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England.” Blackstone himself also commented on English game laws, Vol. II, p. 412, “that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws.” Blackstone discussed the right of self-defense in a separate section of his treatise on the common law of crimes. Tucker’s annotations for that latter section did not mention the Second Amendment but cited the standard works of English jurists such as Hawkins.

     Further, Tucker criticized the English Bill of Rights for limiting gun ownership to the very wealthy, leaving the populace effectively disarmed, and expressed the hope that Americans “never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty.”

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Early_commentary

     Steven is right, you are a complete idiot.

     Reply
   • Keith DeHavelle says:

     January 17, 2013 at 1:35 am

     The two statements originally were separated. And many of the Framers, including those directly involved in the crafting of the Second Amendment (it was originally the fourth), were specific that they considered the right to keep and bear arms to be separated from the militia angle.

     The awkward wording, tangling up the militia reference, comes from an early draft’s intent to protect conscientious objectors.

     If you knew that you were wrong — that the right to bear arms was reflected in the English Bill of Rights a hundred years earlier and specifically included a right to throw off a government guilty of “oppression” as well as for self-protection, would it change your mind at all?

     ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

     Reply