The Supreme Court held: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia
District of Columbia v. Heller – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If he tries to wreck the Constitution and break his oath of office, we can impeach him and be done with the Manchurian Candidate permanently.
from your lips to God’s ear…………
We can only hope and pray
HYPOCRITES!
Reporting as a bachelor living in the big city, even a hint of religious righteousness sends single urban women into fits of rage, and now that they make more money than men and represent 2/3 of college graduates, a permanent Democratic majority will exist to the exact extent that conservatives inject themselves with jackbooted teams of police state soldiers into the most personal decisions women make. Control over sexual selection utterly defines the very nature of female existence in opposition to the mere power trip desire of men to force women to raise their
unplanned and thus unwanted children for 18 years of their life.
Be anti-abortion all you want, with missionary zeal, but pointing guns at women to force them to carry the unwanted children of men is a coward’s mess and represents conscious and willful political suicide of the conservative side of politics. Women in general will not protest, will not Ho online to post on global warming skeptical sites, but voting against creepy fanatics they very much enjoy doing and they brag about it loudly over whiskey shots and $100 cigars.
Were that Ron Paul wasn’t such a jittery weirdo!
The Tea Party itself now suffers infiltration of religious fanatics and their attack on the very nature of the Constitution as if it granted rights to people as favors instead of very much restricted government power, as laid out in yet another manifesto (from http://theteapartyplatform.com/2010/02/07/platform-item-6–the-right-to-life.aspx):
“In 1973, the US Supreme Court found a right to privacy in the US Constitution that simply is not there. There is no law in this land that is more controversial than that which was created by a court, not by an elected body to address a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Nowhere in our Constitution is there any reference to a right to privacy or a right to abortion. A right to privacy can only be inferred and in 1973 one was inferred in order to gain an outcome that was supported by seven members of the Supreme Court. This was not their role as justices. Their role was to evaluate a state law that at the time of their decision prevented one Jane Roe (alias) from obtaining an abortion. The court reacted to the horrible situation that was then all too often seen in that women sought illegal means to terminate a pregnancy they did not want by finding people outside the medical profession who used unsanitary methods that often caused women permanent injury and sometimes death.”
58% of white women voted for Romney.
NikFromNYC
Wannabe Tyrant!
Our rights are not defined by the Constitution. The Constitution represents a contract between We the people and the Government that limits Government to enumerating powers and a defined structure. The Bill of Rights is a further specification of specific powers the Government does NOT have and in no way places a limit on individual rights. They especially do not limit our natural rights by not enumerating them. The 10th and last amendment to the Bill of Rights sees to that.
Our individual rights are derived from our nature and the nature of our relationship with reality. They are prior to ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT and cannot be taken away. However, they can be distorted, unidentified, poorly defined, misinterpreted, ignored, evaded, and violated. In fact, our Government violates our individual rights in more ways and more deeply than any gang of thugs could hope to achieve or even the British Government of the late 18th Century.
Obama is merely the latest in a long line of increasingly tyrannical presidents. This has caused a lot more of We the people to notice that the Government IS the problem rather than a solution to much of anything.
Yes, exactly. The US government may, in fact, be able to take way our arms, but they can do so either legally or ethically. It would be an act of aggression just as blatant as rape or murder. Any agent or official (or common citizen) who takes part in disarming the American public is a criminal, no matter whether he is dressed in jeans, a blue uniform or even an olive drab uniform. Just because they wear a certain costume, that does not prevent them from being a criminal.
Ack…. blatant typo. Good rant, but should be “they can NOT do so either legally or ethically”.
Obama should have been impeached several times over by now..
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
I suppose a lawyer might say that the phrase ‘best of my ability’ leaves Obama an out. The Oath of Office is no protection against incompetence or ignorance.