Printable View
This is why I support the second amendment, along with Supreme Court Justices spouting crap likeThe colonies rebelled against England for far less than what this administration has done a/o proposed.Quote:
``The Constitution just sets minimums,'' Scalia said. ``Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires.''
Whoa...
I'm not sure why you would want a gun in this situation. I guess you're paranoid about a terrorist attacking you during Red Alert, but wouldn't he be arrested/shot by the police when they saw him and presumed him to be an enemy?Quote:
I will admit that having all your rights taken away sucks, but the 2nd amendment is sort of beside the point.
Why is that crap? The constitution does set minimums(it says so in the 9th amendment). Maybe you mean it's crap cuz the justice is implying we don't have to give you anything beyond the constitution, in which case, I agree.Quote:
along with Supreme Court Justices spouting crap like
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``The Constitution just sets minimums,'' Scalia said. ``Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires.''
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree. Bush is a total moron; the only thing he's done right during his entire political career was decide to fight Iraq.Quote:
The colonies rebelled against England for far less than what this administration has done a/o proposed.
If the government considers me an enemy for being outside my house, walking around my neighborhood, etc, then the government is my enemy.Quote:
Originally posted by Yawgmoth
I'm not sure why you would want a gun in this situation. I guess you're paranoid about a terrorist attacking you during Red Alert, but wouldn't he be arrested/shot by the police when they saw him and presumed him to be an enemy?
Sucks? How 'bout unconstitutional, which Scalia denies. Also interesting choice of words he used: "rights you enjoy". Does this mean not rights he enjoys?Quote:
I will admit that having all your rights taken away sucks, but the 2nd amendment is sort of beside the point.
[/b][/quote]
Have you read the Ninth Amendment? Maybe your copy left out the "not" in the actual text.Quote:
Why is that crap? The constitution does set minimums(it says so in the 9th amendment). Maybe you mean it's crap cuz the justice is implying we don't have to give you anything beyond the constitution, in which case, I agree.
Quote:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
That is a ridiculous overreaction. The country is at war now, but that's no excuse for throwing away the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It seems like this terrorist threat system may indeed be a way of slowly weening Americans off their Constitution so that King Bush can more readily get his edicts enforced.
Maybe elections will be cancelled in 2004 because it wouldn't be good for national security.
I once thought President Bush's actions would not immediately lead to an erosion of the liberal democratic lifestyle valued by Americans, but I guess I was wrong. The first Roman emperor, Caesar Augustus, destroyed the Roman Republic with his massive popular support. Now Bush appears to be making himself into a monarch with virtually unlimited authority, too.
This is sensationalism at its best. "Bush is ruling with an iron monarch fist!!! WE'RE HAVING ALL OF OUR FREEDOMS STRIPPED BY THE GOVT CONSPIRACIES!!!"
Bush doesn't have nearly enough support to be a monarch.
>>If the government considers me an enemy for being outside my house, walking around my neighborhood, etc, then the government is my enemy. <<
Great. Have fun getting shot.
Obviously, this is also an overreaction on both sides. The government feels the need to shield us by taking away any freedoms which could get us killed, and it's an overreaction on the people's side, talking about taking up arms against their government :rolleyes:
*sigh* God does it ever feel like this world is moving closer and closer to the $$$$ter every day.
My point is if I'm an enemy for walking outside my house and am treated as such, I'll respond as such.Quote:
Originally posted by -KEN-
>>If the government considers me an enemy for being outside my house, walking around my neighborhood, etc, then the government is my enemy. <<
Great. Have fun getting shot.
If it comes to this point, the US government has lost it's legitimacy. If it not only refuses to operate according to the Constiitution but actively denies it, it's no longer a legitimate government according to our own Declaration of Independence, which unfortunately isn't a legal document in our system.
But this document is the basis for the Constitution.
The Declaration gives us the right to overthrow unjust governments; it will be unfortunate if that government is the nomimally in power.
The ninth amendment is saying that the constitution has just the minimum rights, and that people really should be given more.Quote:
Originally posted by salvelinus
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you read the Ninth Amendment? Maybe your copy left out the "not" in the actual text.
Nowhere does it say that Scalia thinks having your constituitional rights taken away is constitutional. But I think I see your point in that Scalia thinks your ability to go outside is not in the constitution, and therefore he feels justified in taking that right away.(IF that's what you're saying.)
Also, wtf does the 2nd amendment have to do with any of this?!?
Because if he's going to defend himself against the US, chances are he'll want something more intimidating than a sharp stick.
Uh, ok, if you don't have a good grasp of English, as implied by your signature, let me put it this way:
"shall not be construed to deny or disparage.." other rights means we have other rights, even though they may not be specifically cited in the Constitution.
This doesn't say "the only rights you have are those specifically enumerated herein".
I'm not in militia movements or anything similar, but at some point even the Declaration of Independence declares a right to form a new government.
I know. The constitution is not even a minimum; the 9th amendment says that a citizen's minimum rights are all the stuff in the constitution plus more stuff. That's why I said your minimum rights are defined in the constitution.Quote:
Originally posted by salvelinus
Uh, ok, if you don't have a good grasp of English, as implied by your signature, let me put it this way:
"shall not be construed to deny or disparage.." other rights means we have other rights, even though they may not be specifically cited in the Constitution.
This doesn't say "the only rights you have are those specifically enumerated herein".
I'm not in militia movements or anything similar, but at some point even the Declaration of Independence declares a right to form a new government.
As for declaring your own government, altho that's in the Declaration of Independence, the way you "make your own government" in the U.S. is "overthrowing" the current leader by electing someone else to the presidency. Going into a militia or seceding probably wouldn't work, as shown by the Civil War.
What the ninth amendment says is that just because a right isn't specifically mentioned in other parts of the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
While that's a bit vague as to what rights do exist and aren't enumerated, it's certainly dishonest to twist the words to say it means whatever isn't expressly allowed is prohibited.
I'll keep my guns, thank you. You know, every time you'd hear a militia leader spout nonsense and have to shake your head, the government would then do something to make you shake your head, but be a lot more alert.
Most certainly being able to leave your own house is an implied constitutional right because it would be almost impossible to practice any of the other rights without it. We are in a time of (unjust) war, not martial law.
How are the people overreacting to Bush's decrees? I don't think many people have taken up arms just because of Bush's misadministration. Most people are passively accepting unconstitutional overadjustments on personal liberty, privacy, and government noninvolvement in religion because, "This is a time to unite behind our leader. He knows best." The problem is that people don't pay enough attention to what the people they vote for do. They rely on old party-line stereotypes or how the candidate appeals to them personally. Furthermore, too many people have been trained to accept whatever their government does must be for the better because to do otherwise would be unconstitutional or cause for politicians to lose their re-elections.
I really don't see what a personal firearm is going to do against the police or the U.S. military so obviously this exclamation falls under the old conservative fallacy that gun rights are the securers of the other rights.