Attention all you microcephalic monosynaptic moronic mouthbreathing media idiots who have been driving me up the fricken' wall the last few days with your ill-informed ignorant invidious ingenuous inquiries about the Heller case:
The Second Amendment does not grant a collective right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment does not grant an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment, like the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights, grants neither diddly nor squat.
What the Second Amendment does is bar the government from tampering with an existing right, just like the First and the Fourth and the Fifth and all those other sexy Amendments you love so much. The Bill of Rights could only be read as "Granting Rights" by someone whose reading comprehension compares unfavorably with that of a lobotomized flatworm. It "grants" nothing to nobody, unless by "Grant" you mean "Tell The Government To Bugger Off".
That is all, thank you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Do I have to go look all those big words up to figure out that I have been dis'd? As I understood it, the Amendments of the Constitution were to make certain states and important peoples agree to the Entire concept of this Constitutional Federal government - and without insuring that the government knew what rights and powers belonged to who... and who's. So, since the current government has no idea that I (people) have rights that it cannot infringe - and the those rights, and powers not outlined in the Constitution like Education belong to the States or me again (people) -- does that mean I really don't have to be paying attention to those big automatic guns and black helicopters? Would have been simpler to make George Washington King and have Divine Right thereof.
Tam,
AMEN
Rick
I usually like to follow up that particular type of enlightenment with a quote from U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) about the Second Amendment guaranteeing a preexisting right. But I fear my expectations of comprehension by the types that need such things explained to them are too high.
Your approach is probably more appropriate.
With respect, earl, I must disagree with your take on the Amendments to the Constitution.
The Constitutional Convention, and the subsequent votes on the ratification of said Constitution was a culmination of the agreement of the States; proof positive that, once ratified, everyone was satisfied enough.
The Bill of Rights (i.e., the only Amendments that existed at the time), were not there to make sure everyone was happy. They were a list of preexisting rights being recognized, and official documentation that the government being created not only recognized them, but were forbidden to assault those rights.
I hate to sound bullhorn-ish, but that's why you see language like 'shall not infringe.'
Now that I've got that off my chest, we can examine the Poe-like nature of The Lady Tam's post. Alliteration, anyone?
;)
tweaker
*sighs, flutters eyelashes*
I love it when she talks like that.
Me too.
(Cue that old Gary Wright tune now for me and all you other guys out there. Yes, I know it's a bit softer and cheesier than what we usually listen to, so deal with it. Life's tough, wear a helmet.)
I am in awe of this post. Also, flashburned by it.
I actually TEACH American Government 101 as a professor, and just got finished with that particular argument. The 2nd Amendment is written TO the government. Therefore, it cannot grant any right. Since the Federalist founding fathers actually argued the Bill of Rights wasn't necessary and was in fact intellectually inconsistent with a government of limited enumerated powers, then the right of the individual to keep and bear arms cannot come from the 2nd. Instead, it's a pre-existing right given by the Laws of Nature and Nature's God.
Yes, there are still some like me teaching college.
Seems so simple, doesn't it. But my money is on a room full of lawyers ignoring the simple.
BRB
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha!! "The Bill of Rights could only be read as "Granting Rights" by someone whose reading comprehension compares unfavorably with that of a lobotomized flatworm". I am so going to work that line into the next "discussion" about rights that I'm compelled to engage in with whichever facile frenzied frothing fear-addled fabulist that forces face time with him (or her) onto me.
Joe_M
P.S. - Nice use of assonance. :)
"Attention all you microcephalic monosynaptic moronic mouthbreathing media idiots..."
Almost Coulter-esque, in it's flow, I'd say.
Me, I'm betting on an "Individual Right, subject to Reasonable Restrictions" ruling.
Whereupon we'll spend forty years arguing over the meaning of "reasonable".
Damn Tam, I've been telling people the very same thing for over forty years, but not so elegantly nor eloquently.
Could that be why they didn't listen?
you nailed it.
If you understand "microcephalic, monosynaptic, moronic mouthbreathing media idiots", then you aren't one, so cool your jets. ;o)
I'm betting on "individual, with reasonable restrictions" too. Doesn't make it right, but we'll have to deal with it.
Post a Comment