A question for those who support Bush

[Black Lazerus]

others would be saying the same thing about what we know as 911 today, if it had been thwarted.

i just think it's too bad that something has to materialize and be horrific beofre it's taken seriously by the same people who will then complain about the lack of prevention of it afterwards.

the admin is in a no win situation.

your argument is spurious they did have proof but someone failed to act

[Mad]

http://www.theleafchronicle.com/apps/pbc...00341/1014

LETTERS Infringement on one is an infringement on all

Very truthful opinion on the matter. Keyser, Hoon pack your bags and move to Cuban you useless pieces of mindless shit.

[Sir O]

Amendment IV:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


The above is the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. It is clear and concise. I do not see the phrase "if you don't have anything to hide why are you worried" in it at all (Letters, Dec. 29).

The authors were very clear. People have constitutional protection against unlawful searches and seizures, and we have the constitutional right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects. Monitoring private telephone calls without a warrant is no more right than opening personal mail or searching a private home without a warrant.

People who actually believe that if you have nothing to hide then why worry, scare me because they are willing to give away the right of privacy to an authority who can make up the rules as the game goes on and can declare anything or anybody a "threat" and can, if given the motivation, decide that what you do, what you think and what you say is wrong for this country.

If the president has the power to waive or disregard the Fourth Amendment he has the right to waive and disregard any part of the Constitution he sees fit, to include "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" as specified in the Second Amendment.

You can't have it both ways.

We, as a nation, had better start thinking about what is going on before we have our rights whittled away by a single person deciding what is right and what is wrong.

Amen.

[fbd]

what the fuck is that a quote from?

[Sir O]

The piece Mad linked to.

[fbd]

i was trying to come off as not getting where the amendment was from. it didnt work

[Mad]

Read the Bill of Right's sometime, you'd be amazed at what the government is suppose to be limited too.

[Mad]

'The Unlimited Power of the Sword'

by Vin Suprynowicz
by Vin Suprynowicz

A couple of loyal readers asked me, in response to my recent evisceration of the discredited "militia clause" argument, "But Vin, do you think the Founders would have written the Second Amendment that way if they'd known we'd have Uzis"?

Leaving aside the fact that it takes extraordinary dedication and commitment (and loot) for a "civilian" of average means to legally acquire a fully automatic Israeli machine pistol in America today, the answer is, "Yes."

The Founders had every opportunity to add "except for bombs, mortars, artillery and other devices that can kill more than one person at a time" – all of which were well-known by 1787. They did not. Quite to the contrary, Tench Coxe, noted federalist and friend of James Madison, wrote in defense of the proposed Constitution, in the Pennsylvania Gazette of Feb. 20, 1788: "Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Note "unlimited." Note "every terrible instrument."

Under the form of government that we're told Americans still enjoy, the government can exercise only those powers that are delegated to it by the people. You cannot delegate a right or power that you do not already possess. Therefore, if members of the U.S. Army have legitimate authority to "keep and bear" Uzis and nuclear weapons, they can only have gotten that right from the individual Americans who delegated it to them.

It doesn't matter whether you "think this is a good idea." If you want to contend we now have a form of government in which our rulers start with all rights and powers, and allow to the peasantry only those lesser included liberties as they see fit, say so out loud now, please. And tell me when the original Constitution was voided, and by what legal process.

Nor do we usually or necessarily abdicate a right when we delegate it: We delegate to police the duty to chase down fleeing felons, but each citizen retains the right to go ahead and do this himself if circumstances dictate.

Similarly, the Second and 14th amendments guarantee that we have not given up our private, individual right to keep and bear howitzers and really big machine guns just because we have also delegated this right to the Army.

Of particular interest is the fact that several of my questioners work in the newspaper business. How would they respond, I wonder, to the proposition that the First Amendment protects only the freedom to use old-fashioned hand presses – that the Founders can't possibly have meant to authorize unrestricted use of today's far more dangerous, high-speed electrical presses, with their ability to spread lies and seditious, anti-government propaganda hundreds of times faster than Ben Franklin or James Madison could ever have imagined?

Speaking of my (necessarily brief) summary of the inquiries that have gutted the tired old "militia clause" arguments, noted Alabama constitutional attorney Larry Becraft writes in:

"Vin, You did not mention: <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm">http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm</a><!-- w -->."

Frankly, I'm cautious about using Department of Justice filings, because they're inherently political and could easily shift under some future Hillaryesque administration. Nonetheless, Larry does offer up an official DOJ memorandum of opinion, dated Aug. 24, 2004, which finds:

"The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias. ... As developed in the analysis below, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units.

"The Amendment's prefatory clause, considered under proper rules of interpretation, could not negate the individual right recognized in the clear language of the operative clause. In any event, the prefatory clause – particularly its reference to the 'Militia,' which was understood at the Founding to encompass all able-bodied male citizens, who were required to be enrolled for service – is fully consistent with an individual-right reading of the operative language."

December 30, 2005

Vin Suprynowicz [send him mail] is assistant editorial page editor of the daily Las Vegas Review-Journal and author of The Black Arrow.

Copyright © 2005 Vin Suprynowicz

Found here

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz38.html">http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/ ... icz38.html</a><!-- m -->

[Hoon]

It's easy to be "close minded" when you can't fucking speak english.

"terrorist sponcering organization."

What the fuck?

Actually, I'm sorry but I'm really strict about language, you cannot speak English! What is wrong with you? Is capitalization too difficult for you? Is punctuation so much of a problem?

Seriously, have some respect for yourself and speak english.


Now that I've properly bitchslapped you for your improper verbiage, I'll tell you that your entire argument is irrelevant.

If there is ANY WAY IN HELL that the owner of a strip club is giving money to TERRORISTS, WHO WANT TO KILL US, first of all what the fuck are you thinking? Second of all, I'll give you my entire income for a year. Idiot.

Stop being fucking stupid.

english? punctuation?
you're pathetic. debate the issues moron.

tell you what, big mouth.
you know as well as i do this nsa issue will go to the courts.
would you like to bet that they declare it legal?
please emphaticly declare that they won't so i can drag this back up again in 6-7 months and prove that your mind is more of a conduit for the new york times and howard dean than it is for fact and rationale.

[Mad]

Checks and balances. Have you ever heard of the concept?

It's suppose to keep one branch from getting to uppity and doing whatever they want to without oversight.

[Hoon]

you're acting like they're listening to you baby talk to your girlfriend. i believe they have bigger fish to fry.

[Keyser Soze]

you act like the gov't is always looking out for your best interests.

[Mad]

Some people are just flag waving idiots for no other reason then that's all they know how to do.

[Keyser Soze]

i don't think hoon is a jingoist, i think he's just misinformed.

[Mad]

Seems like all he does is watch Fox News and regurgitate it ad nauseam. Like some Bill O'Reilly lite.

[Keyser Soze]

i could say the same for you and the NRA

[Mad]

I don't support the NRA, they have caved on the issue and have done nothing to rid us of all these illegal laws regarding firearms.

Yes, everyone should have a true assault rifle in their safe (full auto with ammo) as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2006 and carry handguns to stop anyone from robbing, raping or harming other people.

Vote for me and you'll see a sea of blood.

[Keyser Soze]

you're just a hypocrite, if you were a man of principals you'd be out there with the revolutionaries.

[Mad]

In due time.

[Keyser Soze]

waiting for your authority figure to tap you on the shoulder?