Guns and abortion. One is an enumerated, constitutional right, and the other is not. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people of the United States to keep and bear arms. It’s not a government-given right; it’s a natural right—the right to defend yourself, your family, and your freedom.
In rare circumstances, abortion might be necessary to preserve the mother’s life. But there is no right to kill unborn babies in the U.S. Constitution. But 40 years ago next week the U.S. Supreme Court contended that abortion is an implied “right of privacy,” one that previously had lain hidden in our founding document.
I made the point on social media that conservatives should tie any talk of gun restrictions to abortion restrictions. You want to infringe on an enumerated right? Do the same for an implied right that results in the death of an unborn baby. You want to rid the country of guns? Then...
cause for alarm wrote: And those founding tyrants that gave us these amendments , bill of rights and constiution, and liberties you and i enjoy are being eradicated by these new tyrants you seem to have no issue with
And those founding tyrants that gave us these amendments , bill of rights and constiution, and liberties you and i enjoy are being eradicated by these new tyrants you seem to have no issue with
Guns, abortion, tyrants, sounds like our govt. Maybe thats what they should change the name to. God help us for falling asleep while these that have a "form of godlieness" slowly enslave us all. God forgive me for blogging. Sitting here is doing nothing. The founders of this nation wouldnt stand for this treason, but we do. Something is very wrong. We deserve the judgment we get for allowing the heathen to lord over us.
Llandrindod Wells wrote: No need to apologise to me, no offence taken. However, your hypocritical attacks on Jim speak for themselves.
Interesting. Jim doesn't seem to mind the discussions. Perhaps he should be the one to point out the hypocrisy in them? I realize we are all prone to blindless of our own faults, but I don't actually remember posting a position which I do not believe.
Llandrindod Wells wrote: Whereas you believe that otherwise intelligent and literate constitutional writers put totally redundant clauses at the start of their sentences for no reason.
Please accept my apologies for insensitivity to your grammatical sensitivity.
Whereas you believe that otherwise intelligent and literate constitutional writers put totally redundant clauses at the start of their sentences for no reason.
Jim Lincoln wrote: No, UPS, the 2nd Amendment dealt with state malitias, and the Supreme Court also dragged in the 14th, if memory serves but anway: ---
inalienable -- given by God, secured, natural.....
"we hold these truths to be self-evident"
it is evident to all humans that others have the same right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as anyone else.
in other words, when we take away another man's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, or in other words, steal, that our consciences are pricked if they are not severed.
in the Mao regime and others, you'll see a disenfranchised group,, like for them the poor youth, and they will then "steal" to "get even" at society.
which is the inherent danger of putting society into "groups" and demonizing them.
in my opinion, you cannot and God allows us not to eradicate the inherent inalienable value of the human individual, even as written in the 10 commandments.
It says not a qualifier as to which human being, all.
any Christian, be it poor, rich, white, black, country or city dweller that lets themselves get drawn into "group think" or "group hate" is being led away from the community of believers into the world.
demonizing groups is a way to shift power, advance of the self or the group in an illegitimate way. this is not the way of Christ.
No, UPS, the 2nd Amendment dealt with state malitias, and the Supreme Court also dragged in the 14th, if memory serves but anway:
Justice Scalia wrote: Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited... [It is] ... not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time". We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"
The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent "... to consider... prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons."
Llandrindod Wells wrote: An excellent parallel. Yes, Do away with the IMPLIED rights of private gun ownership divorced from well regulated (i.e. controlled) militia service [District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010)]
As has been pointed out, it isn't an implied right, it exists outside the realm of privilege granting by government. The 2nd codifies the pre-existing right. There is no group right that excludes the private right in the 2nd Amendment. The clarifying portion, if it isn't obvious, is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." It doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, as if the militia were somehow disconnected from the people who compose it. In any case, nothing at all is said allowing federal self-injection into the matter. If you think it's ok, because "we have to do something," point to the president's constitutional authority to do so.
The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.
The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.
There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.
Dr. Alan Cairns | 6/22/2009
Dr. Mark Allison | 1/20/2013
COMMENTS | 
john uk from wales: "
frank
i sure hope you're wrong! but it is a very..."
