Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Progress Report
How much weight did I lose this week?
-7 pounds for a total of 39 pounds lost
Next weigh-in:
8/30/08
-7 pounds for a total of 39 pounds lost
Next weigh-in:
8/30/08
Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski
Stephen Liczbinski Family Memorial Trust Fund
Philadelphia Police and Fire Federal Credit Union
901 Arch Street
Philadelphia, Pa. 19107
Philadelphia Police and Fire Federal Credit Union
901 Arch Street
Philadelphia, Pa. 19107
Links
- Ambulance Driver Files
- Aprilwine
- Because I Said So
- Big Bad Wolf
- Big White Hat
- bRight and Early
- Conservatism with Heart
- CUG
- Damian G.
- DBA Dude
- Dragon Lady
- First In
- First With Flair
- Fuzzy's Dad
- Gone Rick Motel
- GrimJack
- Humor Blogging (Fiar)
- In a Mad, Mad, Mad World
- Insolublog
- Is this life?
- JT
- Mrs. Grim
- Nobody Asked Me-Old NFO
- Nobody Move
- Overheard Lines
- Overheard Philly
- Parkway Rest Stop
- Peakah's Provocations
- Political Humor|Radioactive Liberty
- Radioactive Liberty
- Shadow of Diogenes
- Snigglefrits
- SoHos
- Support Your Local Gunfighter
- Temerity of High Maintenance
- The Moxargon Group
- The Poor Farm
- TJ's Anti-Contrarian
- Uber at PJ Maximum
- VON
- Welcome to Toy Town
- Wreckse of Oregon
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(751)
-
▼
June
(62)
- SUNDAY SONG
- No title
- Hope I don't offend anyone....NOT!!!!!
- COULD THIS BE ME IN 50 OR 60 YEARS?
- WHILE YOU WERE AT WORK....
- TOO BORED FOR MY OWN GOOD...
- JUST A REALLY GOOD QUOTATION:
- SEPARATED AT BIRTH?????
- In need of a cross-check....really, really hard!
- Hmmmmmmmmm....
- CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!
- When it is hot and humid I think of only one band!
- To do list:
- Don't judge a book by its cover!
- HEADLINES!!!!!!!!!
- Ummmmmmmmmmmm....
- A BLOW TO FOOD EATING CONTESTS!!!!
- I'm giving this guy a special salute...
- What it takes
- SUNDAY SONG
- I dance?
- CAPTION CONTEST!!!!!!!!!!!
- Not timely, but funny
- SIGH OF RELIEF!
- Ummmmm....
- THIS WOMAN HAS BALLS!
- Cliche? Hackneyed?
- May they rest in peace...
- Humanity defines a nation
- EXPLANATION
- I've been saving up some headlines--time to purge!
- WHO ARE YOU??????
- THE LIST
- The Sunday Song
- Happy Father's Day
- A joke for my blog buddies who partake...
- Really long, totally voluntary, MEME
- OINK, OINK!
- SERIOUSLY...
- RUTH BELL GRAHAM
- My sick, sick family!
- HERE'S ONE I HAVEN'T TRIED, YET...
- ON THIS DATE, 1970:
- WHAT I HAVE LEARNED SO FAR...
- New battle!
- Glimpse into my world...
- A thanks to those in harm's way...
- A PHILLY FAVORITE
- UMMMMMMMMMM.....
- Sometimes having a #1search isn't a good thing...
- Dear China
- HEADLINES!!!!
- Serious day...
- Hockey starts soon, right?
- Trekkie Personality Test
- So weird and random that I have to share!
- THE BATTLE!!!!!
- TWO MORE WEEKS, TWO MORE WEEKS...
- CAPTION CONTEST!!!!
- In need of a vent...
- SA SA SA SA SATURDAY NIGHT
- I PITY THE FOOL...
-
▼
June
(62)
16 comments:
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”----Benjamin Franklin
Um...RT...my dear...do you have any idea that your tag line is an incredibly liberal mantra?
Do you even understand what the quote means?
I look at it from the perspective of people currently trying to limit freedom of speech and wanting to limit the right to bear arms. Why should I allow those rights to be limited in order for people to feel "secure?"
Liberals are allowed their funky interpretations and so am I. :) I really don't care that "they" use it to rail against what they perceive as privacy issues. Those same people who go on about their desire to control political debate in public forums/to speak freely and their desire to limit the rights attached to owning guns deserve to have their "tag line" used against them.
Oh, and I knew exactly what I was putting on my blog. I am an educated woman, afterall. Remember, I am a person who uses language and studies it. In fact, Franklin did not compose those words or the other variations you see online. His agent, Richard Jackson did while they were in London. Originally appearing in a text from 1759, those words were in relation to taxes and the protection colonists sought from Indians being armed by the French. It boiled down to be a possible statement about the colonists who sided with the Governor (representing authority of England) versus the Assembly (representing colonists).
It is a quotation that has taken on a life of its own, so any side, liberal or conservative may lay claim. (Actually, the quotation should not be attributed to Franklin, though.)
You just got Pwned! Anonymous.
Thanks for the History lesson, Chief Mongress.
Make that, you just got Pwned, Patty!
Pwned, spanked and sent to the corner.
Skul
Yeah, but what about the old lady with the machine gun?
I'll have to remember that line, "I'll shoot him in his toodles."
I'm keeping my toodles close to home!
RT is funnin' us guys. She meant to say in 5 or 6 years.
ow
ooowww
damnit oww ooew
dfjdfkjjk
jeez
Skul!!!!
Hehehehehehe
RT, Issues involving guns have taken center stage in the cultural divide that separates Red and Blue America. Gun-control advocates point to the militia clause of the Second Amendment, arguing that it warrants a collective, rather than an individual, right to keep and bear arms. However, the NRA –buttressed by the Founders’(Ben Franklin quotes) understanding–dictates that the amendment guarantees this right to individual Americans.
So think about this real carefully. We gun-control advocates take our reasoning directly from the law of the land, but “history dictates” that the amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms. That is of course funny because I do not remember history getting elected to write laws for us. As far as we can remember, what’s written down as the law is really supposed to be “the law.”
Here’s the truth. Ready?
THE SECOND AMENDMENT DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE RIGHT TO OWN A GUN.
Period. It never has, and unless it changes, it never will. Forget everything the NRA has pushed down your throat, forget what the gun lobby wants you to believe, and forget what all that parroting by gun guys has made you think is true. And the courts have said so to:
“The U.S. Supreme Court has not dealt directly with the Second Amendment since 1939. Then, United States v. Miller held that a sawed-off shotgun was subject to registration because there was no evidence before the court that it had a military use. This opinion suggests that any demonstrably military weapon should enjoy the protection of the Second Amendment. “
The courts there decided that the sawed-off shotgun was “subject to registration.” That means that any and all legislation that restricts the use of deadly weapons is completely and totally constitutional. That’s according to the courts, people. I am not making this stuff up. The courts of the United States of America have said, time and time again, that the “right to bear arms” is not a guaranteed right at all.
That doesn’t, of course, stop the NRA from lying about it. This is where your view comes in to play RT:
“The Second Amendment guarantees our sacred rights, but also reminds us of our solemn responsibilities. Benjamin Franklin observed that “those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety.”
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm…sound familiar?
As I said it above. The Second Amendment “guarantees” nothing. The NRA has fought for years and paid millions of dollars to make people think that’s not true, but they can’t change the Constitution, or the courts that interpret it, and both of those say, clearly, that the imagined “right to bear arms” is far from “sacred.”
HOWEVER ALL THAT BEING SAID, IT IS TRUE RT HAS SPANKED MY ASS AND SENT ME TO THE CORNER! I MEAN WHY WOULDN'T SHE HAVE SUCH A QUOTE ON HER BLOG. IT IS THE LIBERALS THAT HAVE TAKEN THIS TAGLINE (BEN'S QUOTE) AND USED IT (RATHER EFFECTIVELY) AGAINST THE CONSERVATIVES (NSA WIRETAPPING SCANDAL). SHE HAS FULL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT HER TAGLINE MEANS TO HER EVEN IF I DO NOT AGREE.
I'VE BEEN SPANKED SO HARD BY RT MY BUTT HURTS!
Who is Patty?
"Laurence Tribe (Harvard Law School), American Constitutional Law 902 n. 221 (2000): 'Perhaps the most accurate conclusion one can reach with any confidence is that the core meaning of the Second Amendment is a populist / republican / federalism one: Its central object is to arm 'We the People' so that ordinary citizens can paricipate in the collective defense of their community and their state. But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes -- not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons -- a right that directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United States citizens protected by 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment against state or local government action.'"
Thus, individual rights take precedent.
Some states do not have provisions or have not updated provisions for a very long time; however, that is why precedent is looked to by the courts. Obviously if someone does something illegal with a gun, the right/provision for that person to have a gun is taken away, as it should be (too long to place in blog):
CLICK HERE
I also found a NYT article that shows both sides of present thought:
CLICK HERE
I purposely used what are considered liberal sources and/or liberal law schools and did not look to any conservative sources for my information.
Hmmm...INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Yeah, I like the pun: Lefties hate anything involving rights.
(Patty, Posting anonymously doesn't mean you are completely anonymous.)
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
You may want to read all the other Amendments as well. "the people" means individuals. It does not mean a collective government institution, as in communist "People's Republic," or some such other distortion of the language.
If you argue that "the people" does not mean individuals, then the First Amendment is also not an individual right.
"the right of the people peaceably to assemble"
Same terminology. "The people." Does "the people" indicate and individual right or not?
RT, why would you think "lefties" hate individual rights? Nothing could be further from the truth.
I appreciate you taking the time to look up "liberal" sources regarding the Second Amendment, instead of just repeating the NRA sentiment. I'm going to read them all when I have time. I've done a lot of research on this issue but would be none the wiser without opposing viewpoints.
Friar commented on something rather interesting regarding the actual phrasing of the Second Amendment which was composed, scraped and re-composed several times:
The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Both versions are commonly used in official government publications. There is some question as to whether the Second Amendment contains a comma after the word "militia". In the twentieth century, it became unusual to separate a subject and verb or verb and object with a comma. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, commas were used to indicate rhetorical pauses; in the twentieth century, commas were generally used to differentiate between restrictive and nonrestrictive modifiers. This practice continues in the early twenty-first century.
Obviously you can legally own a gun but is it a right guaranteed by the Constitution? Debatable.
Since you want me to be Patty the Troll so be it.
-Patty the Troll
Natually, "patty" is wrong.
Wishful liberal fantasies.
Skul
Post a Comment