Jim Stillman
Randy InmanThe Case for Gun Control
September 21st 2007 17:19
I have just “found” the posts of Lester Caudill and found them fascinating, although I disagree with most of his positions. However, I am a dedicated and, some would say, a compulsive debater and feel the need to challenge him.
Mr. Caudill is an opponent of gun control. Unfortunately, he frames the issue as one of liberal/conservative and takes the position that those in favor of the regulation of firearms are lacking in patriotism and American values. Thus he writes
Wow, that’s some condemnation. Liberals are like communists; we do not support or even like the Constitution. We want our families helpless before rapists and murderers. How this translates as being “communist” escapes me, but I recognize that “communist” is being used as a general curse-word.
The concept of gun control is in need of re-examination and re-interpretation; the needs and demands of the eighteenth century, when the Second Amendment to the Constitution was drafted, are not totally applicable to current society. The problems cannot be fully addressed by slogans on bumper stickers.
The Second Amendment has engendered controversy and argument that far exceeds the length of the amendment itself. The Amendment states, in full: “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."
Contextually, this amendment is unique. Each of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights directs a limitation on the power of Congress to take certain actions. No qualifying terms are used, no "reason" for the prohibition is offered. (Parenthetically, there is a similar qualifier or rationale in the Decalogue. Among the prohibitions, one must not kill, lie, steal, covet, and so forth is the affirmative direction that one should "honor mother and father". This is a positive command and is accompanied by the explanation. " so that your days may be long. ")
So, what is the purpose of the qualifying phrase, "A well regulated militia being necessary ..."?
Is the Amendment designed to provide for an organized militia with which the nation's safety can be secured or is it a guarantee that each individual has the right to possess a firearm.
The answer is, likely, both with the major emphasis on the former. To really understand the Second Amendment, one must appreciate the context in which it was drafted, the societal conditions of the eighteenth century and the historical experiences that made it important.
The Bill of Rights was written not to give rights directly to the people. It was considered that the danger would come from an overly powerful and intrusive central Federal government which might, if unchecked, interfere with individual rights protected by the several states. Thus, most of the first ten amendments were framed prohibiting Congress from taking action.
The attitude of Americans toward the military was much different in the 1790's than it is today. Standing armies were mistrusted, as they had been used as tools of oppression by the monarchs of Europe for centuries. In the war for independence, there had been a regular army, but much of the fighting had been done by the state militias, under the command of local officers. Aside from the war, militias were needed because attacks were relatively common, whether by bandits, Indians, and even by troops from other states.
Today, the state militias have evolved into the National Guard in every state. These soldiers, while part-time, are professionally trained and armed by the government. No longer are regular, non-Guardsmen, expected to take up arms in defense of the state or the nation.
This is in great contrast to the way things were at the time of adoption of the Second Amendment. Many state constitutions had a right to bear arms for the purposes of the maintenance of the militia. Many had laws that required men of age to own a gun and supplies, including powder and bullets.
The Amendment, then, does address two areas of concern. The framers clearly wanted to protect the concept of a local state militia. There was an additional intent to allow citizens to possess firearms in support of that militia. In 1939, the Supreme Court, in U.S v Miller, dealt with sawed-off shotguns. These weapons were, de facto, held illegal and not within the scope of the Second Amendment; such weapons do not contribute to the maintenance of a militia, and have no use in ensuring the common defense. This decision has been the starting point of gun regulation statutes and judicial action since 1939.
The argument suggested by many gun advocates is that citizens need to be prepared to fight a despotic government.
Perhaps in the 1780's, the rise of a tyrant to a leadership position in the U.S. was a cause for concern. Today, I am confident, the voters are much too sophisticated to elect a leader whose stated aims would be to suppress freedom or declare martial law. For the leader whose unstated aim it was to seize the nation, the task would be more than daunting - it would be next to impossible. The size and scope of the conspiracy needed, the cooperation of patriots who would see right through such a plan - it is unfathomable, the stuff of fiction. There are some who fear the rise in executive power under the present Bush presidency is just such usurpation, and in some ways it may be. But similar usurpations of power by the Congress and the President, such as the Alien and Sedition Acts, the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, or the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, were all eventually overturned or struck down and then condemned by history. There is no reason to doubt the same result would happen today.
The defense of our borders had not been a cause for concern for nearly a century before the subject really came up again around the time to the turn of the millennium in 1999. Concern with border defense again became an issue after September 11, 2001, when a series of terrorist attacks, both in the form of hijacked airliners crashing into buildings and anthrax-laced mail, made people realize that we do have enemies that wish to invade our nation, though not on the scale of an army. While each state has its National Guard it can call up to guard the borders, the activities of a regular coordinated federal force would be far more effective. Certainly the idea of present-day Minute Men, leaving their fields and, with trusty musket, fighting invaders is hardly realistic.
The other alleged guarantee of the Amendment, that everyone has a right to possess a gun, needs to be addressed. While it can be argued that the possession of a rifle for hunting or sport is not a danger to society (it may be to other hunters, but that is not a Constitutional concern), there is no rationale of which I am aware, that would justify automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets, or even some handguns.
But what of the resulting rape of our loved ones, the plunder of our property? That is why we have police powers held by the states. Possession of a gun would not prevent a robbery or forcible rape unless the victim had his or her weapon immediately available for shooting. Is it the wish by anti-registration advocates that we encourage vigilantism; will we want Charles Bronson’s Death Wish character on the streets dispensing “justice”? We have a friend who, with his wife, came home one evening. As he opened the door, a man dashed out of the house, knocking my friend to the ground, and running away. My friend had a gun at home to protect his family; it would be of no protection in this case.
Then there are the stories in the press about parents, hearing footsteps outside their bedroom door, reach for a gun and kill their child.
At this stage of our society, it is simply impossible to eliminate the millions of guns already in the hands of individuals. But the ownership and use of, at least, certain types of handguns should be closely regulated and, in some cases, prohibited to certain individuals.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes noted,
The arguments as to the original intent of the framers of the Second Amendment are, in today's age, irrelevant. How much longer do we tolerate slaughter in our schools and workplaces? How many more motorists are to be killed by piston packing drivers suffering from road rage? How many workplaces are to be the subject to wholesale slaughter by disgruntled employees or boyfriends with automatic weapons? If ever there was a rationale supporting individual gun ownership as a constitutional right, with no qualifiers, that rationale no longer exists.
Reasonable restrictions do seem to be the way to go, acknowledging the Amendment, but molding it, as we've done with much of the Constitution. After all, we have freedom of speech in the United States, but you are not truly free to say whatever you wish. You cannot incite violence without consequence; you cannot libel someone without consequence; you cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without consequence. Why cannot gun ownership be closely regulated without violating the Constitution?
The trick is finding that balance between freedom and reasonable regulation. Gun ownership is indeed a right - but it is also a grand responsibility. With responsibility comes the interest of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training and licensing. That is the keystone: training, licensing, qualifications. If we can agree on this simple premise, it should not be too difficult to work out the details and find a proper compromise.
One possibility is that of universal registration of all firearms and then a policy of strict or absolute liability.
The legal concept of strict or absolute liability deals with those situations where a person engages in an activity that presents so much potential danger to the community that the law demands extraordinary care in its pursuit. For example, in a situation often sited, the owner of a tiger rehabilitation center is held liable for damages if an animal escapes and causes damage and injury regardless of how strong the cages or well constructed.. The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous. It discourages reckless behavior and needless loss by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution. In criminal law the same principal may apply. While normally intent to act unlawfully is a necessary element of a crime, other offenses exist where intent is not an issue, as for example, statutory rape or even speeding.
There is precedent, in some states, in cases where a gun owner is held liable and may be charged with a crime when a child finds and fires the weapon and is injured or injures someone else, where the gun has not been locked in a safe nor has a trigger lock or other methods of incapacitating the weapon.
I suggest, then, universal registration of all firearms, mandatory training and education, the securing of all firearms in the home or vehicle with an operational safety device and, finally, if the weapon is used in a crime or someone is accidentally injured or killed by the weapon, the owner is civilly and criminally liable. It would be no defense that the weapon had been lost or stolen; the owner has the responsibility to prevent that from happening.
There may be and probably are other possibilities, but as long as we continue to think in clichés and slogans, nothing will be some and more people will die.
Mr. Caudill is an opponent of gun control. Unfortunately, he frames the issue as one of liberal/conservative and takes the position that those in favor of the regulation of firearms are lacking in patriotism and American values. Thus he writes
The liberal media are biased in favor … gun control, and I mean liberal media as in CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS. They are using their air ways to distort the facts. Our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is in serious danger. The attacks on our gun rights were the most vicious that have been on network television so far. This is slap in the face of every law abiding Citizen, that believes in the Constitution of the United States of America.
The liberal media uses their vast resources to attack, and slander good gun owners who are responsible, and law abiding. There is [sic] enough gun laws already on the books if enforced by the liberal leaders. The same ones that want to ban guns are the same ones that will not take a tough stand on the criminals that breaks the law. They want to ban our guns and leave us defenseless against the same criminals they go easy on.
It's time to name, Names who are the Anti-Second Amendment liberals, here is a list of a few but very notable. Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, Rose O'Donnell, Michael Moore, NBC, CBS, New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, ABC, and the list go on.
Isn't it time that Americans tell these liberals to stop being so much like communists, and remember that America is the land of the free, and the home of the brave. These gun-grabbers want to leave us at the mercy of murders, and rapist, without any means to protect our families. You know as well as I know that criminals will always have guns. They can't stop illegal drugs what makes them think they can stop criminals from getting guns.
The liberal media uses their vast resources to attack, and slander good gun owners who are responsible, and law abiding. There is [sic] enough gun laws already on the books if enforced by the liberal leaders. The same ones that want to ban guns are the same ones that will not take a tough stand on the criminals that breaks the law. They want to ban our guns and leave us defenseless against the same criminals they go easy on.
It's time to name, Names who are the Anti-Second Amendment liberals, here is a list of a few but very notable. Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, Rose O'Donnell, Michael Moore, NBC, CBS, New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, ABC, and the list go on.
Isn't it time that Americans tell these liberals to stop being so much like communists, and remember that America is the land of the free, and the home of the brave. These gun-grabbers want to leave us at the mercy of murders, and rapist, without any means to protect our families. You know as well as I know that criminals will always have guns. They can't stop illegal drugs what makes them think they can stop criminals from getting guns.
The concept of gun control is in need of re-examination and re-interpretation; the needs and demands of the eighteenth century, when the Second Amendment to the Constitution was drafted, are not totally applicable to current society. The problems cannot be fully addressed by slogans on bumper stickers.
The Second Amendment has engendered controversy and argument that far exceeds the length of the amendment itself. The Amendment states, in full: “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."
Contextually, this amendment is unique. Each of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights directs a limitation on the power of Congress to take certain actions. No qualifying terms are used, no "reason" for the prohibition is offered. (Parenthetically, there is a similar qualifier or rationale in the Decalogue. Among the prohibitions, one must not kill, lie, steal, covet, and so forth is the affirmative direction that one should "honor mother and father". This is a positive command and is accompanied by the explanation. " so that your days may be long. ")
So, what is the purpose of the qualifying phrase, "A well regulated militia being necessary ..."?
Is the Amendment designed to provide for an organized militia with which the nation's safety can be secured or is it a guarantee that each individual has the right to possess a firearm.
The answer is, likely, both with the major emphasis on the former. To really understand the Second Amendment, one must appreciate the context in which it was drafted, the societal conditions of the eighteenth century and the historical experiences that made it important.
The Bill of Rights was written not to give rights directly to the people. It was considered that the danger would come from an overly powerful and intrusive central Federal government which might, if unchecked, interfere with individual rights protected by the several states. Thus, most of the first ten amendments were framed prohibiting Congress from taking action.
The attitude of Americans toward the military was much different in the 1790's than it is today. Standing armies were mistrusted, as they had been used as tools of oppression by the monarchs of Europe for centuries. In the war for independence, there had been a regular army, but much of the fighting had been done by the state militias, under the command of local officers. Aside from the war, militias were needed because attacks were relatively common, whether by bandits, Indians, and even by troops from other states.
Today, the state militias have evolved into the National Guard in every state. These soldiers, while part-time, are professionally trained and armed by the government. No longer are regular, non-Guardsmen, expected to take up arms in defense of the state or the nation.
This is in great contrast to the way things were at the time of adoption of the Second Amendment. Many state constitutions had a right to bear arms for the purposes of the maintenance of the militia. Many had laws that required men of age to own a gun and supplies, including powder and bullets.
The Amendment, then, does address two areas of concern. The framers clearly wanted to protect the concept of a local state militia. There was an additional intent to allow citizens to possess firearms in support of that militia. In 1939, the Supreme Court, in U.S v Miller, dealt with sawed-off shotguns. These weapons were, de facto, held illegal and not within the scope of the Second Amendment; such weapons do not contribute to the maintenance of a militia, and have no use in ensuring the common defense. This decision has been the starting point of gun regulation statutes and judicial action since 1939.
The argument suggested by many gun advocates is that citizens need to be prepared to fight a despotic government.
Perhaps in the 1780's, the rise of a tyrant to a leadership position in the U.S. was a cause for concern. Today, I am confident, the voters are much too sophisticated to elect a leader whose stated aims would be to suppress freedom or declare martial law. For the leader whose unstated aim it was to seize the nation, the task would be more than daunting - it would be next to impossible. The size and scope of the conspiracy needed, the cooperation of patriots who would see right through such a plan - it is unfathomable, the stuff of fiction. There are some who fear the rise in executive power under the present Bush presidency is just such usurpation, and in some ways it may be. But similar usurpations of power by the Congress and the President, such as the Alien and Sedition Acts, the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, or the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, were all eventually overturned or struck down and then condemned by history. There is no reason to doubt the same result would happen today.
The defense of our borders had not been a cause for concern for nearly a century before the subject really came up again around the time to the turn of the millennium in 1999. Concern with border defense again became an issue after September 11, 2001, when a series of terrorist attacks, both in the form of hijacked airliners crashing into buildings and anthrax-laced mail, made people realize that we do have enemies that wish to invade our nation, though not on the scale of an army. While each state has its National Guard it can call up to guard the borders, the activities of a regular coordinated federal force would be far more effective. Certainly the idea of present-day Minute Men, leaving their fields and, with trusty musket, fighting invaders is hardly realistic.
The other alleged guarantee of the Amendment, that everyone has a right to possess a gun, needs to be addressed. While it can be argued that the possession of a rifle for hunting or sport is not a danger to society (it may be to other hunters, but that is not a Constitutional concern), there is no rationale of which I am aware, that would justify automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets, or even some handguns.
But what of the resulting rape of our loved ones, the plunder of our property? That is why we have police powers held by the states. Possession of a gun would not prevent a robbery or forcible rape unless the victim had his or her weapon immediately available for shooting. Is it the wish by anti-registration advocates that we encourage vigilantism; will we want Charles Bronson’s Death Wish character on the streets dispensing “justice”? We have a friend who, with his wife, came home one evening. As he opened the door, a man dashed out of the house, knocking my friend to the ground, and running away. My friend had a gun at home to protect his family; it would be of no protection in this case.
Then there are the stories in the press about parents, hearing footsteps outside their bedroom door, reach for a gun and kill their child.
At this stage of our society, it is simply impossible to eliminate the millions of guns already in the hands of individuals. But the ownership and use of, at least, certain types of handguns should be closely regulated and, in some cases, prohibited to certain individuals.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes noted,
"It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past."
The arguments as to the original intent of the framers of the Second Amendment are, in today's age, irrelevant. How much longer do we tolerate slaughter in our schools and workplaces? How many more motorists are to be killed by piston packing drivers suffering from road rage? How many workplaces are to be the subject to wholesale slaughter by disgruntled employees or boyfriends with automatic weapons? If ever there was a rationale supporting individual gun ownership as a constitutional right, with no qualifiers, that rationale no longer exists.
Reasonable restrictions do seem to be the way to go, acknowledging the Amendment, but molding it, as we've done with much of the Constitution. After all, we have freedom of speech in the United States, but you are not truly free to say whatever you wish. You cannot incite violence without consequence; you cannot libel someone without consequence; you cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without consequence. Why cannot gun ownership be closely regulated without violating the Constitution?
The trick is finding that balance between freedom and reasonable regulation. Gun ownership is indeed a right - but it is also a grand responsibility. With responsibility comes the interest of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training and licensing. That is the keystone: training, licensing, qualifications. If we can agree on this simple premise, it should not be too difficult to work out the details and find a proper compromise.
One possibility is that of universal registration of all firearms and then a policy of strict or absolute liability.
The legal concept of strict or absolute liability deals with those situations where a person engages in an activity that presents so much potential danger to the community that the law demands extraordinary care in its pursuit. For example, in a situation often sited, the owner of a tiger rehabilitation center is held liable for damages if an animal escapes and causes damage and injury regardless of how strong the cages or well constructed.. The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous. It discourages reckless behavior and needless loss by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution. In criminal law the same principal may apply. While normally intent to act unlawfully is a necessary element of a crime, other offenses exist where intent is not an issue, as for example, statutory rape or even speeding.
There is precedent, in some states, in cases where a gun owner is held liable and may be charged with a crime when a child finds and fires the weapon and is injured or injures someone else, where the gun has not been locked in a safe nor has a trigger lock or other methods of incapacitating the weapon.
I suggest, then, universal registration of all firearms, mandatory training and education, the securing of all firearms in the home or vehicle with an operational safety device and, finally, if the weapon is used in a crime or someone is accidentally injured or killed by the weapon, the owner is civilly and criminally liable. It would be no defense that the weapon had been lost or stolen; the owner has the responsibility to prevent that from happening.
There may be and probably are other possibilities, but as long as we continue to think in clichés and slogans, nothing will be some and more people will die.
| 64 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by youranter
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
While I won't debate the 'right to bear arms' argument you throw up, I have to agree with it. We have banned hand guns here since 1934 and it seems the criminals don't knoe the rules. They keep using them. Plain and simple.
I'm sorry about what happened to your friend, but do you for a minute think that burglar would have had the guts to even try to enter the house if he'd known the owner was at home and possibly armed?
I don't usually go with a liberal notion, but you got me here. We should be more like you guys in this vein.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I read EV Cuadill post but did not comment because it seem like a domestic rage about a domestic law.
Second Amendment Laws are only valid as for as the borders of one country and not the rest of the world.
However in a general sense I can make the observation that by definition constitution with amendments prove the possibility that they may have got it wrong. Why amend a perfect document?
Quoting the second amendment as if it is a holy document proves nothing except blind faith in the fallible humans who wrote it and passed it.
In short you cannot convince a rabid gun owner to give up their guns any more than you can convince a smoker to stop smoking or a pot head to give up dope. It can be an addiction to the point that one person stood to say that "you can take this gun from my cold dead hands." Can't even begin to discuss the issue if that is the mindset because there is no point of negotiation.
Just get the number right pass then pass the law to delete the Second Amendment. The world will not implode.
Comment by Conservative Christian View
I value the freedoms the Constitution grants, I do not like it when someone want to take it away from me. These liberals, and the media that I wrote about in my post have their agenda to end the second amendment once and for all. You have to but listen to them to know that, and I hope you as an American don't feel that our second amendment has grown out dated. It was important enough that our founding fathers put it in. This amendment is second not third, or fourth, but right after the first amendment freedom of speech. And as you said, we are not free to speak any more the aclu has seen to that. You see I am a Christian Minister, just try saying praise the lord in a public place. The aclu will be there before you finished speaking.
There can be no compromise, because any Gun Control equals gun ban. Once we start giving up our rights where will it stop. There has been to much American blood spilled to protect our freedoms It would be a disgrace to give them away for no good reason, just because some don't want you to have a gun. Here's my compromise I wont try to take your choice not to own a gun, and you wont try to take my choice to have a gun, that's my right even if we don't have Militas any more.
Gun-prohibitionists constantly argue that the Second Amendment guarantees only a right of States to maintain militias. In doing so, they ignore not only the plain text of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but numerous opinions in which the United States Supreme Court has spoken of the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right. Proponents of the "states' rights" theory are also silent as to why, despite abundant opportunity, the Supreme Court has never summarily disposed of a Second Amendment claim on the grounds that an individual lacked standing to assert it.
The right guaranteed by the Second Amendment is the right of the people, not the States. The very text of the Constitution distinguishes between "the people", "persons" and "States". See, art. I., Sec. 2; art. I, Sec. 3; art. II, Sec. 1. The Tenth Amendment distinguishes between "the people" and "the States" by providing that, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That's my opinion, with all due respect. I am not about slogans,and cliches, but about freedom and many did die for it.
Conservative Christian Views
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
When it comes down to it all the constitution is not immune to errors, in fact not too lon gago (relatively speaking) people were arguing over whether or not slavery should be allowed given it was in the constitution. But thats sort of besides the point here.
Statistically speaking gun control works two ways, you either have at least 85% of the countries population have arms or you have less than 5% have arms to really not have crime.
The US is inbetween the two, couple that with lag of regulation and over politicising and it gets ugly. I personally don't understand the idea of 'oh no, how are we going to protect ourselves?' I assume thats why we have a police force trained to use firearms and handle dangerous situations. IF there is crime and all that the solution isn't necessarily giving every man and his dog a gun, it's more of a fix the problem at its core thing.
With the US, I honestly t hink it's gone beyond help. Time to cut the crap and get tough on gun regulation, get the illegal stuff out of the street and keep them away from the dangerous.
The opposite would be to give everyone a gun, and it can work, countries like sweden prove it, but Australia has very strict gun control and as such very little in the way of gun related crimes. It's a give and take thing in the end.
As a personal note, I hate the hypocricy of right wingers claiming 'any control is total ban' and all that shit. They tend to be the same people who want to ban gay marriage (for instance) which in essence is a form of control. Hypocrisy rules sumpreme with those morons.
god forbid giulliani is elected, you'll end up eating your own words if that happens.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
What did I say about gun addiction?
Can't convince the addict to give up the addiction.
If only Jesus had a gun the Bible would be a much more exciting read. But I digress
To the rest of the world the Constitution of the United States has no real significance. They have their own constitutions and I am happy to argue that mine is far superior to yours any day. (When I put my patriotic cowboy hat on.)
A constitution is just a set of rules writen by people who like everyone else on earth make mistakes. Amendments can be mistakes also and if they are regardless of whether they are handed down from ages or written in stone, they should be changed.
It is just a question of getting a majority support and enforcing it over the radical noisy minority.
Comment by youranter
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
You found another place to hide.
Comment by Conservative Christian View
Gay marriage has no place in america it has no roots, no foundations or moral standing. Marriage is between one man and one woman. As one said he hated the hyprocrisy of the right wingers, well I am not fond of the double standard of the liberals either, guess you all support moveon.org, talk about radicals. They make us that are right of center look like boys scouts.
Hey guys vote for Fred Thompson he's better than giulliani.
I would rather give up my gun before I give up my bible, the problem is you liberals want both. So as long as us crazy right wingers keeps one you can't take the other, (just kidding don't get so up set.)
Maybe to rest of the world the Consitution has no affect, well there is one good reason for that, they don't live here and are not protected by it. But given the chance our country would be over ran with people that would no doubt accept it's Constitution and fight to protect it. Just because they don't have anything as good now.
The Constitution may be just a set of rules to foreigners, but to us proud Americans it's the building block of our country. If you have a strong building and you start chipping away at it's foundation that building will become weak, and not structuraly strong, No you can't change our foundation without weaken our country.
Liberals don't understand that, they are a destructive force to America, not all liberals just the ones that go around spouting off their anti-American views. And the ones that want to regulate the freedoms of the Constitution of America.
When you put your cowboy hat on, get one that's big enough to fit your head, don't forget your boots, and gun, be a real man.
God Bless America!
God Bless the Second Amendment Foundation!
God Bless the NRA!
God Bless the Republican Party!
God Forgive the Liberals, and help them to come the the knowledge of the truth.
Conservative Christian Views
Comment by Jim Stillman
Opinions of a curmudgeon
Political Certainty
Comment by youranter
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
God Bless the Second Amendment Foundation!
God Bless the NRA!
God Bless the Republican Party!
God Forgive the Liberals, and help them to come the the knowledge of the truth.
Conservative Christian Views
I am going to frame that and hang it on my wall.
Just beside "Kill em all, God knows his own."
And
My constitutions is better than yours because the paper is better quality.
Real man? Hehehehehe.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I hope you are not casting false accusations about my political leanings as that would be very ignorant of you.
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity