|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Second Amendment Not Absolute
Submitted by:
Doug Charette
|
There
are 13 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"The next time a gun-rights advocate asserts that the Constitution guarantees an individual's unconditional right to bear arms, respond with a question: What kind of arms?"
"An M-1 tank?"
"A Blackhawk helicopter?"
"A thermonuclear warhead?"
"If the answer to all of these is "yes," then you're talking to a lunatic. Better change the subject. On second thought, run away." -- MICHAEL ZUZEL, Columbian staff writer |
| Comment by:
daguerre@excite.com
(5/15/2002)
|
| Any freedom that is not abused is an absolute freedom. |
| Comment by:
Wildwest@KeepAndBearArms.com
(5/15/2002)
|
Take a look at some of the countries with lunatics running them and look what they own! If Sadam INsane can have a tank, I should too if I could afford one. If this idiot that wrote this article can have a pen or a keyboard, I should be allowed to have an F-14!
Yeah.... You better run mister! You're part of the PROBLEM this country has! |
| Comment by:
mkirby@cinci.rr.com
(5/15/2002)
|
When it comes to M1's, Blackhawks and Nukes I can say with complete confidence....I would be a much better man at the helm than those who exclusively possess them now !
So run!
What makes this liberal maroon think that the "men" that have these under control are somehow more trustable than his next door neighbor?
If the govt. doesn't trust me with my M-1 why should I trust them with theirs? Basic American ponderance...
|
| Comment by:
Paladinlover@hotmail.com
(5/15/2002)
|
One thing I don't like is strawman arguments, the 2nd Amendment protects small arms and light weapons, the type that the UN and just about every other socialist scum want to ban.
and as for the tanks, fighters and helicopters, well, why not, seeing that after some 500 or 600 years, we might have star fighters that cost about 20,000 dollars and take about 5,000 dollars to arm.
I know, I've been playing one to many games, but hey, it's an idea |
| Comment by:
hughdavs@us.ibm.com
(5/15/2002)
|
The intent of the founding fathers was to protect the individual arms necessary for the average person to use in self-defense (against theives in the established cities or Indians on the frontier), hunting, sport, and if necessary those individual arms used by the average male when called to service -- either in the militia or by the county sherriff (posse). The use of the term "bear arms" is critical to this understanding. The founding fathers did not use the term "own" or "use" with reason.
This was an individual right limited to individual arms. Arms a person could "bear." |
| Comment by:
cposubs@aol.com
(5/15/2002)
|
| If asked these questions by that reporter, I'd turn it around back to him. "Your livelihood comes from the exercise of the 1st Amendment. Do you have an absolute right to free speech? What limitations are there on your right to say, publish formulas for dangerous explosives or poisons? Can you publish plans for a homemade nuclear weapon? Can you publish false accusations against your neighbor? Can you publish articles and photographs of something you consider titilating but others consider obscene? What limitations to your right to free speech and press are you willing to abide by?" |
| Comment by:
Anti-Federalist@keepandbeararms.com
(5/15/2002)
|
RUN FORREST, RUN!!! And don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out either!!! @#$%@ idiot!
I must be a pretty scary kinda guy, cause I can say yes to all his stupid questions. |
| Comment by:
Simonova@zapo.net
(5/15/2002)
|
I sent this to bootlicker michael.zuzel@columbian.com
A- you probably own guns yourself like most lying liberals (carl rowan, Don Perata, Sarah Brady, Dianne Feinstien, etc etc)
B- With lightwieghts like you trying to take our guns we know we'll never lose them. (but keep up the bleeting, sure is funny)
C- If you really want to know where we draw the line, try taking a freeman's guns from him.
Cheers |
| Comment by:
common_sense_rules@hotmail.com
(5/15/2002)
|
The next time a freedom-of-the-press advocate asserts that the Constitution guarantees his unconditional right to publish, respond with a question: Publish how?
Newspaper?
Television?
Internet?
If the answer to all of these is "yes," then you're talking to a lunatic. The framers of the constitution could not comprehend of a press that didn't involve a physical printing press. So the first amendment doesn't address electronic media. Hmmmm.... Bet the reporter changes the subject, or on second thought, bet he tucks his tail between his legs and runs away...
|
| Comment by:
hnorth@sherbtel.net
(5/15/2002)
|
| Michael, I can understand why people like yourself are fearful of citizens who are heavily armed. It is people such as you and your socialist ilk that are responsible for the current mess in which this nation is currently mired, and sooner or later the citizens who are victimized by all you socialist/communists are going to awaken, and realize who has been destroying their nation and will retaliate with a vengence. Yes, I fully comprehend why you are afraid of heavy armaments in their hands. If you are not their enemy, you have nothing to fear. Keep up the provocation, more and more people are waking up every day. |
| Comment by:
thomas@operations.ocs.ou.edu
(5/15/2002)
|
Actually, there are americans who own tanks. They organise clubs and rallies for their very expensive and esoteric hobby. I'm sure that the right cash will get you a Blackhawk, same as a Hummer so don't bother me with hysterics.
I've always maintained that the most damage done by a legitimately owned machinegun was to the owners wallet. And terrorists and criminals won't bother with background checks anyway. they'll buy their weapons illegally, with the help of foreign governments who hate us.
So stop kidding me about the glories of gun control. I know the score way to well. |
| Comment by:
larmobur@keepandbeararms.com
(5/15/2002)
|
| "If he answers yes to the above questions, then you are talking to a lunitic"..........They are coming to take me away...Ho..Ho |
|
|
