How are you voting from this upcoming election and forward?

[rhgunguy]

The American revolution as defined by the founding fathers was a fight for the freedom to exercise their god given inalienable rights not a fight for privileges.

Yeah, 200+ years ago that may have been true but 200+ years of American Government have royaly screwed that up for us.

They, the enemies of freedom, did not recognize the colonists rights and they would/did define them as mere privileges to be granted or taken at the whim of the crown or parliament.

Now it is the whim of the US government who is very easily swayed by "popular" opinion.

From what you write you are saying that there is no such thing as an inalienable right and that the foundational document of our country that inspired our constitution and bill of rights is merely so much hot air or toilet paper. A position that was also supported by the King of England and Parliament. I reject that as have generations of Americans who have risked and sacrificed their lives in service to freedom and to the belief that all men are born endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Our founding fathers also rejected that line of thought and stated quite clearly that when any government or earthly institution becomes corrupted and destructive to the ends of the free exercise of individuals' inalienable rights then it is the right and the duty of the people to end that government and to seek to replace it with an institution that does recognize their rights.

GoSlash27 pointed out to me today that a man afloat in the middle of the ocean has not right to life.

The Constitution and BoR are two of the greatest documents ever created. Their creators and those who have fought for them would be sick if they could see what their dream had become.

Once again, just because it sucks and is not right, does not mean that it is not the way it is.

We are well on the way to losing our freedom when we allow the delusion that a right is dependent for it's existence on the acquiescence of the government or those in power.

You are the one who is delusional if you belive that you do not already need the government's permission to get a gun.

A free man cannot be made a slave unless he accepts his shackles

You should build a time machine and travel back to the Slave Coast in the 1700's and tell that to the natives.

A man who does not believe he has inalienable rights, (rights that are inherent and indivisible from his existence), is already a slave whether in physical shackles or not.

and

Perhaps I am a fool then, for I define rights as did our founding fathers. I would not die to preserve a privilege. I would however risk death to restore the freedom to exercise my and my children’s' god given inalienable rights.

You are no fool, just idealistic. Your idealism is strong and I respect that, but your arguments-when placed against the realities of current life in America-are weak. I for one see that we do not have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms by that simple fact that the right can be alienated within the bounds of our current laws.

I do not post this for the sake of argument or to attempt to win a point. Some things are just too important not to say.

Me either. And somethings are too untrue(as much as it is wrong and sucks) to claim as fact.

 

[Gary Conner]

I for one see that we do not have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms by that simple fact that the right can be alienated within the bounds of our current laws.

Dear RHGUNGUY:


The inalienable right of the 2nd Amendment CAN NOT BE alienated within the bounds of our "current laws."

Any alienation of that right is in DEFIANCE of the constitution, not "in pursuance of the constitution" and therefore, any and all laws infringing upon our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, enacted by any legislative body (be it State or Federal) violate Article VI, Clause II, which reveals that the 2nd Amendment itself, is the "supreme law" notwithstanding anything to the contrary.

For your convenience, I've cut and pasted that entire Clause, and ask you to read it relative to the right protected by our 2nd Amendment.

Article VI, clause II reads as follows:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land: and the judges, in every State, shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Constitution itself states that it is the Supreme law, and the 2nd is a portion of that Supreme law. Period. Just because some Schmuck gets him or herself elected to a State Representative job and finagles enough votes to pass a law in say, Nebraska, which declares no Nebraskan has a right to keep guns at home, does not mean the 2nd Amendment is somehow null and void in Nebraska.

It does mean an Unconstitutional law was recorded in Nebraska, but it does not cancel the right of a Nebraskan to keep and bear arms under the Supreme law of the land. A Nebraskan can defend him or herself in State Court by using his 2nd Amendment right.

What you are saying when you claim our rights can be "alienated under our current laws" is that a Nebraskan could NOT claim his 2nd Amendment right as a defense against an unconstitutional law.

In light of Article VI, Clause II, do you really feel that "our current laws allow our inalienable rights to be alienated?"

For instance, if Texas passed a law saying a Texan no longer had the right of free speech and had to remain silent in public regarding all matters political for a period of say six years, do you think such a law would supercede the protections of the First Amendment?

 

[FirstFreedom]

I think that it's a terrible, horrible idea to lump together "3rd party" with "won't vote", which are about as 180 degrees apart as two things could possibly be. The least conscientious among us won't vote; the next tier up will vote for the one of the republicrat uniparty wings (better than not voting, at least), and the most conscientious among us will vote 3rd party. So, bad poll. But you know how I voted.

www.constitutionparty.org

 

[Gary Conner]

Dear First Freedom:

Your statement about lumping third party with not voting is correct, that is terrrible, because if we keep going with the "I voted for the lesser of two idiotic evils" we will NEVER get our country back to the Representative Republic it was supposed to be, without a revolution, and that would be a horrible thing.

I am so astounded at the current barren crop of morons we have running for President (of a major country) I can hardly think straight.

We don't have anyone to vote for, we just have people to vote against, in the two party system.

Heck, I think I will write in the Whig party.

 

[mjrodney]

I'm getting tired tonite, and there are far too many posts preceding my own to read, so let me just say this at the risk of repeating someone else.......if you get an "A" rating from the NRA, I'll vote for you.

If you don't, but it's less than an "F", I might, but only if you are not running against an "A".

If you get an "F" from the NRA, you won't even get considered.

I won't even look at your picture.

I won't even say your name.

And if I had a baby, you wouldn' be allowed to hold him/her, unless, of course, the diaper was full.

So there, hhrrrummphh.....

Yes, the 2nd Amendment is that important to me.

YOUR 2nd Amendment rights are important to me.

 

[rhgunguy]

The inalienable right of the 2nd Amendment CAN NOT BE alienated within the bounds of our "current laws."

Nice try, but according to our current laws it is unlawful for a person who is convicted of a felony to own a gun. It is alienated, there for it is alienable. Realy quite simple. That is a federal law. If a felon is caugt in possesion of a firearm, he can not claim his second Amendment rights, as he as lost them(they have been alienated). Unconstitutional it may be, but that is the way that it is.

 

[Sarge]

I vote for the person...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...not the party, so I can't answer your poll. At the moment, for this election, Republican. But I keep hoping for better options.

Springmom

You nailed it, Ma'am. Big +1 on all.

 

[Gary Conner]

Dear RH gunguy:

So you are saying you believe it is constitutional to continue to punish a convicted felon beyond the term of his sentence?

So if a guy gets involved in a fist fight, and is sentenced to ten years for assault, you think the founders intended he not be able to keep and bear arms for the next fifty?

 

[SixForSure]

SInce throwing them all out and starting over isn't one of the options,

Actually, that is on option. If NO ONE voted for an incumbant this time around, (and in the case of the Senate, the next two elections also) we could start over.

 

[SixForSure]

I would like to see a Democratic congress and a Republican President or a Democratic President and a Republican congress. It forces the two parties to compromise and allot seems to get done. Look at Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton. They all had the opposite party controlling Congress and they all got allot accomplished. Then look at Carter and our current regime.

I absolutely agree with this, and considering the current crop of idio....uh, I mean candidates (and incumbants), it might be the best outcome for the upcoming election. It is fun though, to try and imagine what Reagan could have done with a Repblican House and Senate. Politics is a lot like shooting and Reagan was all about shot placement. He didn't say the Soviet Union should me more mindful of human rights, try and be more tollerant political differences, and be more neighborly to other countries. He publicly called them "The Evil Empire". One shot, one kill.

 

[rhgunguy]

So you are saying you believe it is constitutional to continue to punish a convicted felon beyond the term of his sentence?

No, I am not saying it is constitutional, I am saying that that is the way it is, even if it sucks.

 

[Pointer]

How are you voting from this upcoming election and forward?

I feel I have no choice but to vote against the Liberals...
not for anyone...

The choice is... which slave masters do you prefer...

 

[Gary Conner]

Dear RHgungy:

Then if what you are saying is correct, that it is not Constitutional, then according to Article VI, it is not legal. That is my point. It is not a law, according to the Constitution. It is only a law, because we continue to ALLOW it.

However, the Constitution protects INALIENABLE rights, so we can ALWAYS use that document as SUPREME law. It cancels it out. We just need to elect representatives who recognize that fact, and appoint SCOTUS members who can read. That right is only ALIENABLE, because we allowed it. But God still granted it.