Tomorrow night, Dan Rather is going to "educate us on the Second Amendment"
- Thread starter thaddeus
- Start date
I just let CBS know how I felt about their "reality check". Do the same at their feedback page:
http://www.cbs.com/flat/frameset_feedback3Fp5Fwho3Dnetwork.html
Or, if you prefer, I'm sure they'd just love to speak to you over the phone:
CBS Evening News, main #: (212)975-3691
Our good bud Dan Rather: (212)975-6677
http://www.cbs.com/flat/frameset_feedback3Fp5Fwho3Dnetwork.html
Or, if you prefer, I'm sure they'd just love to speak to you over the phone:
CBS Evening News, main #: (212)975-3691
Our good bud Dan Rather: (212)975-6677
Amish Gangsta
Inactive
It was mentioned in several of the previous posts about the 2nd being applied to the National Guard. I think this is wrong because: the Bill Of Rights wasn't adopted until 1791 and the National Guard wasn't created until 1903. If you want to know more about this...and I hope you do.. check out this site: http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira58.html
Oh c'mon Amish...
No one here believes the 2nd only applies to the Nat Guard...the concept is known as restrictive arguement, an established means in debate to limit arguement to a specific point and not meander all over; i.e. address that point and eliminate it. The point being that even if one did believe it applied to "militia" solely, the current National Guard set-up(as being under Federal authority) is still unconstitutional.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
No one here believes the 2nd only applies to the Nat Guard...the concept is known as restrictive arguement, an established means in debate to limit arguement to a specific point and not meander all over; i.e. address that point and eliminate it. The point being that even if one did believe it applied to "militia" solely, the current National Guard set-up(as being under Federal authority) is still unconstitutional.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
Danger Dave
New member
If it was ever intende to be a militia governed by the individual states, they wouldn't have named it the NATIONAL Guard...
3-4% owned firearms. Well, lah-de-dah. Funny, that seems out of whack when about 5% fought in the revolution. Where did our minutemen learn to shoot, if they had never owned/fired a firearm? We didn't have extensive marksmanship training, especially since our armed forces were loosely organized, at best.
Another interesting point - at the founding of our nation, "citizen" meant caucasian land owners - they were the only ones with a right to vote. However, in the bill of rights, they refer to the rights of "the people". I think Thomas Jefferson, et al were smart enough to know what they were saying - "the people" have the right to say what they want, arm themselves, etc. - not just the rich people, not just white males, not the states, not the country, not the army, but THE PEOPLE...it seems clear to me what they meant.
------------------
Beginner barbarians probably had the idea that every house they broke into would be full of untouched loot and frightened, unarmed victims. It just doesn't work that way, my friend.
3-4% owned firearms. Well, lah-de-dah. Funny, that seems out of whack when about 5% fought in the revolution. Where did our minutemen learn to shoot, if they had never owned/fired a firearm? We didn't have extensive marksmanship training, especially since our armed forces were loosely organized, at best.
Another interesting point - at the founding of our nation, "citizen" meant caucasian land owners - they were the only ones with a right to vote. However, in the bill of rights, they refer to the rights of "the people". I think Thomas Jefferson, et al were smart enough to know what they were saying - "the people" have the right to say what they want, arm themselves, etc. - not just the rich people, not just white males, not the states, not the country, not the army, but THE PEOPLE...it seems clear to me what they meant.
------------------
Beginner barbarians probably had the idea that every house they broke into would be full of untouched loot and frightened, unarmed victims. It just doesn't work that way, my friend.
, could it be that "they" are beginning to feel the heat from our efforts and turning down their flames?Totenkopf the Hun
Inactive
Sorry, guys, knowing it will probably never get read in the CBS comment queue, I could not help but post this here. Enjoy(?)
---------------------
Edward R. Murrow once said "A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearragining their prejudices." It saddens me to think that even Dan Rather, too, must still stoop to such yellow journalism to feel like he can "Make the World a Better Place" by vomiting up such a painfully and shamefully uneducated "Reality Check" on the Second Amendment. As a research scientist for one of the national laboratories, one of those people who really does make the world a better place on a daily basis, perhaps I place too much importance on actual research to support an arugment.
Sadly, as my coworkers and I work from the inside to develop pollution free alternatives to many industrial processes, in the end, it will be so that people like Dan Rather and Sarah Brady can destroy our society from the outside. Take my guns, leave me in a world where I am defenseless against those who would seek to rob and kill me. As for me and my kind, as we are slowly murdered in the name of trying to "protect" us, we will be sorely missed.
Alan Z
---------------------
Edward R. Murrow once said "A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearragining their prejudices." It saddens me to think that even Dan Rather, too, must still stoop to such yellow journalism to feel like he can "Make the World a Better Place" by vomiting up such a painfully and shamefully uneducated "Reality Check" on the Second Amendment. As a research scientist for one of the national laboratories, one of those people who really does make the world a better place on a daily basis, perhaps I place too much importance on actual research to support an arugment.
Sadly, as my coworkers and I work from the inside to develop pollution free alternatives to many industrial processes, in the end, it will be so that people like Dan Rather and Sarah Brady can destroy our society from the outside. Take my guns, leave me in a world where I am defenseless against those who would seek to rob and kill me. As for me and my kind, as we are slowly murdered in the name of trying to "protect" us, we will be sorely missed.
Alan Z
I saw Rather's piece, and it ticked me off some. I think it needs to be pointed out, however, that the greatest gaffe is the National Guard argument.
The Constitution gives Congress the authority to raise two type of armed bodies: armies and militias. When the legislation forming the National Guard was written, there was specific language included stating that Congress was creating this body NOT UNDER AUTHORITY TO CREATE A MILITA. The National Guard, while it may be considered a milita, is LEGALLY part of the army....unless, of course, one wishes to just ignore the law...and the Constitution....so where does that leave us? Back to square one.
I just love how the bannits will hide behind the Constitution when it suits their purposes, but then ignore or warp it when it goes against them.
------------------
Shoot straight regards, Richard
The Shottist's Center forums.delphi.com/m/main.asp?sigdir=45acp45lc
The Constitution gives Congress the authority to raise two type of armed bodies: armies and militias. When the legislation forming the National Guard was written, there was specific language included stating that Congress was creating this body NOT UNDER AUTHORITY TO CREATE A MILITA. The National Guard, while it may be considered a milita, is LEGALLY part of the army....unless, of course, one wishes to just ignore the law...and the Constitution....so where does that leave us? Back to square one.
I just love how the bannits will hide behind the Constitution when it suits their purposes, but then ignore or warp it when it goes against them.
------------------
Shoot straight regards, Richard
The Shottist's Center forums.delphi.com/m/main.asp?sigdir=45acp45lc
Danger Dave
New member
So, they think because only a few people owned firearms "the Right for the individual to own guns is founded more on myth than fact".
Well, let's see what one of the writers had to say about that:
"I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm-house." --Thomas Jefferson to Jacob J. Brown, 1808. ME 11:432
Hmm. Firearms a necessary implement for a household? How much more "individual" can a right get? Strange that Thomas Jefferson is concerned that there aren't enough firearms, while William Jefferson Clinton is saying there are too many...
*This quote stolen from a thread in the general discussion forum.
[This message has been edited by Danger Dave (edited August 19, 1999).]
Well, let's see what one of the writers had to say about that:
"I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm-house." --Thomas Jefferson to Jacob J. Brown, 1808. ME 11:432
Hmm. Firearms a necessary implement for a household? How much more "individual" can a right get? Strange that Thomas Jefferson is concerned that there aren't enough firearms, while William Jefferson Clinton is saying there are too many...
*This quote stolen from a thread in the general discussion forum.
[This message has been edited by Danger Dave (edited August 19, 1999).]