May 10, 2006

that's good Acidman. I can't top that. If someone is capable of harming someone else, they'll do it. And those in harm's way have the right to carry a gun.

Uh, keep in mind, Rob, that the Constitution is not about granting rights. Never was. It was about limits on the Federal government.

Thinking in terms of the Constitution granting rights is playing right into Liberal hands.

This is precisely why some opposed the Bill of Rights, because it left the impression that rights were being granted by the Constitution or the Government.

I wish you hadn't brought up "living wage"; IMNSHO it doesn't belong in your argument.

It isn't nice when either side wants something for nothing - either the workers, or their employers. Greed is ugly no matter who's exhibiting it.

"Why is it that the more imaginary "rights" people invent, the less personal freedom I have? "

Priceless! This should be a banner on your website. At least it's a quote that I'd like to remember whenever some leftist starts talking BS.

Keep up the good work. Your being sober has not noticeably affected your writing.

Jimboy

Witnit, that was my point. The Bill of Rights was written NOT to grant rights, but to keep the government from taking them.

Fat lot of good that it did...

Now you did it. I'm going to have to come out of hiatus and write ANOTHER piece rebutting Saul Cornell. He's not just "a professor of history at Ohio State University," he's also "Director, Second Amendment Research Center, John Glenn Institute" - supposedly a non-biased researcher into the Second Amendment issue. Right. And Michael Bellesiles was an unbiased historian, too. The "Second Amendment Research Center" is funded, either partly or wholly - I'm not sure which - by the anti-gun Joyce Foundation.

I've gone around the block with Professor Cornell a couple of times. Time to do it again.

I have no plans to kill anyone but if i decided to get rid of even one person i would now build one hell of a bomb and blow away a few dozen just to show the anti-gun idiots that guns aren't the problem. Asshole's are the problem and every anti-gun idiot is an asshole. Are you listening people, we don't need no stinking gun to get rid of you. Maybe with the support of 8 traitorious Generals we could kill a thousand a month like the terrorists. Yep, that' s right, the General's body count is over a thousand already.

I think the right to bare arms should be restricted. There's nothing nastier than looking at some fat old woman's bare arms. Feh.

My rebuttal to the Professor is up, if anyone cares.

Why is it that the more imaginary "rights" people invent, the less personal freedom I have?

Good question.

"Witnit, that was my point. The Bill of Rights was written NOT to grant rights, but to keep the government from taking them."

Acidman, I think his point is that the phrasing of your original post suggests that you only have rights if they're mentioned in the Constitution, ("...one ain't mentioned in the US Constitution while the other is..."), whereas the Constitution explicitly does *not* enumerate all of our rights. Some of them did not want the Bill of Rights because some people would read that as "If it's not in the Constitution, it's not a right". They tried to limit this effect with the 10th Amendment, but that's pretty much ignored these days.

The Constitution neither grants nor enumerates the rights of the people -- it specifies and limits the powers of government (to limited real-world success, of course).

Just like how San Francisco want to be "fre" of any military presence. I say good for them. But the next time SF has a major earthquake, I hope no military (including National Guard) comes anywhere close to the area to help restore order. Let them lie in their own ****!

The right to be free from the threat of gun violence is absolutely one that we all should, and most of us do, enjoy. This position is so widely accepted that there is no place in this country where one person threatening another with gun violence is permitted by law.

Unfortunately for Saul Cornell, he is mistaken when he claims that he is not free from the threat of gun violence. I'm not psychic, so I can't, with any confidence, offer any suggestions as to what it is that Mr. Cornell is experiencing and confusing with the threat of gun violence. My best guess is that it is his inability to exact dictatorial control over the behavior of others. If this is the case, I can assure him that no such right exists. I'm really at a loss to come up with any alternative explanation for his hysterics.