• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

USATODAY 2A POLE

R

RockyMtnScotsman

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Messages
461
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
imported post

Actually I can see how you could legitimately vote "no" and still be pro-RKBA.

The wording of the poll is, "does the 2nd amendment GIVE individuals...."
No, it doesn't - it PROTECTS a pre-existent, God-given right.
 
L

Legba

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
1,881
Location
, ,
imported post

As for the 2A giving us vs. recognizing our RTKBA, I am of the opinion that rights are legal contrivances. There are many parts of the world which have no historical precedent for these supposedly "god given" rights like jury trials and self-defense that we value (try shooting someone in Canada for any reason and see what happens. You'll get a jury trial, but they will not recognize your right to bear arms for anything other than hunting or the olympics, say). Write a letter to the paper (if there are any left) complaining of the plight of Buddhist monks in Burma and see how they go about redressing your grievances.

Either that or god plays favorites. JMO.

-ljp
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Legba wrote:
As for the 2A giving us vs. recognizing our RTKBA, I am of the opinion that rights are legal contrivances.
Click to expand...

I agree.

The particular freedom(s) underlyinga right exist prior to law, I would say. We just got sloppy and started shifting the words around to say "right" when we mean " a certain freedom or package of freedoms."

The assumption being that all freedoms are deserved, except those that translate into injury of another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top