Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: SAF attorney: You can't pick and choose from Bill of Rights

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    SAF attorney says you can't pick and choose from the Bill of Rights

    That guy Workman is "on location" at the SHOT Show in Vegas.

    http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seatt...Bill-of-Rights

    Or try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/ycwqs7k

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    Dave Workman wrote:
    SAF attorney says you can't pick and choose from the Bill of Rights

    That guy Workman is "on location" at the SHOT Show in Vegas.

    http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seatt...Bill-of-Rights

    Or try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/ycwqs7k
    I love it. Go S.A.F.!

  3. #3
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Back in the 90's, I wrote a piece to the Washington Times editorial section that was selected as their Letter of the Day. It was entitled, "It's not a Buffet of Rights". I advanced the absolute premise that the Bill of Rights was a package deal. That Americans had to take them all. That they could not pick and chose the ones they liked while casting aside those with which they did not agree. All ten were to be taken and accepted in toto.

    Should come as no surprise to any American.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  4. #4
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Back in the 90's, I wrote a piece to the Washington Times editorial section that was selected as their Letter of the Day. It was entitled, "It's not a Buffet of Rights". I advanced the absolute premise that the Bill of Rights was a package deal. That Americans had to take them all. That they could not pick and chose the ones they liked while casting aside those with which they did not agree. All ten were to be taken and accepted in toto.

    Should come as no surprise to any American.
    Your premise is incorrect. There were actually twelve amendments presented as the "Bill of Rights" all at once. They did just as you say they weren't allowed to do. They chose ten and tossed the other twoaside. They were not even numbered. They were numbered as they were ratified. The amendment we refer to as 2Awas ratified second, hence the second amendment is so called.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  5. #5
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Back in the 90's, I wrote a piece to the Washington Times editorial section that was selected as their Letter of the Day. It was entitled, "It's not a Buffet of Rights". I advanced the absolute premise that the Bill of Rights was a package deal. That Americans had to take them all. That they could not pick and chose the ones they liked while casting aside those with which they did not agree. All ten were to be taken and accepted in toto.

    Should come as no surprise to any American.
    Your premise is incorrect. There were actually twelve amendments presented as the "Bill of Rights" all at once. They did just as you say they weren't allowed to do. They chose ten and tossed the other twoaside. They were not even numbered. They were numbered as they were ratified. The amendment we refer to as 2Awas ratified second, hence the second amendment is so called.
    Yes, I am aware of that. However, I was not talking about the inception of the document. I was referring to current times.

    Not only was there twelve original amendments in the Bill of Rights, but there was strong sentiment NOT to have a Bill of Rights at all. It was felt that since the Constitution already enumerated what government was allowed to do, there was not need for a Bill of Rights. The two gentlemen most responsible for the Bill of Rights were George Mason and Patrick Henry. They convinced James Madison to their cause and therefore, draft a Bill of Rights.

    So my premise was and is correct in the context of the letter I submitted.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Post imported post

    Here you will find a copy of the "Proposed Amendments To The Constitution. There were twelve, and they were numbered, I through XII. However, this is the copy that was submitted to the state legislatures, and not the The James Madison Papers

    Some very interesting returns when one searches those papers for "arms" - Source

    I especially like this one, from 1826. Enjoy:

    TO HENRY COLMAN. ... MAD. MSS.
    Montpr, August 25, 1826.
    Dr Sir I have read with pleasure the copy of your Oration on the 4th of July, obligingly sent me, and for which I beg you to accept my thanks.
    With the merits which I have found in the Oration, may I be permitted to notice a passage, which tho' according with a language often held on the subject, I cannot but regard as at variance with reality.
    In doing justice to the virtue and valour of the revolutionary army, you add as a signal proof of the former, their readiness in laying clown their arms at the triumphant close of the war, "when they had the liberties of their Country within their grasp."
    Is it a fact that they had the liberties of their country within their grasp; that the troops then in command, even if led on by their illustrious chief, and backed by the apostates from the revolutionary cause, could have brought under the Yoke the great body of their fellow Citizens, most of them with arms in their hands, no inconsiderable part fresh from the use of them, all inspired with rage at the patricidal attempt, and not only guided by the federal head, but organized & animated by their local Governments possessing the means of appealing to their interests, as well as other motives, should such an appeal be required?
    I have always believed that if General Washington had yielded to a usurping ambition, he would have found an insuperable obstacle in the incorruptibility of a sufficient portion of those under his command, and that the exalted praise due to him & them, was derived not from a forbearance to effect a revolution within their power, but from a love of liberty and of country which there was abundant reason to believe, no facility of success could have seduced. I am not less sure that General Washington would have spurned a sceptre if within his grasp, than I am that it was out of his reach, if he had secretly sighed for it. It must be recollected also that the practicability of a successful usurpation by the army cannot well be admitted, without implying a folly or pusillanimity reproachful to the American character, and without casting some shade on the vital principle of popular Government itself.
    If I have taken an undue liberty in these remarks, I have a pledge in the candour of which you have given proofs, that they will be pardoned, and that they will not be deemed, inconsistent with the esteem and cordial respect, which I pray you to accept.

    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  7. #7
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    rodbender wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Back in the 90's, I wrote a piece to the Washington Times editorial section that was selected as their Letter of the Day. It was entitled, "It's not a Buffet of Rights". I advanced the absolute premise that the Bill of Rights was (is)a package deal. That Americans had (have)to take them all. That they could not pick and chose the ones they liked while casting aside those with which they did (do)not agree. All ten were (are)to be taken and accepted in toto.

    Should come as no surprise to any American.
    Your premise is incorrect. There were actually twelve amendments presented as the "Bill of Rights" all at once. They did just as you say they weren't allowed to do. They chose ten and tossed the other twoaside. They were not even numbered. They were numbered as they were ratified. The amendment we refer to as 2Awas ratified second, hence the second amendment is so called.
    Yes, I am aware of that. However, I was not talking about the inception of the document. I was referring to current times.

    Not only was there twelve original amendments in the Bill of Rights, but there was strong sentiment NOT to have a Bill of Rights at all. It was felt that since the Constitution already enumerated what government was allowed to do, there was not need for a Bill of Rights. The two gentlemen most responsible for the Bill of Rights were George Mason and Patrick Henry. They convinced James Madison to their cause and therefore, draft a Bill of Rights.

    So my premise was and is correct in the context of the letter I submitted.
    If you had subtituted the words in redwith the ones in blue I would never have questioned your premise. The way I read what you wrote was that this was the dealfor the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

    I stand corrected in the fact that they were numbered, but they were entered into the Constitution in the order in which they were ratified, not in order of importance.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    631

    Post imported post

    what does SAF mean???


    nevermind. Second Amendment Foundation

  9. #9
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:
    rodbender wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Back in the 90's, I wrote a piece to the Washington Times editorial section that was selected as their Letter of the Day. It was entitled, "It's not a Buffet of Rights". I advanced the absolute premise that the Bill of Rights was (is)a package deal. That Americans had (have)to take them all. That they could not pick and chose the ones they liked while casting aside those with which they did (do)not agree. All ten were (are)to be taken and accepted in toto.

    Should come as no surprise to any American.
    Your premise is incorrect. There were actually twelve amendments presented as the "Bill of Rights" all at once. They did just as you say they weren't allowed to do. They chose ten and tossed the other twoaside. They were not even numbered. They were numbered as they were ratified. The amendment we refer to as 2Awas ratified second, hence the second amendment is so called.
    Yes, I am aware of that. However, I was not talking about the inception of the document. I was referring to current times.

    Not only was there twelve original amendments in the Bill of Rights, but there was strong sentiment NOT to have a Bill of Rights at all. It was felt that since the Constitution already enumerated what government was allowed to do, there was not need for a Bill of Rights. The two gentlemen most responsible for the Bill of Rights were George Mason and Patrick Henry. They convinced James Madison to their cause and therefore, draft a Bill of Rights.

    So my premise was and is correct in the context of the letter I submitted.
    If you had subtituted the words in redwith the ones in blue I would never have questioned your premise. The way I read what you wrote was that this was the dealfor the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

    I stand corrected in the fact that they were numbered, but they were entered into the Constitution in the order in which they were ratified, not in order of importance.
    Thank you.

    You know, it's funny when talking to some people who are clearly not enamored with our founding documents in general and the Bill of Rights in particular, how they are quite comfortable with choosing rights with which they agree while voicing problems with those they do not believe are needed. The Second Amendment is a prime example.

    Sanford Levinson wrote an excellent treatise at the University of Texas (Austin) Law School entitled, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment". I highly recommend this little gem to all serious gun people.. and more importantly, serious Americans.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •