Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

Ignoring Founders’ Warning

January 16, 2013

The senseless Sandy Hook slaughter is another horrible abuse of freedom that must be put into proper perspective....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(81)

wvhoopie2

Jan-24-13 11:34 AM

I'm starting to wonder why the free press is starting to use censorship in their articles like the Intell. Their lead story does not allow comments. I don't think I would make a comment about the Steubenville rape case but to close comments is like closing down the free press. Is this what they call soft press or the press being controlled by outside elements? Now I know why the Pittsburgh paper broke the Manchin MBA award story from WVU. I like to hear different views rather than controlled views.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jan-21-13 6:55 PM

Infact, instead of an Obamanation you have become Wraithen? At least you know CLEARLY where I stand.

What PLATFORM did Obama run on in 2012?? Demonize the rich and blame Bush/Romney STILL.

That wasn't a {bleeping} platform, that was just EXCUSE MAKING for not having a plan.

And it WORKED because the voter base is bunch of ignoramus lazy f****s.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

impact

Jan-21-13 2:57 PM

Wrat, I've read it plenty of times and use it daily. But now I think it's time for a change. We should convert our system of government into a "Wratocracy", without any executive, legislative or judicial branches...just WRAT! He will control the horizontal, he will control the vertical. Wrat knows all, sees all and is all powerful.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jan-21-13 12:57 PM

Wheezerdawg, did the Constitution authorize undeclared wars using drones to attack innoncent civilians?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jan-21-13 9:56 AM

Wheeldog “Do you believe the government is wrong to restrict the ownership of fully automatic weapons, grenades and other explosive devices, flame throwers, bazookas, shoulder fired missiles, etc.? These are forms of ‘firearms’.”

Of course the Constitution is not perfect, and the Founders could not anticipate everything. For example, the Founders could not have anticipated nuclear missiles. And there are liberals today who would do great harm to millions if allowed to possess nukes. So there IS a line across which the right to bear arms is certainly not what the Founders intended. Are flamethrowers, bazookas, and shoulder-fired missiles across that line, too? That question is worthy of debate. But the Founders certainly did intend that those citizens, in rising up against tyranny, would be at LEAST equally armed as the most basic infantry soldier, and that includes bearing a semiautomatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jan-21-13 9:55 AM

Wheeldog “Had those framers been able to foresee a future where a building full of little children would become a killing field for a single mentally disturbed person armed with enormous firepower perhaps the 2nd Amendment would have been written differently.”

You realize massacres of innocent civilians occurred in the time of the Founders, too. Did the Founders see fit to exclude the bearing of tomahawks, knives, and swords?

In fact, the Founders didn’t specify which arms citizens were guaranteed to bear precisely because they could not predict what new arms would be available to a tyrannical Government. Like the Founders didn't expect citizens to be able to stand up with knives against the rifle-equipped forces of a tyrant, they also didn’t expect the citizens of today to be able to stand up with muskets against tyrannical Government forces equipped with modern military rifles.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jan-21-13 9:54 AM

Wheeldog, guaranteeing citizens the right to bear arms would NOT guarantee there was a citizen militia available because the right to bear arms is not a REQUIREMENT to bear arms, nor does it ensure citizens are willing or capable of doing so. And anyway, the founders would have expected any “citizen militia” to be armed with modern military rifles equivalent to those possessed by an armed invader.

The idea that the Founders would specifically guarantee a right to self-defense from hostile natives and animals isn’t credible, either. Like the First Amendment guarantees free speech, press, and assembly, from a Government that would legislate those rights away, the Second Amendment is only necessary when there is a possibility the Government could legislate to take away citizens’ arms. The founders were not concerned that the Government might take away rifles used for putting food on the table or to defend themselves from natives.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jan-21-13 9:54 AM

oldman, thanks? LOL

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldmansvan

Jan-21-13 8:47 AM

Troll is a good canidate for low information Fox News poster boy of the year,

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jan-21-13 6:37 AM

Wheezerdawg get out of the 18th century, the Supreme Court has ruled the "regulated Militia" is every man and woman in the United States (DC versus Heller 2008).

Writings from Madison and Jefferson confirm exactly this AT THE TIME.

What YOU BELIEVE is just the usual liberal CRAP, not supported by facts AS USUAL.

But thanks for being the pretentious laughing stock of the valley.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LogHog

Jan-21-13 6:21 AM

1whoworks has it correctly spoken...

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

1whoworks

Jan-20-13 6:43 PM

At the time the musket was the most modern weapon. If you acually read what the framers said one of the big reasons for the 2nd is that they want the government to be scared of the people. As they wisely knew if the government is not scared we would get a President that enacts laws on his own without legislation, pushes through legislation the is unpopular that will restrict the peoples right for self determiniation and otherwise abuse the office.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

1whoworks

Jan-20-13 6:40 PM

None I repeat none of the provisions stated by dear leader would have done anything to stop, hinder, or prevent any of the mass murders that have taken place recently. The common demominator in them all is mental illness. The question should not be what to do with guns. It won't matter. It is how to deal with mental illnes and aquiring guns. And yes do it Constitutionally.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

1whoworks

Jan-20-13 6:37 PM

Yes the framers knew that society would change. The put provisions in the Constitution to change it. Their intentions were NOT FOR THE COURTS TO CHANGE IT, NOT FOR THE PRESIDENT TO CHANGE IT, BUT FOR THE CONGRESS TO DO IT THROUGH PROPER PROCEDURES. If you want to change it do it! Don't pervert it.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Wheeldog

Jan-20-13 6:11 PM

The framers of the Constitution had the foresight to realize that the world they knew in the 18th Century would change, and the Constitution had to be adaptable to a changing society. They were men of vision, but they were not infallible - and they knew that. They put together a document that allowed future generations to interpret its provisions to fit the reality of the time. Had those framers been able to foresee a future where a building full of little children would become a killing field for a single mentally disturbed person armed with enormous firepower perhaps the 2nd Amendment would have been written differently. However, they left that task to us through interpretation.

Let me ask you a few questions. Do you believe the government is wrong to restrict the ownership of fully automatic weapons, grenades and other explosive devices, flame throwers, bazookas, shoulder fired missiles, etc.? These are forms of "firearms".

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Wheeldog

Jan-20-13 5:41 PM

"Now a question for you, Wheeldog," Troll.

Good question. Insofar as the 2nd Amendment is concerned I believe that was placed in the Constitution largely because, at the time, the newly born nation did not have a standing military capable of withstanding an attack from a major power. A citizen militia that could be quickly assembled was critical to national defense. Firearms were also a virtual necessity for subsistence frontier farmers and others forced to live off the land and to defend themselves against hostile Native Americans and potentially dangerous animals.

At the time the American Revolution the standard long gun was a muzzle loading weapon that was fired and recharged at a relatively slow pace compared to modern firearms. Accuracy was particularly critical when using a rifled long gun, because reloading was even slower than for a smooth bore musket.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jan-20-13 3:10 PM

Obama got only 51% of the popular vote in 2012 election and that was MORE than he got in 2008 or George W. Bush in EITHER election!

This country is SERIOUSLY divided between Urban and rural about 50/50, any of you dumb***s who think the Constitution can be easily modified with a requirement of 75% of the states to ratify is full of CRAP!!!

REALITY is at this point in time, ANY controversial change to the Constitution is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jan-20-13 3:07 PM

The Child Labor Amendment is a proposed and still-pending amendment to the United States Constitution that would specifically authorize Congress to regulate "labor of persons under eighteen years of age".

The amendment was proposed in 1924 following Supreme Court rulings in 1918 and 1922 that federal laws regulating and taxing goods produced by employees under the ages of 14 and 16 were unconstitutional. The majority of the state governments ratified the amendment by the mid 1930s, however it has not been ratified by the requisite 3/4 of the states according to Article V of the Constitution and none have ratified it after 1937. Interest in the amendment waned following the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which implemented federal regulation of child labor with the Supreme Court's approval in 1941.

FAIL!

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jan-20-13 3:05 PM

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal rights for women.

The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and, in 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first time. In 1972, it passed both houses of Congress and went to the state legislatures for ratification. The ERA failed to receive the requisite number of ratifications before the final deadline mandated by Congress of June 30, 1982 expired, and so it was not adopted, largely because Phyllis Schlafly mobilized conservatives to oppose ERA.

Supporters in 2012 tried to revive the discussion of the Equal Rights Amendment, via a petition on the White House Website.

FAIL!

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jan-20-13 3:04 PM

The District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would have given the District of Columbia full representation in the United States Congress, full representation in the Electoral College system, and full participation in the process by which the Constitution is amended.

This proposed amendment was proposed by the Congress on August 22, 1978, but failed to be ratified by 38 states prior to its expiration on August 22, 1985.

FAIL!

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jan-20-13 2:35 PM

Imphat, the Constitution is ALL good, you should try reading it sometime.

But of the amendments, the 27th is a yawner. It was to prevent Congress from voting THEMSELVES a big raise because it because effect with the next congress.

So unless they get reelected, they possibly do NOT get to benefit personally from the a big raise unless the people give it to them..

You remember: government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people.

Not "Me the President", WE the PEOPLE.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jan-20-13 2:10 PM

boxerboy, “stoic and unflinching debauchery”? I’m having a hard time finding a context for that. Hillary Clinton comes to mind, but I think even she flinched occasionally at her Slick husband’s debauchery. And isn’t “moral rectitude” redundant? Let me guess. Union English teacher.

And “flaming Republican”? We prefer “smokin’ hot Republican,” thank you very much.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

boxerboy

Jan-20-13 12:28 PM

Sounder, thank you for your Jan 19, 9:30 AM comment. The much-needed rationality that your comment adds does much to offset the extreme bias of both this editorial and the N-R staff as a whole.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

boxerboy

Jan-20-13 12:24 PM

Yavalak obviously is a flaming Republican. What a shame to think someone of his moral rectitude had daily interface with young minds, minds which he corrupted with his stoic and unflinching debauchery.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

impact

Jan-20-13 11:01 AM

I guess now Wrat will tell us which amendments are good and which aren't. What a joke! Pick and choose, you simpleton.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 81 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: