Wednesday, February 06, 2013

Hell yeah!!!

The Right to Bear Arms and Popular Sovereignty
By Charles C. W. Cooke

Brutally put, it makes little philosophical sense for the elected representatives of a government that is subordinate to the people to be able to disarm those people.  As an enlightened state may by no means act as the arbiter of its critics’ words, it may not remove from the people the basic rights that are recognized in the very document to which it owes its existence.  “Shall not be infringed” and “shall make no law” are clear enough even for the postmodern age.  To ask, “Why do you need an AR-15?” is to invert the relationship.  A better question: “Why don’t you want me to have one?”

Thanks to Russ III for the heads up on the link.


Brock Townsend said...

Posted again here from FNC answering the same question.

Because I want a select fire, but the semi is cheaper, that's why.

ghostsniper said...

Regardless of any silly assed constitution, nobody gets to dictate what I possess. The very idea that anybody gets to tell anyone else what they can own is ridiculous and criminal and if they bring that shit around here they will get something they never imagined.

Telling me what I can have is tantamount to taking what I have, which is theft, and intolerable no matter who is doing the telling or taking.

It ain't gonna happen. No one is gonna take my toaster, my dog, my wife, my truck, none of my shit. period

Anyone that thinks they are gonna take my shit better build a bridge and get over it.

John The River said...

Well, to start; the rifle used by the colonials was the "Assault Rifle" of its day, 2nd Amendment being about resisting unjust government you need as good a weapon as the government stooges will bring to the fight, and if your 1950 TV doesn't look anything like the 2013 3D Flat Screen why would you expect your 21st century weapon to look like a 19th century one?