DrBleachCocktail
.44 mag
Thought this was pretty funny.
2A Is Totally Useless And Outdated (Animation)
- Thread starter DrBleachCocktail
- Start date
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Technically? No.
Practically? Yes.
Practically? Yes.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Because all it does is recognize there is a natural right to self defense and to take up arms against one's oppressors, and instructs that the government shall not infringe upon those natural rights (which predate any codified law).
So on a technical level, not needed.
I may be splitting hairs here.
What?
Some of the founders thought the Bill of Rights was unnecessary, and were concerned that it could end up reducing the freedoms already granted by the Constitution and our underlying natural rights by creating a list of only those things specifically guaranteed. A fair concern IMO. Thankfully the Bill of Rights was pushed through, or we'd be in a worse place these days with all the re-interpretations of history and an absolute disregard for the truth.
Robin
.475 A&M Magnum
We have an equivalent Bill of Rights in NY and the rotten fucks ignore it every bit as much as the feds.
Robin
Robin
spat
.700 Nitro Express
What the BOR needs is teeth.
It should be an affirmative defense in court if you can show that a government agent was attempting to violate one of the protected rights.
Like self defense is an affirmative defense.
"He voted for Bill X, which violates ammendment Y, therefore my action was justified self defense"
Robin
.475 A&M Magnum
The Bill of Rights as an affirmative defense has become a judicial
non sequitur. It is only allowed on appeal. It is not right, but that is the way our unconstitutionally corrupted judicial system works these days.
Robin
non sequitur. It is only allowed on appeal. It is not right, but that is the way our unconstitutionally corrupted judicial system works these days.
Robin
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Not following this in courtese.
You're suggesting an affirmative defense of someone's actions in an instant case is that someone unrelated to the instant case voted for a law that infringes or abridges the right the defendant is relying upon as an affirmative defense?
Not a knock on you, it's been a long day on my part.. Just not following how you argue this in court.
"Politician X submitted or otherwise voted for Bill Y which is in direct violation of Amendment Z. That's why I had to shoot him, your Honor."
See how easy that was?
spat
.700 Nitro Express
You can't argue it in court.
I'm saying you should be able to, but it'll never happen.
It would require the law to consider legislation that violates your rights to be considered an immediate and continuing threat justifying self defense.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
"Politician X submitted or otherwise voted for Bill Y which is in direct violation of Amendment Z. That's why I had to shoot him, your Honor."
See how easy that was?
Who is "him" in your last sentence?
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Sponsors and co sponsors of the offending legislation ?
Yup... The politician mentioned in the beginning of the statement.
I don't care either way...
I just want the end to come so we can rebuild; better and stronger.
Bring the apocalypse!
I just want the end to come so we can rebuild; better and stronger.
Bring the apocalypse!
spat
.700 Nitro Express
I would agree with you, but it is very *very* rare that you end up with better than you've got after something like that.
Even if we win, we will not end up with a country built by the likes of Washington and Jefferson, but more like Romney and McCain.