"Compromise"? There is no compromise to a Constitutional amendment! It either IS, or it IS NOT!
Sen. Susan Collins said on Saturday that she would support the bipartisan compromise reached on expanded background checks — the first Republican senator to say so publicly. “I do intend to support it,” the three-term Maine senator told NBC News. Collins said she reviewed the bipartisan compromise, announced on Wednesday by GOP Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and called it a “reasonable” approach. Under the deal, background checks would be expanded to gun shows and online sales.
I think I have not made clear my position vis a vis "Expanded Background Checks";
Essentially .. I am opposed to ANY bill which presupposes that the Senate (or the House,if they were empowered to propose a bill) might presents which in any way addresses the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
We are talking, here, about "Infringement". Whether the proposed bill seems to address permissions or restrictions ... the Constitution is clear that it will not permit an "infringement". That is .. implied, or imposed.
That the U.S. Senate would even imply that they may regulate our right to "keep and bear arms" is anathema .. even to the point where they might suggest that they will "allow" us a portion of the freedom which is already guaranteed by God and the Constitution.
You and I may experience a momentary lapse, in which we may accept an arbitrary ruling from Congress which says they will "allow" us to freely trade amongst ourselves ... as long as we meet their standards of "freely trade".
But that would be nothing less than a passive acceptance of their ability to restrict trade at their leisure .. or at their whim.
Think about it.
What if the senate passed a bill which stated that it was legal for us to state our (perfectly legal) convictions about any subject on the Internet. If we accepted that, it would imply that they could as easily say that we could state our convictions .. but not on certain subjects, the nature of which would be determined at a future date..
The latter would be a violation of our First Amendment Rights; the former is a violation of our Second Amendment Rights.
Our congress has no more "right" to deny OR ACCEPT, legally, any part of our constitutional rights.
When we passively accept the one, then we passively accept the other.
Don't be passive; be pro-active.
Don't write, and certainly don't email (it's too easy to ignore) but PHONE your senator today. Tell him/her that you are opposed to ANY bill which "infringes" on your Second Amendment Rights.
I'll go first!
Here is how to contact your U.S. Senator.
And .. here's a discussion about "Registration equals confiscation: even the Liberals accept the proposition! (NOTE: this video loads very slowly; you may need to refresh it frequently, or tak other action to encourage it to have loaded it completely before viewing.)
"Registration equals Confiscation" (See video at 2:30)
If you're really interested, here's a "Hannity vs Coulter" discussion:
I won't expect you to pick this as your own personal "expression" of pro-gun hysteria.
Instead, I'll ask you only to choose whether you think anti-gun folks have a more persuasive argument in reference to gun-control issues.
.. and, of course, whether we should listen to any argument which contravenes the Second Amendment.
POINT:
If the leftists' could present a case against the second amendment, wouldn't they have presented it by now? Ignore the BS that they have presented to date; clearly, they don't understand the issues.
If they understood the issues, they wouldn't be arguing against the Constitution (which, to them, is a dead issue, completely outdated, and should be ignored .. but they are NOT willing to present the issue to Congress and the states, which is the ONLY manner in which they can legally dismiss a constitutional amendment!)
Go figure!
No comments:
Post a Comment