Humor

Chuck Woolery on Assault Weapons

Dec. 4, 2012

<!– [IMG|2012-12-04-humor-1.jpg|C] –>

Game show legend Chuck Woolery discusses the need for Americans to have the right to own “assault weapons”. Watch Video »


How the Hostess Company Is Being Split Up

You may have heard that Hostess Bakery plants shut down due to a workers' strike, but you may not have heard how it was split up: the State Department hired all the Twinkies, the Secret Service hired all the HoHos, the generals are sleeping with the Cupcakes and the voters sent all the Ding Dongs to Congress.







And Now For Some Cartoons

Appeal_patriots_day_3
7 Comments

tdrag in South Carolina said:

Chuck! the NRA needs you!

Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 12:48 PM

enemaofthestatistquo in Monroe, GA said:

Quote of the day- "the negoiations never took place" Qui-Jon Jinn. And the reason the negoiations never took place? Because the character above in Pic#3, To be the smartest guy in the room, must never actually be in the room.

Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Dioneikes in Colorado said:

Copperud: The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.

In reply to your numbered questions:

Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia" ?

Copperud: (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.

Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed" ?

Copperud: (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.

Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?

Copperud: (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

I found this among my wanderings on the web. Pretty enlightening.

Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 1:34 PM

enemaofthestatistquo in Monroe, GA replied:

Not only that but Amendments are meant either to delete, modify or CLARIFY the original text of the Constitution, this last applies especially to the Bill of Rights Amendments. The 2nd Amendment seeks to CLARIFY ArtI, ,Sec8,Cl/Pp17' "To provide for organizing, *arming*(my emphasis), and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appontment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescibed by Congress;" I argue that this obligates the US Federal government to permanently supply/issue full individual military materiel (current arms, uniform, and field equipment) to any Person/Citizen TO OWN who subjects his/her self to the discipline and training of their respective state militia and to the Armed Forces of the US, and takes the Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution.

Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Git R Dunn in Alabama replied:

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it is entirely unnecessary until the government tries to take it away."

Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Kurtis Davis in Braggs, Oklahoma replied:

Basic research of the Founder's intent, regarding possession of firearms, will provide an overwhelming amount of information. Alexander Hamilton states the case well in the "Federalist", Opinion #29---the American people are to be given possession of firearms so as to combat government takeover of their lives and property.

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Jean Lepley in Seattle WA said:

Re sayings from "Founding Fathers" -- Publius should be aware that Patrick Henry ("give me liberty or give me death") refused to sign the Constitution; he thought it gave altogether too much power to the federal government.
And has he read Thomas Paine's complete writings, especially Agrarian Justice (as I recall) in which Paine peddles such "socialist" ideas as periodic forgiveness of debt . . ?

Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 1:48 AM