« Media fad issue: Florida no-retreat and felons | Main | iphone ballistic app »
Can't infringe the Second Amendment, try the First instead
Posted by David Hardy · 21 July 2014 05:55 PM
Rep. Robin Kelly (bought, or at least leased, by Mayor Bloomberg) proposes a ban on firearm advertising directly at children or their parents, such as prohibitions on brand name t-shirts and caps "marketed for children," and a ban on firearms in colors appealing to young shooters.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney calls for Capitol Hill Police to investigate Larry Pratt of GOA, since he dared to say that the Second Amendment is aimed at preventing tyrannical government. ( here's Larry's reply).
I guess if they can't get at the Second Amendment, they have to try to strike at the First.
2 Comments | Leave a comment
"Children AND their parents"? So Swingin' Singles are okay?
Those who ignore history are just plain s2pid. As I have made note before, the Framers of the Constitution did not want a Bill of Rights because the federal government had NO AUTHORITY to legislate in the areas the Bill would cover. The Framers also feared, rightly so, that the idiots would think the inclusion of the BoR was to stop the feds from ding things when in fact the BoR is simply a listing of Rights that NO GOVERNMENT should violate. It was said that including the BoR would result in the government thinking it had the power to legislate and lo and behold that's what the F happened. The federal government was granted no police powers outside the 6 or so grants. Tha fact that some police powers had to be granted proves without a doubt that other police powers do not exist at the federal level and the location of the granted police powers proves that the N&P clause DOES NOT IMPLY any police powers for the federal government. No on can supply any logic to prove my statement wrong. If the N&P implied police powers for commerce or taxation then why did the Framers explicitly include the police power over counterfeiting? Was counterfeiting more important than commerce? No, the Framers granted extremely limited police power to the fed and those powers are explicit. There are no implied police powers and the feds have no authority to legislate in any of the areas covered by the Bill of Rights. I've been told the Rights are no absolute, usually by a lawyer. Well they are just simply wrong. God endowed Rights are absolute and governments have no authority to legislate them away or limit them in any way.
These s2pid congresscritters need to read US v Cruikshank. They might learn that even repealing the second won't take the Right away because the 2nd doesn't grant crap.