Vote!

[gbrown]

We all need to vote on this, people! Right to bear arms. A friend sent this to me.

Attorney General, Eric Holder, has already said this is one of his major issues. He does not believe the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms. This takes literally 2 clicks to complete. Please vote on this gun issue question with USA Today. It will only take a few seconds of your time. Then pass the link on to all the pro- gun folks you know. Hopefully these results will be published later this month. This upcoming year will become critical for gun owners with the Supreme Court's accepting the District of Columbia case against the right for individuals to bear arms.
Here's what you need to do:

First - vote on this one.

Second - Send it to other folks and have THEM vote - then we will see if the results get published.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/2007/november/popup5895.htm

[montana_charlie]

Before you posted this impassioned plea for immediate action, did you notice that the poll dates from 2007?
It's in the URL of that webpage. Does your friend think they are still collecting data from it?

CM

[gbrown]

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. If it is not good, ignore it. No problem on my part.

[MtGun44]

Some will think it a fine point, but the founding fathers did not think so. Some think that
this wording is a 'trick question'.

They specifically said that they give you NOTHING in the Bill of Rights, but they only are
RECOGNIZING pre-existing NATURAL RIGHTS give by God.

Their point was, that if the Bill of Rights was GIVING you these rights, then some court could
take them away, and there would be no intellectual argument against that being "OK". The
founding fathers specifically said that these rights could not be taken away by a court or
legislature because they are natural rights of all men, given by God. These rights might
be infringed upon, or not recognized, but they cannot be actually taken away.

Again, the practical matter, a right that is not recognized and is effectively infringed on is not operational,
but again the founding fathers were speaking and writing of the intellectual foundations of the
Bill of Rights. They felt it very important to say that rights infringed are NOT actually taken away,
just not able to be exercised at the current time, and that this would be the basis for overthrowing
a government, like we did to the British.

Bill

[gbrown]

Very good and valid point!