Si Vis,

There are multiple meanings for the word people, two such are “A body of persons living in the same country under one national government; a nationality.” and “The citizens of a political unit, such as a nation or state; the electorate.”. Both of these connect the people to the political unit, which in turn connects them to the bearing of arms under the second amendment. The people had the right to bear arms because they would bear those arms under the direction of the government.

I am not saying that grammatically that the Constitution was written correctly in terms that it is not clear. I do think that it jumps back and forth using people to represent a political unit and individuals. Some of the problem being that the Bill of Rights was ratified under the first congress and written by different individuals.

Many of the framers of the Constitution and the early congress did not trust the individuals to act correctly so they wanted power concentrated at various levels of the government, such as the Senate being elected by the legislature.

So I believe it is meant as follows in its usage
Preamble - a political unit at the state level
Article 1, Section 2 - the individuals (they had to make this distinction because this talks about election to the house, whereas the Senate was originally chosen by the state legislature)
Amendment 1 - both
Amendment 2 - the state
Amendment 4 - individual
Amendment 5 - the state
Amendment 10 - individual
Amendment 17 - individual

Tim, the government already has unlimited authority to regulate every word said on the public airwaves. You have heard of the FCC? Besides, the Fairness Doctrine was a United States FCC regulation requiring broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner deemed by the FCC to be honest, equitable, and balanced.

Without the Fairness Doctrine I can go onto Faux News and declare “Tim Jones is an idiot!” and have so called experts back it up with “Tim Jones is a fascist idiot and here’s why” analysis and Faux News does not have to give you or any of your minions’ equal time to repudiate those accusations. This is Faux News modus operandi.

Actually, maybe Jamie Riley could block the rest of your posts for this blog thread to give you a better understanding of the Fairness Doctrine. But that wouldn’t be the liberal thing to do, given the paper’s liberal bent.

Bob

FISA, is one small part of the war on terror, and if you can’t see that, you are asking for another 9/11 type tradgey. I would rather have Unc listen to my phone calls or read my e-mails, than have another hit like that one. How about you?

Government run health care in not a right, and they have demonstrated very well, with waste, fraud and abuse, running medicare and medicaid, that they CAN NOT do it.

The left makes a big deal about abortion, wanting the right to kill unborn babies, even minutes before they are born. So what am I assuming? Isn’t it in the democrat’s platform? If you don’t condone abortion, more power to you. As far as I am concerned, it is legalized murder. Please don’t come back with I support the death penalty, because you will speaking of apples and oranges. Abortion is the death of an innocent unborn child in the womb, and the death penalty is awarded to someone who committed a serious crime. No comparison.

My question still has not been answered. Why aren’t you (Mrs. Garrison) and Bob complaining about all the restrictions on guns, or is it, just selective rights, you wish to complain about?

Tango, are you voting Democratic now? That is what it seems like given your last post. Nonetheless, a lot of the Dem leadership had to vote for the current FISA bill because they were enablers to previous abuses of FISA by allowing the Executive Branch to wiretap without a warrant. However, FISA in its current form protects the telecoms immunity from civil lawsuits, (being sued for big bucks). The telecoms could still face criminal charges for wiretapping without a court order.

I’ve tried to answer your question JD, but you just don’t get it.
Here, I’ll make it simple. I don’t think you have a constitutional right to own a gun. Any limitations to the 2nd Amendment are meaningless. Sorry you’re unable to purchase a “surface to air” rocket launcher. Contrary to what our Founding Fathers had hoped for you.

Mrs. Garrison

I just wanted to be sure, that you are FOR selective limitations, of the rights, afforded to us by the constitution. You have just confirmed it.
Yep, you libs are socialists.

t is incredible how you can read only what you want.

First of all I did not mention the FISA courts, I have some trouble with those courts because it is unclear to me how their decisions would be reviewed if needed. However, they are empowered to issue warrants. It is warrant less wire taps I worry about.

Again you say has for has government health care “they have demonstrated very well, with waste, fraud and abuse,” yet one can only assume that the same people running wire taps will be nothing but saints and do none of what happens in Medicare. That despite what the Inspector General of the FBI said was going on when they used wire taps for among other things to spy on spouses, but had logged it has anti terrorist.

You also say: “My question still has not been answered. Why aren’t you (Mrs. Garrison) and Bob complaining about all the restrictions on guns, or is it, just selective rights, you wish to complain about?”

For this last question re-read what I wrote 6 paragraphs concerning the subject of guns.

The IRS focus on U.S. taxpayers is a much greater threat to “civil liberties” than the NSA focus on U.S. enemies. However, bigger government in any area means less liberty, period. Folks just need to decide how much of our hard won liberty we are willing to surrender to Nanny.

Bob

Just wanted to be sure, you and Mrs. Garrison, are FOR selective limitations, of the rights, afforded to us by the constitution.
You two have confirmed.

JD,

First do not state that she and I are for selective limitations when you are willing to give up some rights. If anything using your logic it is not her and me it is her, me and you. How does it feel being part of the radical Left?

It is my opinion that the Constitution does not provide you as an individual to own guns,but I have no problem with owning guns within limitations. So if I do not believe that you have the right then I am not limiting you under the Constitution.

However, there are without a doubt. For instance you do not have “the right to shout fire in a crowded theater”, Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1919, Schneck vs US.