Grassley- Was Right To Bear Arms Granted By God Or The Constitution

[HarveyDarkey]

Run time: 01:35 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyNTHY6ekjo   Posted on YouTube: June 29, 2010 By YouTube Member: tpmtv Views on YouTube: 311   Posted on DU: June 29, 2010 By DU Member: HarveyDarkey Views on DU: 1011

 

[Turbineguy]

1. Her answer was interesting in what she didn't say.

Something to the effect of "What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you some kind of asshole or what?"

[spiritual_gunfighter]

2. Someone please explain to me why

Republicans are so crazy?

[GrantDem]

3. Why is these fucks can't seem to get the difference between the Constitution and Declaration?

In fact I think I heard him mention them together as though they are the same document.

[HarveyDarkey]

4. And since he can't pronounce (or remember) "inalienable"......

[coti]

11. Unalienable. nt

[HarveyDarkey]

12. I stand corrected, nt

[James48]

13. Inalienable....

Jefferson actually wrote "inalienable".

It was Adams who messed it up and said "unalienable".

Damn that Federalist Adams!

http://www.ushistory.org/DECLARATION/unalienable.htm

[coti]

14. Right. There are also such things as inalienable rights.

Those rights described in the D of I are coined "unalienable," though.

[coti]

10. No, he didn't confuse the two.

He was asking if, in Kagan's opinion, a connection could be made between the two with regard to the 2nd Amendment. I.E., do the rights spelled out by the 2nd Amendment fall squarely within the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" rights vaguely described in the D of I.

It was a legit question, but he was obfuscating the complications of the question a little by asking it so simply.

[bongbong]

5. His next question

His next question got cut off because he ran out of time. It was:

"When Jesus said turn the other cheek, was he talking about turning it with an AK-47 or an Uzi with cop-killer bullets?"

[baldguy]

6. It was a trick question, since everyone knows GAWD! (praise be!) wrote the Constitution.

Everyone, except liberal Gawdless Jew communists of course.

[MiniMe]

7. Because God wants everybody to have a gun

:sarcasm:

[Tx4obama]

8. I wish...

I wish Grassley, Sessions, Coburn, McCain and the rest of the republican men over the age of sixty would ALL get voted out of office or just retire.
C-Span would be easier to watch without them and I'd be much happier ;)

[coti]

9. He's trying to confuse the right to defend oneself, which I believe

would fall under those rights endowed to us by our Creator, with the right to bear arms (a right which I support, within reasonable limits).

Guns didn't exist when we were created, so I doubt that our Creator had them specifically "in mind" (if I may anthropomorphize a bit) when it put this here deal together.

He may still have a decent argument, considering that we at least evolved the skills to make these weapons and use them to protect ourselves. But, considering the originalist approach he likely takes to such things as civil liberties and constitutional rights, I'd be more likely to say that, from his point of view, guns themselves weren't explicitly granted as "God-given," self-evident rights when we were created. They therefore would have been granted as rights under the Constitution itself, by people.

[mckara]

15. You've Got to Be F'n' Kidding Me!

How do clowns like Grassley get elected?

[X_Digger]

16. Unrec to TPM for stupid video title

He actually makes a good point in all that hem-ing and haw-ing.

The second amendment 'grants' nothing. It protects. As the preamble to the bill of rights states (showing the intent of the BoR):

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

Abuse of whose powers? The government. Restrictions on whom? The government. This is a 'government shall not' document, not a 'the people can' document. The collorary to that is that even if the second amendment were repealed, the right of effective self-defense would merely be moved from an enumerated right to an unenumerated right. (ex-enumerated?)