Today marks the 215th anniversary of the Bill of Rights, the document that delineates and safeguards the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. It was no small decision to amend the Constitution, which many judged to be complete. But because our leaders eventually heeded the pleas of Virginia lawyer-planter George Mason, we have a written guarantee of freedom of speech, religion, media and public assembly, and we can own guns, expect fair treatment by the courts, and be spared unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishment. We don’t celebrate Bill of Rights Day with parades and fireworks, but rather by enjoying its benefits day to day. It makes inspiring reading, too. Which amendment do you value most? (I’m partial to the First.)
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/8
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/8
- okobserver on Open thread 11/8
- okobserver on Open thread 11/8
- American_Way on Open thread 11/8
- okobserver on Open thread 11/8
- American_Way on Open thread 11/8
- American_Way on Open thread 11/8
- American_Way on Open thread 11/8
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/8
45 Comments
Oh… hmmm… let me se…
I will go with the 2nd Amendment!
I don’t think I could claim a “favorite,” but if Nathan put a gun to my head ;-) , I would split my vote between the First and Fourth.
How about freedom from outsourcing and foreign invasion?
That would be my number 1.
In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expression – everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way – everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want – which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants – everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear – which, translated into world terms, means a worldwide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion,that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbour -anywhere in the world…..Franklin D.Roosevelt.
My favorite is # 10.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Very simple!
They are all important; each, alone, isn’t enough. But the 2nd guarantees, ultimately, the others; so in that sense, I’ll choose the 2nd.
Enjoy the celebration while it lasts. At the rate the pols and SCOTUS are going, in a few years, it will be the Bill of Right Day. “You have the RIGHT to remain silent……”.
Here is a prompt for me to do some re-reading.
The one I know best is the 1st. That would be my favorite. Without it the other 9 are meaningless and undefended.
I’ll go with the 14th (I know it’s not part of the Bill of Rights itself, but without it, the first 10 would not apply to the States).
I read them again, needed the refresher course. Now, I’m more disappointed than before with this president.
If RepubliCONS remain in office much longer, we won’t have a bill of rights.
If we really respect that document- we’ll get rid of all the republiCONS.
GMC are saying the 2nd is protection from a tyrannical goverment. If so aren’t you part of said goverment, If someone thought you were being a tyrant or the goverment was and you being part of it, would be ok to kill you in the name of liberty?
Interesting question, Dingus. If you’re being clever, I’m amused; I got a chuckle.
If you’re being serious, the nic fits perfectly.
Nice dodge so what is the 2nd Ad. for then hunting? I dont think so. Your a DA in Eldorado right, is Judge White still using and selling Coke? I Haven’t lived there in a few years.
I guess the nic fits.
I think Dingus raises a legitimate point. And it’s a cheap shot to act as if an insult to his nic answers his question.
How does owning a gun protect you against government if you aren’t endorsing USING said gun against government?
The Sunflower Coalition chants and drops signs in local offical’s lawn, and the CONS are all over them for (gasp!) “littering.”
But these are the same people who fondle their handguns and claim they stop the Clinton’s from setting up a communist state in America?
You can’t reconcile these two. Either guns really keep you free and Tim McVeigh is a hero.
Or they don’t. And our laws keep us free.
Capn: (or whatever I’m to call you now)-
If you’re being serious, this is too much to get into at this point; too long, and frankly not relevent to the thread. You want to reduce a complex idea to a slogan; it’s not nearly that simple. Meet me some time, and I’ll be happy to attempt to explain it to you, if you’re interested in thinking and being open-minded. You may still disagree after all that, and that’s OK, but at least hear me out without the cute posturing. I think you understand the concept fine, of course, you simply disagree with it, and rather than take it on intellectually, resort to cute posturing.
OF course, if you’re really just interested in cute posturing, I won’t play that game.
Dingus (how approriate, here) is posturing. His 2nd post makes that clear. Dingus – you’ll have to provide evidence to back up the second charge before I’ll take you remotely seriously on the first.
His pomposity GMC will now lecture us!
“How does owning a gun protect you against government if you aren’t endorsing USING said gun against government?”
It’s a fair question. Take your time. Too often champions of the Second Administration know little to nothing about why it exists in the first place.
“What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.”
http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm
Rage:
It’s a fair question, true enough. Just not one appropriate here. We’ve beaten that horse to death, in previous threads. I think those of you who I’ve conversed with know well enough where I stand.
And I think I’m plenty well-versed as to the purpose of the 2nd. Militia as an alternative to a standing army is one part of the answer, but only a part.
The founders understood that well enough, too.
And I’ll accept your surrender, thanks, JR.
GMC?
Surrender?
I’M not the one who engaged you! I just commented on your usual bellicoseness.
My only other post here favored the first amendment. I’m not surrendering that to you either.
The Ninth Amendment should get more respect:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The Bill of Rights says that some rights are so important that they needed to be named. The Framers were not creating rights, and making an exclusive list.
Of course, if you claim a “right” to paint your neighbor’s house purple. . .
Point taken, JR.
And I’m not discounting the first; it is, after all, the primary purpose of America – securing a place where citizens can think, speak, write, and worship as they please, respectful of all and consistent with public order. It is vital.
My point, and my only one, is that the 2nd amendment ultimately guarantees that the 1st, and the others, stay in effect. And that is as it should be.
To take on Rage and other’s comment, yes, if at some point government becomes so tyrannical, and other means of changing government are unavailable (i.e. elections, etc), the use of force to defend liberty is justified. That is not a radical position, it is the position of the founders, and especially Jefferson.
We’re not there, of course. I hope ferverently that we never reach that day. But just as the presence of nuclear weapons helps deter warfare, the presence of an armed populace is an ever-present deterrent to those in power to mind the limits of their power.
GMCYou really do write better when you let a little air out.That last was well said
I’m not the scholar you are. I had to go back and read the link to refresh my memory.
The thing of it is? We are reaching a point in technology where mere firearms do not and cannot protect us from tyranny.
Or to paraphrase Franklin, “The pen is mightier than the Glock.”
The 1st and 4th and also the 5th amendments face increasing problems. The 1st and 4th because of technology. The 5th due to money and beuracracy. Make THOSE your stands. You being more on the “front line” as it were than the rest of us.
Call it “cute posturing” if it makes you feel better, GMC.
I personally have used a gun to defend myself. A thief was rummaging through my pickup truck cab in my driveway once (hah, not a good place to look for anything valuable).
I told my daughter to call 911 and I grabbed my unloaded 12 gauge shotgun. I didn’t want to take the time to get shells–my biggest concern was to get him away from my house and family.
I tapped on the window (it was at night) and held the gun up so he could see it.
(I didn’t point the gun at him.)
He ran off, I dropped the gun, ran downstairs and jumped into said truck to look for him. The cops came and also looked for him, couldn’t find him. About one-half hour later, he hit a neighbor and broke his nose, and was caught and arrested.
He was convicted and is doing time.
Would I have shot this individual if he had directly threatened me?
Hell, yes.
So if you’re not willing to shoot the government when they “threaten” you, how does owning a gun in anyway protect you?
Take your time . . . I want to hear it.
Capn:
See above post, at 12:18. ‘Nuff said.
JR -
I agree, but for slightly different reasons. MERE firearms never protected us. They are always the tools of last resort. The pen, the ballot box, the other mechanisms that are so familiar are far preferable, and in a sense, are more important because they are used daily, as they should be.
But never forget that ultimately governments govern by force. That force is normally hidden in the velvet glove, but it is force nontheless. We hope, and generally it’s true, that the use of that force is limited to legitimate purposes – law enforcement, etc. But there is not inherent guarantee of same.
That is where the 2nd comes in. It is the fundamental, if all else fails, guard against an overreaching state.
How about when . . . oh, I don’t know . . . a Presidential candidate steals an election in the state in which brother is Governor.
Stealing elections in a putative democracy, would that be “over-reaching,” do you think?
Capn:
You say “steals.” I’d point out that due process was followed, and all parties obeyed the ultimately decision of the duly constituted authorities.
You may disagree with that decision, and that’s your right, but it’s hardly “stealing” an election.
Get over it.
No, if you wanna see stealing an election, check out Daley’s old Democratic machine in Chicago, for starters.
make that “ultimately obeyed the decision of the duly constituted authorities.”
I gotta edit better.
So I am supposed to take the government’s word that the government is not over-reaching?
I think they call that “begging the question.”
At any rate, you’ve answered my question–guns do nothing to limit the tyranny of government, because all government has to do is write tyranny into law and then argue, “we’re just following the law.”
Ah okay then . . .
BTW, so you would advocate violent overthrow of Dailey in Chicago?
Cap, neat story about the thief.
“Would I have shot this individual if he had directly threatened me?”
How? You had no shells.
WEll, Capn, ultimately, that’s your choice. If you believe that we are at the “man the barricades” stage (at one point JR put us at that stage too, but I think he’s backed off from that), knock yourself out. It’s gonna be lonely out there. And dangerous.
As I said, I don’t think we’re there. I think the vast majority of Americans, 95%+, would agree that we’re not at that stage. You disagree with the decision, that’s fine. Part of democracy is that we recognize decisions even if we disagree with them. Certainly there is a limit even to that, but as I noted, we’re not even close to there.
Enjoy the barricades.
Shells . . . I knew that some gun nut was going to call me on that.
I would have gone back and got the shells if it came to that.
A threat of force is always preferable to the use of force, something that Bush and his backers have sadly forgotten.
GMC–
So you disagreed with Tim McVeigh’s cause for blowing up the Federal Building, but you didn’t disagree with the action of blowing it up.
Under some circumstances, you would be in favor of blowing up buildings?
And owning a gun would be a threat to the government since they know we have guns . . . whether or not the gun was actually used.
I’m just thinking out loud here.
That makes some sense, I grant you.
I may be coming around to your point of view . . . although I still think a gun is a weak weapon compared to civilized society based on law.
Look at Iraq, for instance.
Okay . . . I got places to go. Enough for one day. Chiao.
GM if your gonna make fun my nic how come you dont use your real name, James. Second when goverment power is abused it usally done at the law enforcement level, Ruby Ridge,Waco the Wedding party in N.Y, Rammparts Scandel in LA. Third since the taxpayers pay your salary shouldn’t you actually be doing some work not playing on the computer blogging its not a holiday the courts are open on friday’s
Mr. Macho:
By brandishing your shotgun, you were committing a crime. Even if someone was stealing items from your truck or the truck itself, the law does not allow a person to use deadly force to defend property. It is morons like you that give gun owners a bad name.
Wow… What a bunch of misconceptions.
Alright, historically speaking the 2nd Amendment was written for 2 main reasons:
1. To prevent tyranny.
2. To allow a person the means to defend himself
Historically speaking you are looking at a group of people whom just defeated what they considered to be a tyrannical government through means of force.
Historically speaking the founding fathers were part of a society which was more rural than urban which didn’t have the sophisticated means of policing we have today or the response time. So the means of self defense were considered to be a right.
Here you have two of the primary reasons for the 2nd amendment.
Now, it has been mentioned that somehow thinking that the 2nd amendment is to give us the means to fight against tyranny we must concede that Tim McVeigh was doing that too and was ok.
That is a false leap of logic.
The 2nd amendment doesn’t give us the right and never was intended to give us the right to simply use weaponry to enact simple change or to show our disagreement.
The key word here is TYRANNY.
If and I do say If there is ever a day where something happens, like President Bush trying to assume absolute control and begin enacting some crazy policies while herding off all the Cindy Sheehan’s to be burnt up in a furnace… where the people are being denied their rights and so decide to fight against this oppression…
Well guess what? We have the means to do it.
Let’s look at it in Context. Where we stand today it would seem improbable and unlikely that we would ever have to fight our own government.
Don’t you think that is exactly what the colonist’s attitudes were 30 years before they decided to fight?
It is just another check and balance.
The 2nd amendment is our security from not only the government but anyone else that would do our family or we harm.
Try reading some of the material our founding fathers wrote. They all studied some of the greatest philosophers of our time. Philosophers who wrote about mercenary armies, citizens with weaponry, and things of that nature.
Capn:
“So you disagreed with Tim McVeigh’s cause for blowing up the Federal Building, but you didn’t disagree with the action of blowing it up.
Under some circumstances, you would be in favor of blowing up buildings?”
You’ve mistated my position, and not by accident, of course. I think my previous writings make it clear enough, I’ll not elaborage further. Nathan certainly understands it well enough.
And Dingus, state a silly position, and yes, you’ll get called on it. I note you’ve offered no evidence as to your allegations. I’ve done you the favor of not going past your nic. I’ll thank you to do the same. We all have nics, and comparative anonymity, for various reasons. One of the beauties of the internet is the ability to do just that. It’s quite different than being able to choose your company face to face.
As to the other, it’s called multi-tasking. Not all that hard.
It is tiresome to hear people so scared of law-abiding citizens trying to defend themselves by having guns; it is no fair that the criminal law breakers get to have that right.Get real, your bare knuckles, Billy clubs or cell phones will not go up against a bullet from a gun.
GMC,If you want to take your varmint rifle up against an M1A1 or an F-16, be my guest! Whatever you’ve got, the government has considerably bigger and badder.
I like the Right to own guns. I think this is a right that is being stripped aways from us and not defended.
Was an interesting TV show on the History Channel about Supreme Court Justices and how they interpreted the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
I was never comfortable around guns, even though I went hunting and gained proficiency with them for two decades in the military. Only weapon I have now is in storage; a 90 year old shotgun.