Don't you love how the morons For gun control try to claim the 2nd ammendment wasn't about individuals, but governmental law enforcement.
If that were the intent, why would it even be an ammedment? Were they afraid the government would disarm ITSELF?
Besides, other literature by the founding fathers make it clear (as if it weren't clear in the 2nd ammendment) that it IS for the individual citizens!
This guy is a HYPOCRITE. He says he supports our Constitution. He claims to be a lawyer. He took an oath to uphold our Constitution when elected Senator. But his 'Intl Romance Regulation Act' is one of the most UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws in US history. Now it is a FELONY to write a friendship letter or even to say 'Hello' to a woman in a foreign country. How absurd!
Senator Brownback's 'Intl Romance Regulation Act' violates the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and 10th Ammendments to our constitution. Now it is a felony for law-abiding American citizens to communicate, say 'Hello' or write friendship letters to someone in a foreign country. How absurd!
"I don't think the Second Amendment is about an "individual's right to protect himself" or about "hunting"" --
If the 2nd Amendment isn't an individual right, is the 1st? The 4th? They both use the same language the 2nd does: "right of the people."
If we have an individual right to free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable searches, etc....then we have to conclude we also have an individual right to keep and bear arms
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I didn't place only "individual" in quotation marks; read the entire statement. My emphasis isn't at all on a distinction between "individual" and "people." The Second Amendment is not about hunting or about self-defense; it's about maintaining a free state. Citizens — "individuals," "people"; whatever — in our current society, play no role in securing the nation.
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams
Three reasons = self defense, being ready for the NEXT time the government needs overthrown, and defense of the nation in case of invasion. Interestingly, the Japanese chose to bomb Hawaii, rather than invade off of the West coast BECAUSE they feared an armed resistance.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Here's the Second Amendment speaking for itself: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." "The people," in our reality, are not, by any means, the militia needed to secure a free state. I'm likely not what one might consider "a strict Constitutionalist," but, as I see it, people running around with guns isn't even protected by the Bill of Rights.
If you don't believe RKBA is the individual right that the writers SAY it is, you don't history or BASIC GRAMMAR! The first clause is an ablative absolute which changes nothing about the meaning of the second clause
If one were to say, "The teacher being sick today, class is canceled," whether or not the teacher is sick makes no difference. Class is canceled. In the same way, no matter if we need a militia or not, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I "don't history"? Preach that grammar, you assclown. If you say, "the teacher being sick to-day, class is canceled," your obvious implication (obvious to people with working brains) is, class is canceled to-day BECAUSE the teacher is sick.
The fact is, the meaning of the clause still isn't changed.
In fact, in Article I, Section 8, the Constitution has another similar construction with regards to granting copyrights. It starts "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts,..."
If your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was true, then Congress wouldn't have power to give people who right books not useful to "science and the useful arts" a copyright. Howard Stern would never have been able to publish his book!
You also need to look up some words that have changed in meaning since the late 18th century
"well-regulated" doesn't mean government-run. It literally means "well functioning"
"Militia" does not mean professional military force (at least not to the founders). If you're a male between the ages of 16 and 45, YOU ARE IN THE "MILITIA!"
George Mason, Father of The Bill of Rights, said: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials."
You need to not read what's not there: I never construed "well-regulated" to mean "government-run."
Our nation is protected from threat not by armed citizens' forming a militia but by an over-funded, extremely powerful government military. For the most part, "the people," I believe, ought not to be permitted to keep arms.
RKBA is clearly protected in the 2Am both from the onstruction of the amendment and from what the writers said it meant. You disagree w/ the founders. Fine, try to pass an amendment and if enough ppl agree w/ your anti-human rights view, it'll pass
"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can" -- Sam Adams
Actually, Senator Brownback is compassionate and is doing a lot of work that Republicans and Democrats support, for instance, against international human trafficking.
There is NEVER been a single conviction for intl human trafficking involving a intl penpal service (no known as a sinister-sounding 'marriage broker', which proves that Brownback's 'Intl Romance Regulation Act' is a SCANDAL based on fraud, lies, deception, cooked statistics, sensationalism, and 'manufactured' hysteria to support ulterior motives: to keep American men away from foreign women, and to keep out foreign competition.
Brownback licks balls..all the time..
thecleanerification 3 months ago
Don't you love how the morons For gun control try to claim the 2nd ammendment wasn't about individuals, but governmental law enforcement.
If that were the intent, why would it even be an ammedment? Were they afraid the government would disarm ITSELF?
Besides, other literature by the founding fathers make it clear (as if it weren't clear in the 2nd ammendment) that it IS for the individual citizens!
eslake 2 years ago
Right-on Brownback!
tatry21 4 years ago
AN A rating from the anti-Gun NRA is nothign to brag about. The NRA is ANTI-GUNS....
RON PAUL is 1,000 times more pro gun than anyone else...the 2nd amendment is not for self defense or hunting..it's to prevent tyranny.
SeppLainer 4 years ago
This guy is a HYPOCRITE. He says he supports our Constitution. He claims to be a lawyer. He took an oath to uphold our Constitution when elected Senator. But his 'Intl Romance Regulation Act' is one of the most UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws in US history. Now it is a FELONY to write a friendship letter or even to say 'Hello' to a woman in a foreign country. How absurd!
RepealIMBRA 4 years ago
hes realy iffy so far i still support ron paul
realamerican45 4 years ago
Most people utilize guns rightly. Most people don't get in car accidents when going over the speed limit.
apromoterofgod 4 years ago
Senator Brownback's 'Intl Romance Regulation Act' violates the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and 10th Ammendments to our constitution. Now it is a felony for law-abiding American citizens to communicate, say 'Hello' or write friendship letters to someone in a foreign country. How absurd!
NoBrounback 4 years ago
Brownback is awesome!!! Defending our right to bear arms!!!
iloveihop2008 4 years ago
the rosiness of the comments makes me wonder about your stance on the first amendment
NILgravity 4 years ago
I don't think the Second Amendment is about an "individual's right to protect himself" or about "hunting" — of course, I'm no rocket scientist.
Commando303X 4 years ago
If we throw out the use of "the people" in one part, we have to throw it out in all other parts. Of coruse I am not rocket scientist either commando.
jasonfin1128 4 years ago
Why would we throw out "the people" in any part?
Commando303X 4 years ago
"I don't think the Second Amendment is about an "individual's right to protect himself" or about "hunting"" --
If the 2nd Amendment isn't an individual right, is the 1st? The 4th? They both use the same language the 2nd does: "right of the people."
If we have an individual right to free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable searches, etc....then we have to conclude we also have an individual right to keep and bear arms
OnGuard4Liberty 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I didn't place only "individual" in quotation marks; read the entire statement. My emphasis isn't at all on a distinction between "individual" and "people." The Second Amendment is not about hunting or about self-defense; it's about maintaining a free state. Citizens — "individuals," "people"; whatever — in our current society, play no role in securing the nation.
Commando303X 4 years ago
John Adams said what the 2nd Amendment is about:
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams
Three reasons = self defense, being ready for the NEXT time the government needs overthrown, and defense of the nation in case of invasion. Interestingly, the Japanese chose to bomb Hawaii, rather than invade off of the West coast BECAUSE they feared an armed resistance.
OnGuard4Liberty 4 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Here's the Second Amendment speaking for itself: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." "The people," in our reality, are not, by any means, the militia needed to secure a free state. I'm likely not what one might consider "a strict Constitutionalist," but, as I see it, people running around with guns isn't even protected by the Bill of Rights.
Commando303X 4 years ago
If you don't believe RKBA is the individual right that the writers SAY it is, you don't history or BASIC GRAMMAR! The first clause is an ablative absolute which changes nothing about the meaning of the second clause
If one were to say, "The teacher being sick today, class is canceled," whether or not the teacher is sick makes no difference. Class is canceled. In the same way, no matter if we need a militia or not, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period
OnGuard4Liberty 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I "don't history"? Preach that grammar, you assclown. If you say, "the teacher being sick to-day, class is canceled," your obvious implication (obvious to people with working brains) is, class is canceled to-day BECAUSE the teacher is sick.
Commando303X 4 years ago
The fact is, the meaning of the clause still isn't changed.
In fact, in Article I, Section 8, the Constitution has another similar construction with regards to granting copyrights. It starts "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts,..."
If your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was true, then Congress wouldn't have power to give people who right books not useful to "science and the useful arts" a copyright. Howard Stern would never have been able to publish his book!
OnGuard4Liberty 4 years ago 2
You also need to look up some words that have changed in meaning since the late 18th century
"well-regulated" doesn't mean government-run. It literally means "well functioning"
"Militia" does not mean professional military force (at least not to the founders). If you're a male between the ages of 16 and 45, YOU ARE IN THE "MILITIA!"
George Mason, Father of The Bill of Rights, said: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials."
OnGuard4Liberty 4 years ago 2
You need to not read what's not there: I never construed "well-regulated" to mean "government-run."
Our nation is protected from threat not by armed citizens' forming a militia but by an over-funded, extremely powerful government military. For the most part, "the people," I believe, ought not to be permitted to keep arms.
Commando303X 4 years ago
"ought not to be permitted to keep arms" --
RKBA is clearly protected in the 2Am both from the onstruction of the amendment and from what the writers said it meant. You disagree w/ the founders. Fine, try to pass an amendment and if enough ppl agree w/ your anti-human rights view, it'll pass
"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can" -- Sam Adams
OnGuard4Liberty 4 years ago
How about say one issue that can actually grab a non-repubican voted........ I love this guy because he'd give any Democrat an easy win.
lol998 4 years ago
Actually, Senator Brownback is compassionate and is doing a lot of work that Republicans and Democrats support, for instance, against international human trafficking.
Ithacastudent 4 years ago
There is NEVER been a single conviction for intl human trafficking involving a intl penpal service (no known as a sinister-sounding 'marriage broker', which proves that Brownback's 'Intl Romance Regulation Act' is a SCANDAL based on fraud, lies, deception, cooked statistics, sensationalism, and 'manufactured' hysteria to support ulterior motives: to keep American men away from foreign women, and to keep out foreign competition.
NoBrounback 4 years ago
5 stars
scottferrie 4 years ago