.jpg)
Good question. Some say it is a living document, inferring of course that it has the ability to change with the wind. Congress is now prepared to lop off a limb of the living document by imposing more Draconian restrictions on the law abiding citizens of this once great country. Representative Bobby Rush (D) of Illinois (where else?) is prepared to push a bill that will drastically change the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The law would require that all handgun owners submit to the federal government a photo, thumb print and mental heath records. The bill would also order the attorney general to establish a database of every handgun sale, transfer and owner's address in America.
Now the bill is called HR 45 on the floor but Mr. Rush refers to it as the "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009." Blair was a teenager that was shot in Illinois. Nothing like tugging on the heart strings to grease the transition to a totalitarian state.
If this it is passed, the bill would make it illegal to own or possess a "qualifying firearm." A qualifying firearm is defined as any handgun or any semiautomatic firearm that takes an ammunition clip – without a "Blair Holt" license. To obtain a license, an applicant must submit a photo, address, all previous aliases, thumb print, completion of a written firearm safety test, release of mental health records to the attorney general and a fee not to exceed $25. It will also be illegal to transfer ownership to anyone other than a dealer.
This piece of crap...errr legislation is currently in the House Judiciary Committee where it should die an awful and ugly death. I believe like Charlton Heston did. They can take mine out of my cold dead hand.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The concept of a ‘living document’ is not a document that changes with the wind. Christianity has long held that the Bible is a ‘living document’ and it does not have an inference of changing with the wind.
A living document is defined by three things.
First, what the words say.
Secondly, what the were circumstances and situation in life in which the document was written.
Thirdly, the impact of the words here and now.
A significant reason we have the ability to amend the Constitution is to be able to keep in alive and to take all parts of what makes it ‘living’ into consideration. It should be noted, however, that it is a long, vigorous, and intense process to amend the Constitution and it requires a great deal more than Congress in order to do so. There have been thousands of amendments proposed over the years and the document has only been amended a very few times.
But God help us if this isn’t a living document. The alternative is not pretty.
Hmmmm, I won't get into a theological discussion about the Bible changing with the wind, although the current version along with the current model of the "Church" has changed quit drastically from what "Jesus" lived his life by. As for the gun laws, It's only a matter of time. The more I watch the blogs and see all the people out there who haven't a clue on what's going on in the world today, the more I see the writting on the wall. I'm afraid that life as we know it is going to change dramaticly over the next few years, and Daniel, I'm with you! Pry it out of my cold dead hands too, but not without the fight of their lives first!
Mr. Manzo brings up some very valid points. The comparison between the Bible and the Constitution as "living" documents and the 3 reasons John mentions make darn good sense.
And I am in FULL agreement with the late Mr. Heston.
If "Moses" said it...it MUST be the law!
B.G.
Living or not, the Second Amendment tells us as citizens that we have the right to own firearms. It was upheld by the Supreme Court in the Washington D.C. case last year. Why do amendments like the First get the lines blurred and the limits taken to new levels while the Second gets more restrictive. You have the right to bear arms...not the right for the government to constantly redefine and restrict your ability to do so.
I am not even remotely referring to the gun laws or any specific amendment. As a living document people do have a right to reconsider things and amend the document----but to do so requires ratification by, I believe, 75% of the states. Any amendment will come as the result of the prevailing will of most of the people in the country and would take years to enact. Mr. Rush has every right to propose an amendment and people voting have every right to vote it down.
It is good to note that part of what has made the United States unique and great is that we can and do have opposing viewpoints on things, debate them openly, and ultimately determine our own path. It is frightening whenever a totalitarian government is in place that prohibits opposing viewpoints. Our national health and our freedom not only expects debate but ultimately demands it. It isn't that we have the Bobby Rushes or the Daniel Shorts of the world, left or right, that challenges us; it's when we no longer have them that the fabric of our nation unravels.
Good points John. I do however believe that Mr. Rush is skirting the process by calling for restrictions that ultimately when enacted create a situation that renders an entire amendment useless. Sure the Second Amendment will always be on paper, you just won't be able to do anything with it.
Post a Comment