for realz? i mean i think Palin is dangerously insane and is hardly qualified to be president of these United States of America...but the Founders did argue over and over again that these rights they were seeking to protect were not FROM the government, but derived from God and/or Nature. in the preamble, they refer to liberty as a "Blessing." in the Federalist Papers, Adams argues that God preceded government...that man came before government, and thus government can't be the creator of his rights. God created man...man created government. etc.
Yeah, in realityville there are certain fundamental human rights and the right to own a gun isn't one of them. Maybe you can be clear what rights are derived from God in the Constitution. How about this one? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion Edit: Just to clarify, this is one of the big issues with the founding fathers and their writings to me. This sort of walking the fine line of attributing so much to God and then creating a structure of government that really is faith neutral. The neutrality is one of the reasons why it's such a success. No one has to believe anything to be a part.
I don't really want to get into an argument over the Second Amendment, but I don't believe that God given rights apply to ownership and use of physical objects, especially ones that weren't even invented (if you're a strict Creationist) until roughly 5,200 years after the creation of man. They're more basic, fundamental, and universal that that.
wikipedia the actual wording: It refers to right to bear arms being 'not infringed' meaning it already exists for everyone. Though it doesn't directly say it comes from God in this instance, if it is not coming from the government and everyone has the right than where else does it come from?
even in that case, it would still be true that the bill of rights and constitution have no relevance. Which was the original point. So I would assume you agree with me.
In Federalist Papers and in the Declaration of Independence, they're all pretty well agreed that ALL rights derive from a Creator...whether that Creator is God or Nature. They go on to say that man created government as a tool....and that the tool isn't empowered to give rights to people, since people had rights that pre-existed the creation of the tool (government). The tool itself can be absolutely faith neutral. The tool is a product of man. Whether you believe in God or not, I think we can all agree that man preceded and created government...and that government did not create man. DonnyMost is an atheist, but I bet we'd both argue that the government doesn't have power to take away certain rights that are intrinsic to being human. That's a shared belief in something greater than government...even if we'd see that something entirely different.
nice derail there doctor tallanvor! can we get back to talking about how much of a dumb **** snowbilly sarah is?
This thread is already over since Palin was already proven correct by Commodore. What is left to discuss?
That you believe that to be true shows just how lost you are. But you go ahead with yer bad self. LOL! It is clear from the clip that she had the same look on her face as when Couric asked what books she read. Deer in the headlights
Man, what a question. You sound level-headed enough that I thought you might want to exempt her, out of anyone, from your partisan protectionism. Unbelievable. I have never wanted an illegitimate political figure to be legitimized more. I'll bet tallanvor spends upwards of several thousand posts in the next 16 months trying to oust the un-oust-able black man in favor of this broom of a politician. Or any other broom.
I thought I did, until I was informed that Paul Revere also went and warned the British that Americans were coming.
LOL! Okay, you roll with that. So was he warning them while he was "ringin' those bells"? Or when he was "ridin' through those streets"? I mean, being a doctor of political science, you would know these things. I'm surprised you didn't know about this.
How can her statement (gibberish, separated phrases signifying nothing but strange images mixed with cliches) be "correct" or "incorrect." Similarly, I suppose you could argue that Ms. South Carolina was "correct" when saying many Americans don't have maps (of the world, say), and she was technically not wrong when she uttered "and such as the Iraq." BUT it was one of the most horrifying displays of a brain not working properly that we've seen. This Palin appearance was similar. The worst part, as someone pointed out earlier, is not having a few details out of order or stammering, or what-have-you. The worst part is that she wades into a topic (we've seen this time after time) where she is clearly insecure of her mental footing, but she just goes forward, kind of faking it, as if that will be okay. It's like reverting to essay time at one of her 3rd-rate community college courses. There's never a stop-and-gather-yourself moment.
Why would I spend time imagining that? What is your point? If you would like a white male example, see Dan Quayle (sp.) Et multi alia. Bush for that matter got a ton of grief for malyprops.
