raiven Posted March 24, 2009 at 01:54 PM Share Posted March 24, 2009 at 01:54 PM anyone see anything wrong here? Obama Rewrites Second Amendment? </H3>From the official White House website [More]:The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ll5chfz1qFU/ScewGrD-frI/AAAAAAAAD5Q/idDEiW9ajoU/s320/ScreenHunter_01%20Mar.%2023%2011.49.jpgClick to enlarge I suppose just posting the Bill of Rights without agenda-driven editorial interpretations would be too complicated? What presumptuous frauds these scoundrels are. Tell me there isn't intent here. What the government giveth, the government taketh away? Not while I breathe. And yes--I've checked to see if this is carryover language. So far, it looks like it's new. http://waronguns.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardM Posted March 24, 2009 at 02:18 PM Share Posted March 24, 2009 at 02:18 PM actually..this is false...look at the wording for the rest of the amendments...it gives an overview of the amendments...not the real wording Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirMatthew Posted March 24, 2009 at 02:21 PM Share Posted March 24, 2009 at 02:21 PM To be fair, the rest of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights are also paraphrased in a way to make for easier reading on that webpage. Nevertheless, why phrase the 2A as "bear arms" rather than "keep and bear arms"? They didn't delete these two words to save space as that single-line sentence is the shortest one on the page. One might interpret their wording of the 2A to mean we could bear arms (as in when the government puts them in our hands, aka military), but not keep them. I don't know if it was intentional or not, but I know there is a more authoritive version of the Bill of Rights elsewhere. Doesn't surprise me, but doesn't really change anything either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raiven Posted March 24, 2009 at 02:29 PM Author Share Posted March 24, 2009 at 02:29 PM i just knoticed that the word keep was not there, just bear arms why leave out half? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardM Posted March 24, 2009 at 02:40 PM Share Posted March 24, 2009 at 02:40 PM well what did the website say when bush was in office? that would make the big diff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Johnson Posted March 24, 2009 at 02:42 PM Share Posted March 24, 2009 at 02:42 PM I'm surprised they got as close as they did.I would not have been surprised to see:The second ammendment grants some citizens the priveledge to bear some arms in some places subject to reasonable restrictions as determined by the police state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPK Posted March 24, 2009 at 02:46 PM Share Posted March 24, 2009 at 02:46 PM That is just SO WRONG!! The Second Ammendment doesn't give us any rights at all. It states that the Government will not infringe on a right we already have. The whole Bill of Rights is there to put limits on the government, not to grant rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaeghl Posted March 24, 2009 at 03:12 PM Share Posted March 24, 2009 at 03:12 PM True, PPK. I've always considered the 2nd Amendment as "RECOGNIZING A PRE-EXISTING RIGHT", instead of "Granting" any right. Pre-existing right? Yep. Remember, every living organism has the natural 'right' to defend it's own life and home, be it a bear in the wild using the best means available, (claws and teeth) to defend it's own life or den where it's cubs are, a mallard flying in the face of a fox , again the best means available (aggression and startling movement), to defend it's mate, it's nest or it's eggs, or a human keepingand using the best means available to defend his or her own life, home or family. Since I'm a human and not in the best physical shape anymore, the best means available to me sends itty-bitty chunks of metal along at several hundreed feet/second at threats to me, my home, my family AND MY LIBERTY. The 2nd never 'gave' me a right. Give me something, and that means it can be taken away at the granter's whim. Stepping off the soapbox now, pardon the rant this early in the morning. Have a nice day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flagtag Posted March 25, 2009 at 12:54 AM Share Posted March 25, 2009 at 12:54 AM I printed out a copy in case they try to "change" it again. Too bad there are millions of copies of the original, huh? Wonder what he plans to do with them? And, I wonder if this has a connection to the WGN radio show topic of "repealing" the Second Amendment. Hmmm............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Guardian Posted March 25, 2009 at 12:55 AM Share Posted March 25, 2009 at 12:55 AM The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms. Not quite, but they're admitting it? That's shocking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flagtag Posted March 25, 2009 at 01:37 AM Share Posted March 25, 2009 at 01:37 AM The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms. Not quite, but they're admitting it? That's shocking. They are "admitting" to THEIR version. Not the correct version. Maybe they are hoping that people will read that version and believe that the RIGHT is GIVEN by the Constitution (and our government), so it could be taken away at any time by the government. (Or "Repealed"?) Those of you with school age children/grandchildren, please keep an eye (and ear) on what they are being taught in class and correct any false teachings if you catch them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWBH Posted March 25, 2009 at 02:32 AM Share Posted March 25, 2009 at 02:32 AM That is just SO WRONG!! The Second Ammendment doesn't give us any rights at all. It states that the Government will not infringe on a right we already have. The whole Bill of Rights is there to put limits on the government, not to grant rights. You are dead on target my man... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glock21 Posted March 25, 2009 at 08:54 PM Share Posted March 25, 2009 at 08:54 PM That is just SO WRONG!! The Second Ammendment doesn't give us any rights at all. It states that the Government will not infringe on a right we already have. The whole Bill of Rights is there to put limits on the government, not to grant rights. You are dead on target my man... Second that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted March 26, 2009 at 01:41 PM Share Posted March 26, 2009 at 01:41 PM Dear President Obama: I was persusing the White House web page on the constitution, and found a grave error that you should correct. The error is found here:http://www.whitehouse.gov/our_government/the_constitution/ Your website claims that "The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms." That statement is patently incorrect. The second amendment does not "give" citizens anything ... it merely commands that the government shall not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. See the DC v. Heller Supreme Court decision (128 S. Ct. 2783, 2008) for a thorough discussion of this matter. In particular, the court stated: " ... it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), '[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .'” You have repeatedly claimed to support the second amendment, and you have sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. As such, it's crucially important that you not incorrectly characterize the document and the limitations on government power that it establishes. Failure to do so seriously erodes your credibility among the American people. I will anticipate your response on this important issue. Sincerely, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
predator1972baz Posted March 26, 2009 at 02:09 PM Share Posted March 26, 2009 at 02:09 PM anyone see anything wrong here? Obama Rewrites Second Amendment? </H3>From the official White House website [More]:The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ll5chfz1qFU/ScewGrD-frI/AAAAAAAAD5Q/idDEiW9ajoU/s320/ScreenHunter_01%20Mar.%2023%2011.49.jpgClick to enlarge I suppose just posting the Bill of Rights without agenda-driven editorial interpretations would be too complicated? What presumptuous frauds these scoundrels are. Tell me there isn't intent here. What the government giveth, the government taketh away? Not while I breathe. And yes--I've checked to see if this is carryover language. So far, it looks like it's new. http://waronguns.blogspot.com/ Dude this is fearmongering, plain and simple. There was a rumor that Obama changed the oath enlisted and officers take when they join the military saying that he changed it from serving and protecting the constitution to serving and protecting him. Such things are designed to scare people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flagtag Posted March 26, 2009 at 06:48 PM Share Posted March 26, 2009 at 06:48 PM anyone see anything wrong here? Obama Rewrites Second Amendment? </H3>From the official White House website [More]:The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ll5chfz1qFU/ScewGrD-frI/AAAAAAAAD5Q/idDEiW9ajoU/s320/ScreenHunter_01%20Mar.%2023%2011.49.jpgClick to enlarge I suppose just posting the Bill of Rights without agenda-driven editorial interpretations would be too complicated? What presumptuous frauds these scoundrels are. Tell me there isn't intent here. What the government giveth, the government taketh away? Not while I breathe. And yes--I've checked to see if this is carryover language. So far, it looks like it's new. http://waronguns.blogspot.com/ Dude this is fearmongering, plain and simple. There was a rumor that Obama changed the oath enlisted and officers take when they join the military saying that he changed it from serving and protecting the constitution to serving and protecting him. Such things are designed to scare people. AND to create DICTATORS! I'm surprised that if the Military Oath WAS changed, that our men and women haven't REFUSED to take the Oath to enlist (some might if they didn't know that they aren't supposed to swear an oath to protect any man/woman) or re-inlist. No job is worth selling out your nation and her people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ol'Coach Posted March 26, 2009 at 06:56 PM Share Posted March 26, 2009 at 06:56 PM Curent oaths of office and oaths of enlistment: Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted March 26, 2009 at 07:05 PM Share Posted March 26, 2009 at 07:05 PM Dude this is fearmongering, plain and simple. Such things are designed to scare people. You are right ... I don't like fear-mongering, either. But I will tell you one thing ... I do not trust Obama AT ALL on the issue of my right to own and carry guns, and I am damned glad that people are holding his feet to the fire on this issue. We will remain ever more vigilant, as he quickly and massively expands the reach of the federal government into banks, insurance, auto industry, energy industry, education, and health care. If he is willing to go there ... I'd say he's willing to come into my gun safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hossua Posted March 26, 2009 at 07:23 PM Share Posted March 26, 2009 at 07:23 PM anyone see anything wrong here? Obama Rewrites Second Amendment? </H3>From the official White House website [More]:The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ll5chfz1qFU/ScewGrD-frI/AAAAAAAAD5Q/idDEiW9ajoU/s320/ScreenHunter_01%20Mar.%2023%2011.49.jpgClick to enlarge I suppose just posting the Bill of Rights without agenda-driven editorial interpretations would be too complicated? What presumptuous frauds these scoundrels are. Tell me there isn't intent here. What the government giveth, the government taketh away? Not while I breathe. And yes--I've checked to see if this is carryover language. So far, it looks like it's new. http://waronguns.blogspot.com/ Dude this is fearmongering, plain and simple. There was a rumor that Obama changed the oath enlisted and officers take when they join the military saying that he changed it from serving and protecting the constitution to serving and protecting him. Such things are designed to scare people.Exactly. But the fact is that government has been off the rails for a LONG time. Obama is just a scapegoat. He isn't doing anything that any other recent president didn't want to do. With the global economic crisis he has a chance to do what scumbag politicians do best, exploit tragedy. This is bigger than Obama. And while you may be called crazy for thinking it, that is the truth. England is about to implode on itself from all the crap they have been doing. We have escaped most of the socialism crap because they are afraid to push too hard here, well we got a front man now, and the hard core left loves him. The daily tripe paraded accross the "mainstream" media is all shadow games. The right is spreading lies too though.... Gotta vet any information you get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.