someone is using his head for more than a hatrack.
What are the odds he'd ever be considered for a seat on the SCOTUS/
I found this quote from the article very succinct ;
We also defeated the king's soldiers because they didn't know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties; they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.
That's a great piece of journalism, except I wish he had toned down some of the strong religious statements. I just don't think that 'freedom' and/or 'inalienable rights' should have to be associated with any particular religion of belief.
Still, I truly admire the Judge. He's a great supporter of individual freedoms. I used to enjoy his show on Fox "Freedom Watch". It's too bad the show was canceled.
A pretty good summary of the whole point of the Second Amendment and the underlying rationale behind it. It does indeed come down to this: are we to remain free to judge for ourselves as citizens based on our inborn sovereignty to protect and defend our very lives, or are we not. The 2A protects exactly that inherent right in all of us. And it's one of the few things that helps to empower the masses against the violent few who would prey upon us.
Liberty doesn't require a permissions slip from the "hall monitor" (read: the temporary hirelings). Hear, hear.
I just saw him on a Fox News Panel with Bret Baier. He would be the most awesome NRA spokesman ever, because he's a judge, he knows the Constitution, and he is very well-spoken.
Get this man to debate Piers Morgan NOW!
He's written a couple of decent books:
- Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When Government Breaks Its Own Laws; and
- The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land
Have read them both. Well worth the time to do so.
BTW, both are available for a penny (used) on Amazon.com. (The Godfather trilogy of films is ~$35 [used], which shows where the issue ranks on the pole, with most folks. Sigh.)
The Judge gets my vote for President.
I do NOT like religion in Government, however his mention of God in this article does nothing to offend me as his common sense and logic about our history in regards to owning guns makes the reasoning behind our constitution crystal clear.
THIS man...is who we should have to represent the gun community.
I'll put it simply. Government does not grant all our freedoms. They are inherent in every person from birth. The right to defend yourself from harm etc. does not get granted by any government.
I know what the founders meant, and I know a lot about what Judge Napolitano thinks because I have spent lots of time listening to what he has to say and I respect him a lot. But we have got to do something to separate our natural and Constitutionally protected rights to arm ourselves for self defense from the religious zealotry, at least in the eyes of the general populace who may not agree with you and I about many other things.
We can get into a larger debate about the rest of the problems that we face with how both sides of the Aisle have been wiping their collective butts with the Constitution later, right now this is "the issue" of the day because we all know that once the 2nd loses its teeth, the rest of the Constitution becomes a pretty old paper that belongs in the history books.
If you were born into a small tribe in North America before the founding of the nation and you were attacked by another man, would you need the government's permission and blessing before you defended your life? Nope, it's one of life's special gifts to defend ourselves from harm (first amendment)along with the ability to think and reason for ourselves and speak our mind even if it's not in agreement with everyone else (first amendment). It doesn't have to have any religious connotation unless you want it there. The founding fathers had strong christian values so they put God as the one who gave us those rights, but even if you don't believe in God you still have those rights. As Human Beings, we all have them until the government tries to step in and tell you otherwise.
I support things like Gay Marriage, decriminalizing personal drug use, personal privacy protection, and freedom to do as you please so long as it doesn't interfere with others. I also support personal fiscal responsibility (not leeching off the government), balanced government spending, and small, efficient governing that (at least at the federal level) doesn't interfere with the everyday lives of the people. The Democratic party has absorbed the Progressive movement of big government that will "take care of you" and Social Equality programs (socialism? maybe), leaving the old "Liberals" to align with the new Libertarian movement. The Republican party would handily collect the Libertarians up if they would see the light that you can respect the Judeo-Christian roots of this country without being a Church.
If the GOP would make that move, I think that they would handily start getting 2/3 of the vote in every election. And that 2/3 probably all support private firearms ownership, which is the whole point of this forum and this thread.
<steps off soapbox>