Friday, October 05, 2007

Turning the tide?

Thanks to Ace of Spades, which linked to this editorial. A journalist has apparently found an old copy of the Constitution, and then read it. And found something amazing: The Bill of Rights has an amendment in there (I think it's the second one down, but don't quote me) which allows people to own guns!!

I think the exact words are "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Anyway, the journalist in question- Johnathon Turley- thinks that this amendment was intended by the Framers to work in the exact same way as the one above it, which apparently allows people to exercise their religion freely, and also allows them to speak and assemble freely.

Hmmm. Sounds interesting, but can this be? After all, the media (when they aren't trumpeting their importance to "Truth, Justice, and... all that" (a big "hello" to the 4 people that saw the new Superman movie this year and get the point) has long said that this notional "right to keep and bear arms" doesn't really exist.

So perhaps some liberals are starting to read beyond the First Amendment. Trust me, there's a lot more to the Constitution than just that first part. Who knows, if they read a bit farther perhaps they'll discover a couple other interesting facts. Like the fact that "the wall of separation between church and state" that they so love to lecture people on isn't actually in the Constitution. Or, if they keep reading, they might notice a very distinct oversight: I have it on good authority (i.e my own lying eyes) that the word "abortion" doesn't actually appear anywhere in the Constitution. And even more amazing, there is a line in the Document that implies very strongly (i.e. explicitly states) that any power not mentioned is reserved to the states and the people.

Which would seem to suggest (and any liberals, try to follow along here) that if abortion isn't mentioned, it isn't a matter that the Federal Government has any business discussing. And therefore, the legality of abortion should be decided by each individual state. Thus suggesting that "a woman's constitutional right to choose" is a complete load of hooey.

It's all there, folks. Read it and understand.

No comments: