A novice's take on the local, state and national political scenes
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Tiller murdered
We'll know more about who killed Dr. Tiller soon, but if it turns out to be the likely scenerio of a fervent abortion opponent, it will be an act of terrorism — meant to strike fear in those living within the law
It wasn't terrorism, it was an assassination. Do you fear for your life because you are pro-choice? I see this incident very much like the gay issue (follow me here). It is the radical ones that make the most noise, make the biggest deal about it, and are the smallest part of the movement. This guy was a nut-job, and had views held by very, very few pro-lifers. Yes, most pro-lifers did not approve of what Teller did, but to assassinate the man (bullet to the forehead), uh, no one approves of that. If the pro-life movement approved of such actions, then there would be a lot more bombing, killings, etc. Then it would be domestic terrorism. Back to my gay-movement comment; most gays I know (i know a quite few couples, but not around here), live pretty peaceful lives. They are a little upset about the whole marriage thing, but they are law abiding citizens. It really frustrates them when they see other gays speak out, as for them, it calls attention to them. They want to integrate into society, not be a sector of society. The guy they caught was an anti-gov't, radical pro-life, anti-everything (according to his ex-wife), so I think he doesn't represent anybody except himself.
My thoughts and prayers go out to the Tiller family.
I myself have never had an abortion, but I know of girls who have. They weren't having them for a form of birth control, but to save their life. I had one friend who was 4 months pregnant and they found out her baby was going to be severly deformed. That is , he would have had no arms, possibly be paralyzed and possibly mentally retarded. Is it fair to bring a child into this world in that condition?? This was a very hard decision for her but she chose to terminate the pregancy. she told me that her experience at Dr. Tiller's clinic was a very positive one and they treated her with the upmost respect. She was very thankful that there was a place for her to go to take care of her needs so her baby did not need to suffer.
And for all of you people that are against abortion. What would you do if you or your daughter or loved one was brutally raped by some crack head and got your loved one pregnant. Can you honestly tell me that you could have that baby and not think about how that baby was conceived everytime you looked at it? You could never mentally heal.
yes. good point, yet you can kind of tell where this discussion will end up by the opening salvo of this thread on the little-bitty traveler. imagine what the washed-up washingtonpost will do with it. it's sad. you can't kill people because you disagree with them. not in America anyway.
@ 10:06 I agree with you totally. I am not pro-choice, but statistics do show that those cases are rare. I too know of people that have had abortions for many reasons, most of them for birth control. I don't think abortion would be as big of an issue if it was always about those types of cases. I think most pro-life people I know agree in those cases you have to make tough decisions. I just wish everyone would quit pointing fingers in this sad time.
Anon @ 6:32 am: You make sense, but why isn't that logic applied to other groups as well? Like "terrorists" for example. There is only a small group of "Muslims" that twist their religion to justify their actions, so why would all Muslims be lumped into this terrorist group? It wasn't too long ago when most Jewish, Christian, and Islamic clerics could agree that they all worshipped the same God. Obviously, that has changed recently.
Was Tiller a "murderer?" I don't think so. He practiced well within the law. Why not accuse the mother of being a murderer? Why not the father? The grandparents? They are the ones that make these decisions, are they not? And let's say that the woman makes the "right choice." What is she labeled as a mother by the same people that want her to have the baby? "Unwed Mother" or she "lives in sin." What is the child labeled by these same people? "Born out of wedlock" or "Bastard." How many children have these people adopted as a whole? Get the point? Wait, it's only a few that do things like this....
Well said joweto....I will be praying for strength for Dr. Tillers family, friends, and employees. I was a patient of Dr. Tillers in the late 90's. I was in my mid 30's, and thrilled to be pregnant, but I had an abortion. Judge me if you like, but my husband and I made the best decision for us. My baby girl had Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome and Turner Syndrome, with a very small chance of survival, and a very low quality of life if she did survive her birth. Dr.Tiller was totally professional and very caring. I have nothing but praise for him and his staff. We had a very heart wrenching decision to make, but it was the right decision for us, and I am very grateful for Dr. Tillers' expertise and compassion. I read a quote from Dr. Tiller yesterday, and can't remember the exact words, but the idea behind the statement was: Why give women the tests to find abnormalities, but not the choices to go along with the knowledge? So true. Don't judge people until you have walked in their shoes. Our decision was definitely the toughest one that we have ever made..we have gone on to have a health son. Thank you Dr. Tiller, and may you rest in peace.
Scott Roeder will obviously be found not guilty on all charges by a Kansas jury. He will then be hired for a new show on Fox news in between Glen Beck and Shawn Hannity. Joe the Plumber will be hired as his band leader.
Of those 13 million babies how many would you have adopted and raised as your own? Everyone says there are plenty of people to adopt but look at at all the parents that had their babies and then because they weren't wanted to begin with they are waiting for adoption being shuffled from foster home to foster home! Many of the 13 million are because of medical reasons or in cases of rape and incest...Could you raise a child from the person that raped you or a father that molested you??? Doctor Tiller helped many women and I applaud him for continuing to practice when his life was on the line. He was a good man providing perfectly legal services to women! Whether or not you find it moral or not is not for you to decide...that is for each woman that walks through that door to decide for herself!
"Why where all of Hitler's lynchmen tried for war crimes then?
Because, after the war, what they had been doing was found to be crimes against hunanity, and they were tried in world courts. But in Germany they had been acting under law. Hitler's law. All perfectly legal. There are many laws in other countries that we would find barbaric. Just as I believe killing babies for convenience is.
Maybe someday all the abortion doctors will be put on trial for crimes against humanity.
The point that was being made is that just because something is legal, doesn't make it right.
The original version of the 2nd amendment had a semicolon separating the justification and declarative clauses. Under this interpretation, the opening phrase is considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause. This grammatical description is considered by some to be consistent with the concept of the Second Amendment as protecting a collective right to firearms for members serving in a select militia. When the amendment was transcribed, the semicolon was changed to a comma by a senate scribe. This changes the meaning greatly. NRAers take this now to mean they can own any and/or all firearms available.
UZI, like Kleenex and Coke is an example of a brand name that has become generic.
You only helped in my attempt to show the intelligence of certain factions.
Oh, and if you spend about 5 seconds searching Freud, you'll find he was a drug addict. And while Ghandi's quote is nice, it has been shown not to be the case.
Next months issue of nra newsletter will give you more propag... err - arguments.
Just so everyone here knows what Tiller was doing on a daily basis, here is a description.
Late Term Abortion – The procedures There are three general procedures of late-term abortions and partial birth abortions. The first and most popular is called D&E (Dilation and evacuation). Once the cervix is dilated, the fetus is removed by inserting forceps into the uterus. The Fetus is then separated into pieces. These “pieces” of your baby will be removed one at a time. Vacuum aspiration is then used to ensure no tissue remains in the uterus.
The second procedure is early induction of labor. This is very painful and intense for the woman and is rarely used as an abortion procedure.
The third procedure is called Intact D&X surgery. This procedure includes a 2-3 day process to gradually dilate the cervix using sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell. Once this process is finished, the doctor uses forceps and grasps the baby’s leg to turn it to breech position. The baby is then pulled out of the birth canal, leaving the head inside the canal. An incision is then made at the base of the baby’s skull and the brain tissue is removed, causing the skull to collapse. The entire baby is then removed.
Also remember that these procedures were done during the third trimester, when most healthy babies could survive outside the womb. Then also consider that Tiller was using the excuse of the mother being stressed or depressed in order to carry out these abortions.
If it doesn't make you sick to imagine that, then you are not human.
First of all, you are way off in your interpretation of the Second amendment and the spirit in which it was written. Second of all "NRAers" don't believe that people should be allowed to have automatic weapons or explosives, just semi autos will do, thank you. Self defense is the key to all of this.
Some history:
James Madison proposed nine amendments. The fourth included not only a right to keep and bear arms, but also other rights such as a right to due process. The portion that would become the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor of the House of Representatives during the first session of the First Congress, was:
--------------------------------- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[44]
(Hey, you're right. The semicolon does make a big difference. EXACTLY OPPOSITE TO YOUR POSITION!!!!) ----------------------------------
No official records were kept of the committee's proceedings, but the committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[46] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:
---------------------------------- A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[47] -----------------------------------
The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House on August 17 and August 20.[48] These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate: ---------------------------------- A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. -----------------------------------
The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:
(See, it was only in the religious exception portion, and makes no difference in the People vs Militia argument. Which really shouldn't be an argument at all, since the people WERE the militia)
---------------------------------- A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[49] ----------------------------------
By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a Representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to "be passed upon distinctly by the States."[50]
On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:
---------------------------------- A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. ----------------------------------
The Senate returned to this Amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "For the common defence" next to the words "Bear Arms" was defeated. The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was: ----------------------------------- A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. -----------------------------------
The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the Amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":
----------------------------------- A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. -----------------------------------
This version was transmitted to the states for ratification.
On December 15, 1791, the Virginia General Assembly ratified the Bill of Rights, thereby achieving the ratification of three-fourths of the states needed to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.
So, you don't like the Gandhi quote? (I agree that scholars have said he wasn't talking about an individuals right)
Here are a couple more you might find interesting:
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
-Thomas Jefferson
(I suppose you're gona tell me he was a crackpot?)
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
-Samual Adams
“On every occasion…[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
-Thomas Jefferson: (June 12 1823, Letter to William Johnson)
And hey, I found one where the person thinks the same way most liberals do:
“The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subject peoples to possess arms. "
"I have never been so ashamed as I am this week that I live in kansas."
YEAH, ME TOO. But only because our state allowed Tiller to kill babies inthe thrid trimester for things such as "Stress" or Depression". These things are against the law, and if the law had done it's job and put a stop to his illegal practices, then maybe someone wouldn't have felt like taking the law into their own hands was the only solution.
Silence is for the stupidity of some of the responses on here...seriously you do NOT have the right to decide what I do with my body EVER!!!! And if that is what I think is right for me, my baby and family then YOU DO NOT HAVE A SAY! I too am ashamed that I live in such a state that is happy when one is murdered to prove that that what he did legally is morally wrong...You don't get to choose when you are Pro Life!
"seriously you do NOT have the right to decide what I do with my body EVER!!!! And if that is what I think is right for me, my baby and family then YOU DO NOT HAVE A SAY!"
Congratulations! You get to decide that dying is the right thing for your baby! I guess your baby won't get to choose whether it lives or dies, since you know better for them. Sad. He or she will never get to laugh, cry, go to school, go to the prom, graduate high School, love, get married, have babies, watch their babies have babies, spoil their grandchildren... etc etc, all because YOU get to choose to kill them rather than have them be an inconvenience.
Congratulations on your right to choose who lives and dies.
I hope you think often of the life your baby could have led.
Nope my baby didnt get to choose and as a parent that is my job to decide what is best just as I do with my children now! Would my life be different??? Not much because I would have mourned each and every day as I do now! She would not have survived and I could have possibly lost my life as well...I do find it funny that you call yourselves Christian but you don't have any compassion to the circumstances that lead us to that choice. I will pray for you to look at the sides of the women that have to make that kind of choice...they could use your compassion not your judgement. I AM a moral person and although I know I made the right decision it does not make a bad person or murderer!
37 comments:
This is a sad day.
Nah, it will only strike fear into people who murder babies.
I will keep his family, friends, employees and the many women he was to help in the coming days in my prayers! What a tragedy!
It wasn't terrorism, it was an assassination. Do you fear for your life because you are pro-choice?
I see this incident very much like the gay issue (follow me here). It is the radical ones that make the most noise, make the biggest deal about it, and are the smallest part of the movement. This guy was a nut-job, and had views held by very, very few pro-lifers. Yes, most pro-lifers did not approve of what Teller did, but to assassinate the man (bullet to the forehead), uh, no one approves of that. If the pro-life movement approved of such actions, then there would be a lot more bombing, killings, etc. Then it would be domestic terrorism. Back to my gay-movement comment; most gays I know (i know a quite few couples, but not around here), live pretty peaceful lives. They are a little upset about the whole marriage thing, but they are law abiding citizens. It really frustrates them when they see other gays speak out, as for them, it calls attention to them. They want to integrate into society, not be a sector of society.
The guy they caught was an anti-gov't, radical pro-life, anti-everything (according to his ex-wife), so I think he doesn't represent anybody except himself.
June 1, 2009 6:32 AM
Oh no, you can't rob the left of their new poster child for the radical rightwing conspiracy to assasinate all abortion Doctors.
No matter how valid your point is.
My thoughts and prayers go out to the Tiller family.
I myself have never had an abortion, but I know of girls who have. They weren't having them for a form of birth control, but to save their life. I had one friend who was 4 months pregnant and they found out her baby was going to be severly deformed. That is , he would have had no arms, possibly be paralyzed and possibly mentally retarded. Is it fair to bring a child into this world in that condition?? This was a very hard decision for her but she chose to terminate the pregancy. she told me that her experience at Dr. Tiller's clinic was a very positive one and they treated her with the upmost respect. She was very thankful that there was a place for her to go to take care of her needs so her baby did not need to suffer.
And for all of you people that are against abortion. What would you do if you or your daughter or loved one was brutally raped by some crack head and got your loved one pregnant. Can you honestly tell me that you could have that baby and not think about how that baby was conceived everytime you looked at it? You could never mentally heal.
@June 1, 2009 6:32 AM
yes. good point, yet you can kind of tell where this discussion will end up by the opening salvo of this thread on the little-bitty traveler. imagine what the washed-up washingtonpost will do with it.
it's sad. you can't kill people because you disagree with them. not in America anyway.
@ 10:06
I agree with you totally. I am not pro-choice, but statistics do show that those cases are rare. I too know of people that have had abortions for many reasons, most of them for birth control. I don't think abortion would be as big of an issue if it was always about those types of cases. I think most pro-life people I know agree in those cases you have to make tough decisions. I just wish everyone would quit pointing fingers in this sad time.
Anon @ 5:43 pm: Spoken like a true terrorist.
Anon @ 6:32 am: You make sense, but why isn't that logic applied to other groups as well? Like "terrorists" for example. There is only a small group of "Muslims" that twist their religion to justify their actions, so why would all Muslims be lumped into this terrorist group? It wasn't too long ago when most Jewish, Christian, and Islamic clerics could agree that they all worshipped the same God. Obviously, that has changed recently.
Was Tiller a "murderer?" I don't think so. He practiced well within the law. Why not accuse the mother of being a murderer? Why not the father? The grandparents? They are the ones that make these decisions, are they not? And let's say that the woman makes the "right choice." What is she labeled as a mother by the same people that want her to have the baby? "Unwed Mother" or she "lives in sin." What is the child labeled by these same people? "Born out of wedlock" or "Bastard." How many children have these people adopted as a whole? Get the point? Wait, it's only a few that do things like this....
Well said joweto....I will be praying for strength for Dr. Tillers family, friends, and employees. I was a patient of Dr. Tillers in the late 90's. I was in my mid 30's, and thrilled to be pregnant, but I had an abortion. Judge me if you like, but my husband and I made the best decision for us. My baby girl had Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome and Turner Syndrome, with a very small chance of survival, and a very low quality of life if she did survive her birth. Dr.Tiller was totally professional and very caring. I have nothing but praise for him and his staff. We had a very heart wrenching decision to make, but it was the right decision for us, and I am very grateful for Dr. Tillers' expertise and compassion. I read a quote from Dr. Tiller yesterday, and can't remember the exact words, but the idea behind the statement was: Why give women the tests to find abnormalities, but not the choices to go along with the knowledge? So true. Don't judge people until you have walked in their shoes. Our decision was definitely the toughest one that we have ever made..we have gone on to have a health son. Thank you Dr. Tiller, and may you rest in peace.
When are you lefties gonna stop calling anyone who kills someone a terrorist?
Was Oswald a terrorist? Was James Earl Ray a terrorist?
No, they were lone gunmen. Disturbed, yes, but terrorists, no.
Scott Roeder will obviously be found not guilty on all charges by a Kansas jury. He will then be hired for a new show on Fox news in between Glen Beck and Shawn Hannity. Joe the Plumber will be hired as his band leader.
I heard the set for the show is already built; complete with high horses and pedestals.
Ah, liberal humor. Dead babies is such a funny subject!
Why where all of Hitler's lynchmen tried for war crimes then? Is this guy for real????????
They won't even acknowledge your views. You're wasting your breath. They also think a semicolon means they can have Uzis.
Of those 13 million babies how many would you have adopted and raised as your own? Everyone says there are plenty of people to adopt but look at at all the parents that had their babies and then because they weren't wanted to begin with they are waiting for adoption being shuffled from foster home to foster home! Many of the 13 million are because of medical reasons or in cases of rape and incest...Could you raise a child from the person that raped you or a father that molested you???
Doctor Tiller helped many women and I applaud him for continuing to practice when his life was on the line. He was a good man providing perfectly legal services to women! Whether or not you find it moral or not is not for you to decide...that is for each woman that walks through that door to decide for herself!
There is no semicolon in the second amendment.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Learn to read.
BTW, Uzi is a gun manufacturer that makes many legal firearms, so we can, in fact, all have Uzis.
Hope I helped you out.
"Why where all of Hitler's lynchmen tried for war crimes then?
Because, after the war, what they had been doing was found to be crimes against hunanity, and they were tried in world courts. But in Germany they had been acting under law. Hitler's law. All perfectly legal. There are many laws in other countries that we would find barbaric. Just as I believe killing babies for convenience is.
Maybe someday all the abortion doctors will be put on trial for crimes against humanity.
The point that was being made is that just because something is legal, doesn't make it right.
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
-GANDHI
That's right, GANDHI!
“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”
-Sigmund Freud (“General Introduction to Psychoanalysis,” S. Freud)
LOL
"Many of the 13 million are because of medical reasons or in cases of rape and incest..."
That is simply not true. Here are the statistics for the United States.
Approximately 1.3 million abortions happen per year.
3,700 each and every day.
93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child.
ONLY 1% OF ABORTIONS ARE BECAUSE OF RAPE OR INCEST.
Does that change your view at all?
"Whether or not you find it moral or not is not for you to decide..."
Uh, What? I don't get to decide what I think is moral? Are you going to decide that for me? Maybe Obama can tell me what I think is moral or not?
The original version of the 2nd amendment had a semicolon separating the justification and declarative clauses. Under this interpretation, the opening phrase is considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause. This grammatical description is considered by some to be consistent with the concept of the Second Amendment as protecting a collective right to firearms for members serving in a select militia. When the amendment was transcribed, the semicolon was changed to a comma by a senate scribe. This changes the meaning greatly. NRAers take this now to mean they can own any and/or all firearms available.
UZI, like Kleenex and Coke is an example of a brand name that has become generic.
You only helped in my attempt to show the intelligence of certain factions.
Oh, and if you spend about 5 seconds searching Freud, you'll find he was a drug addict. And while Ghandi's quote is nice, it has been shown not to be the case.
Next months issue of nra newsletter will give you more propag... err - arguments.
Just so everyone here knows what Tiller was doing on a daily basis, here is a description.
Late Term Abortion – The procedures
There are three general procedures of late-term abortions and partial birth abortions. The first and most popular is called D&E (Dilation and evacuation). Once the cervix is dilated, the fetus is removed by inserting forceps into the uterus. The Fetus is then separated into pieces. These “pieces” of your baby will be removed one at a time. Vacuum aspiration is then used to ensure no tissue remains in the uterus.
The second procedure is early induction of labor. This is very painful and intense for the woman and is rarely used as an abortion procedure.
The third procedure is called Intact D&X surgery. This procedure includes a 2-3 day process to gradually dilate the cervix using sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell. Once this process is finished, the doctor uses forceps and grasps the baby’s leg to turn it to breech position. The baby is then pulled out of the birth canal, leaving the head inside the canal. An incision is then made at the base of the baby’s skull and the brain tissue is removed, causing the skull to collapse. The entire baby is then removed.
Also remember that these procedures were done during the third trimester, when most healthy babies could survive outside the womb. Then also consider that Tiller was using the excuse of the mother being stressed or depressed in order to carry out these abortions.
If it doesn't make you sick to imagine that, then you are not human.
@ 5:37
Thank you for sharing your story!
First of all, you are way off in your interpretation of the Second amendment and the spirit in which it was written. Second of all "NRAers" don't believe that people should be allowed to have automatic weapons or explosives, just semi autos will do, thank you. Self defense is the key to all of this.
Some history:
James Madison proposed nine amendments. The fourth included not only a right to keep and bear arms, but also other rights such as a right to due process. The portion that would become the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor of the House of Representatives during the first session of the First Congress, was:
---------------------------------
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[44]
(Hey, you're right. The semicolon does make a big difference. EXACTLY OPPOSITE TO YOUR POSITION!!!!)
----------------------------------
No official records were kept of the committee's proceedings, but the committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[46] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:
----------------------------------
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[47]
-----------------------------------
The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House on August 17 and August 20.[48] These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate:
----------------------------------
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
-----------------------------------
The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:
(See, it was only in the religious exception portion, and makes no difference in the People vs Militia argument. Which really shouldn't be an argument at all, since the people WERE the militia)
----------------------------------
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[49]
----------------------------------
(Continued)
By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a Representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to "be passed upon distinctly by the States."[50]
On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:
----------------------------------
A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
----------------------------------
The Senate returned to this Amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "For the common defence" next to the words "Bear Arms" was defeated. The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:
-----------------------------------
A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
-----------------------------------
The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the Amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":
-----------------------------------
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
-----------------------------------
This version was transmitted to the states for ratification.
On December 15, 1791, the Virginia General Assembly ratified the Bill of Rights, thereby achieving the ratification of three-fourths of the states needed to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.
So, you don't like the Gandhi quote? (I agree that scholars have said he wasn't talking about an individuals right)
Here are a couple more you might find interesting:
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
-Thomas Jefferson
(I suppose you're gona tell me he was a crackpot?)
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
-Samual Adams
“On every occasion…[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
-Thomas Jefferson: (June 12 1823, Letter to William Johnson)
And hey, I found one where the person thinks the same way most liberals do:
“The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subject peoples to possess arms. "
-ADOLPH HITLER
@If it doesn't make you sick to imagine that, then you are not human.
June 3, 2009 12:42 PM
silence is deafening...I don't think they have an answer.
I have never been so ashamed as I am this week that I live in kansas.
"I have never been so ashamed as I am this week that I live in kansas."
I would have to agree with you. And probably we shouldn't be too surprised if Phil Kline is behind this somehow.
"I have never been so ashamed as I am this week that I live in kansas."
YEAH, ME TOO. But only because our state allowed Tiller to kill babies inthe thrid trimester for things such as "Stress" or Depression". These things are against the law, and if the law had done it's job and put a stop to his illegal practices, then maybe someone wouldn't have felt like taking the law into their own hands was the only solution.
Silence is for the stupidity of some of the responses on here...seriously you do NOT have the right to decide what I do with my body EVER!!!! And if that is what I think is right for me, my baby and family then YOU DO NOT HAVE A SAY! I too am ashamed that I live in such a state that is happy when one is murdered to prove that that what he did legally is morally wrong...You don't get to choose when you are Pro Life!
"seriously you do NOT have the right to decide what I do with my body EVER!!!! And if that is what I think is right for me, my baby and family then YOU DO NOT HAVE A SAY!"
Congratulations! You get to decide that dying is the right thing for your baby! I guess your baby won't get to choose whether it lives or dies, since you know better for them. Sad. He or she will never get to laugh, cry, go to school, go to the prom, graduate high School, love, get married, have babies, watch their babies have babies, spoil their grandchildren... etc etc, all because YOU get to choose to kill them rather than have them be an inconvenience.
Congratulations on your right to choose who lives and dies.
I hope you think often of the life your baby could have led.
"Silence is for the stupidity of some of the responses on here...seriously you do NOT have the right to decide what I do with my body EVER!!!!"
What if the baby inside you is a female? Do you care about HER right to choose?
Nope my baby didnt get to choose and as a parent that is my job to decide what is best just as I do with my children now! Would my life be different??? Not much because I would have mourned each and every day as I do now! She would not have survived and I could have possibly lost my life as well...I do find it funny that you call yourselves Christian but you don't have any compassion to the circumstances that lead us to that choice. I will pray for you to look at the sides of the women that have to make that kind of choice...they could use your compassion not your judgement. I AM a moral person and although I know I made the right decision it does not make a bad person or murderer!
Post a Comment