Scared? Mr. Bohner (H is silent and pronounced Boner. There is no A with an e in Boner. He is scared of his own name.) was scared? He is still? I could understand it then; he had Republicans running up debt without paying for it just like his tax cuts for the wealthiest of citizens of the USA.
There are no jobs being created by the wealthiest of Americans. They are as scared as Boner is. They simply want to horde more money, that is all that is.
There is no EQUITY in the tax cuts for wealthy Americans. The Bush Tax Cuts are DISPROPORTIONATELY large for the wealthiest of Americans compared to the rest of the country. Either this is a democracy or it is a Plutocracy. Which is it? Because all I hear from Republicans is their extremism and how they love the original documents of this democracy. So, either they are adhering to the 'idea' of EQUAL UNDER THE LAW, or they aren't. It is a PRINCIPLE of our democracy. The Republicans don't care about principles. They are unprincipled? Yeah, come to think of it, they are completely unprincipled when you look at the underhanded and ludicrous tactics of their campaigns.
That weirdo in Arizona, what's her name? No, no, not Arizona, Nevada. Oh, yeah, Sharron Angle. Does she have an angle or what? The woman doesn't even know how to spell her first name. And she turns around and states, '...there are domestic, what?" What was that she said? Something like 'domestic influences' in the government that was going to undermine our democracy.'
She needs to get for real. If you want to know what is going to undermine the government, it is cowards like Boner and her that are scared of their own power and give it away to 'wealth merchants.'
"...DOMESTIC ENEMIES..."
Yeah, like her and Boner.
..."Come on,"(click title to entry - thank you) the narrator in the Reid ad says. "Sharron Angle's the one who opposed Wall Street reform, wants to protect tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, and says it's not her job to create jobs."...
There are no jobs being created by the wealthiest of Americans. They are as scared as Boner is. They simply want to horde more money, that is all that is.
There is no EQUITY in the tax cuts for wealthy Americans. The Bush Tax Cuts are DISPROPORTIONATELY large for the wealthiest of Americans compared to the rest of the country. Either this is a democracy or it is a Plutocracy. Which is it? Because all I hear from Republicans is their extremism and how they love the original documents of this democracy. So, either they are adhering to the 'idea' of EQUAL UNDER THE LAW, or they aren't. It is a PRINCIPLE of our democracy. The Republicans don't care about principles. They are unprincipled? Yeah, come to think of it, they are completely unprincipled when you look at the underhanded and ludicrous tactics of their campaigns.
That weirdo in Arizona, what's her name? No, no, not Arizona, Nevada. Oh, yeah, Sharron Angle. Does she have an angle or what? The woman doesn't even know how to spell her first name. And she turns around and states, '...there are domestic, what?" What was that she said? Something like 'domestic influences' in the government that was going to undermine our democracy.'
She needs to get for real. If you want to know what is going to undermine the government, it is cowards like Boner and her that are scared of their own power and give it away to 'wealth merchants.'
"...DOMESTIC ENEMIES..."
Yeah, like her and Boner.
..."Come on,"(click title to entry - thank you) the narrator in the Reid ad says. "Sharron Angle's the one who opposed Wall Street reform, wants to protect tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, and says it's not her job to create jobs."...
Oh, then she starts in about the Second Amendment. She said the Second Amendment is about owning personal arms and NOT about military arms. Really?
Does she know how to read because she can't spell her name. These are the words of the Second Amendment which isn't going to matter if someone can't read. But, here they are anyway.
Does she know how to read because she can't spell her name. These are the words of the Second Amendment which isn't going to matter if someone can't read. But, here they are anyway.
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified. 12/15/1791.
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.
That's it. Fairly straight forward. If you can read. If one can't read then it can be confusing trying to do that phonetically.
A well regulated Militia....
Was Daniel Webster around when the Constitution was written? Let me see what the bio says. Have to be accurate, you know? He wasn't. He was born in 1782. I'll be darn, so maybe we need to look at the Oxford English Dictionary. Is that online? It was around then. Have you ever seen the size of that dictionary? It is something to see. That isn't helpful because it wasn't begun until 1857 when folks became disgruntled over the use of the English language in current dictionaries. Well, that is interesting. This is interesting, the Oxford English Dictionary began with "..."Unregistered Words Committee" to search for unlisted and undefined words lacking in current dictionaries...."
Let's see, the Declaration of Independence was authored by Thomas Jefferson and he was a well esteemed essayist of his day. See, when one starts to interpret the WORDS of the USA Constitution it gets really tricky and why it takes JUDGES to interpret the law. Back in the day, CITIZENS of the colonies never 'hung their hat' on WORDS. They placed huge definition on the 'meaning' of writing a TEXT / ESSAY. Which, by the way, is the way it should be. WORDS are simply 'tools' to diction and ALONE have no real purpose. You may as well grunt if one is simply using a single word for a purpose.
OH! is an expression of amazement or surprise or urgency, but, that is understood in the definition and USE of the word.
So, if I may. About the Second Amendment.
This is a well recognized statue of a Minute Man. Minute Man is two words by the way. It is at "Minute Man National Historical Park."
That statue 'embodies' the meaning of the Second Amendment. It is a symbol of a colonist TURNED militia MEMBER.
One has to recall that the 'citizens' that were composing the USA Constitution were doing so to form their government and give it definition. There were men and women that died during the Revolutionary War. They were remembered in the USA Constitution as the 'backbone' to the freedom from England's Kings and Queens. That is what the 'signators' of the USA Constitution were IMPRESSED with at the time of the authorship of that document.
Now, the First Ten Amendments are very interesting. The application of those amendments 'over time' have been interesting as well and reveals a society 'interested' in being correct and competent for the time of the application of those writings. So, for anyone to say the Second Amendment is about personal weapon possession is taking the ENTIRE meaning of the Amendment out of context.
AND.
Quite frankly, to have citizens believe they need to be armed against their democratically elected government is nothing short of paranoid. But, it goes on and THAT is the meaning of Ms. Angle's angle on the Second Amendment.
The 'idea' that a democratically elected government that prides itself on COMPETENCY to its citizens is a DANGER to them is hideous and outrageous. If any of the signators of USA Constitution were able to speak from the grave they would denounce this ludicrous use of their writings.
Do I have to say it? I mean people HUNTED their dinners, okay? They owned guns. Guns put meals on tables for families. THAT was the purpose of the gun being held by the Minute Man in this statue. The 'gun' is the subject of the Second Amendment, not the man. The gun was what secured their freedom, not simply the man or the willingness to die for the cause, although, let's not diminish the 'character' of the Minute Men either.
The Second Amendment clearly states, right in the first words of the writing, A WELL REGULATED MILITIA.
Hello?
It doesn't say 'any bozo with a gun' can have one. NO WHERE in the writings of the USA Constitution does it even IMPLY the citizens should have enough 'fire power' to destroy themselves. So much for the role of the lobbyists for the NRA, okay?
THAT is why the USA Constitution has a provision for a 'Constitutional Convention.' The authors of the USA Constitution had extreme reverence for freedom and the PURSUIT of happiness. So much, that they humbled themselves before their CITIZENS yet to be born and provided a way to change that document SHOULD it ever prove to be an impediment to a citizen's freedom. That was 'CITIZEN' in the singular. They weren't interested in a Constitutional Convention, they just took great pains to write the document. The Amendments were to add freedoms not EXPLICIT enough in the Constitution.
At any rate, THAT is the issue with Ms. Angle's angle on the Second Amendment. The 'CONTEXT' of the writing of the original signators of the USA Constitution CLEARLY AND CONCISELY states the use of guns are to INCLUDE a 'Well REGULATED militia..."
Regulation of weapons in the USA society in order to protect citizens from criminals and to some extent themselves is not only allowed under the USA Constitution, it is MANDATED.
End of discussion.
A well regulated Militia....
Was Daniel Webster around when the Constitution was written? Let me see what the bio says. Have to be accurate, you know? He wasn't. He was born in 1782. I'll be darn, so maybe we need to look at the Oxford English Dictionary. Is that online? It was around then. Have you ever seen the size of that dictionary? It is something to see. That isn't helpful because it wasn't begun until 1857 when folks became disgruntled over the use of the English language in current dictionaries. Well, that is interesting. This is interesting, the Oxford English Dictionary began with "..."Unregistered Words Committee" to search for unlisted and undefined words lacking in current dictionaries...."
Let's see, the Declaration of Independence was authored by Thomas Jefferson and he was a well esteemed essayist of his day. See, when one starts to interpret the WORDS of the USA Constitution it gets really tricky and why it takes JUDGES to interpret the law. Back in the day, CITIZENS of the colonies never 'hung their hat' on WORDS. They placed huge definition on the 'meaning' of writing a TEXT / ESSAY. Which, by the way, is the way it should be. WORDS are simply 'tools' to diction and ALONE have no real purpose. You may as well grunt if one is simply using a single word for a purpose.
OH! is an expression of amazement or surprise or urgency, but, that is understood in the definition and USE of the word.
So, if I may. About the Second Amendment.
That statue 'embodies' the meaning of the Second Amendment. It is a symbol of a colonist TURNED militia MEMBER.
One has to recall that the 'citizens' that were composing the USA Constitution were doing so to form their government and give it definition. There were men and women that died during the Revolutionary War. They were remembered in the USA Constitution as the 'backbone' to the freedom from England's Kings and Queens. That is what the 'signators' of the USA Constitution were IMPRESSED with at the time of the authorship of that document.
Now, the First Ten Amendments are very interesting. The application of those amendments 'over time' have been interesting as well and reveals a society 'interested' in being correct and competent for the time of the application of those writings. So, for anyone to say the Second Amendment is about personal weapon possession is taking the ENTIRE meaning of the Amendment out of context.
AND.
Quite frankly, to have citizens believe they need to be armed against their democratically elected government is nothing short of paranoid. But, it goes on and THAT is the meaning of Ms. Angle's angle on the Second Amendment.
The 'idea' that a democratically elected government that prides itself on COMPETENCY to its citizens is a DANGER to them is hideous and outrageous. If any of the signators of USA Constitution were able to speak from the grave they would denounce this ludicrous use of their writings.
Do I have to say it? I mean people HUNTED their dinners, okay? They owned guns. Guns put meals on tables for families. THAT was the purpose of the gun being held by the Minute Man in this statue. The 'gun' is the subject of the Second Amendment, not the man. The gun was what secured their freedom, not simply the man or the willingness to die for the cause, although, let's not diminish the 'character' of the Minute Men either.
The Second Amendment clearly states, right in the first words of the writing, A WELL REGULATED MILITIA.
Hello?
It doesn't say 'any bozo with a gun' can have one. NO WHERE in the writings of the USA Constitution does it even IMPLY the citizens should have enough 'fire power' to destroy themselves. So much for the role of the lobbyists for the NRA, okay?
THAT is why the USA Constitution has a provision for a 'Constitutional Convention.' The authors of the USA Constitution had extreme reverence for freedom and the PURSUIT of happiness. So much, that they humbled themselves before their CITIZENS yet to be born and provided a way to change that document SHOULD it ever prove to be an impediment to a citizen's freedom. That was 'CITIZEN' in the singular. They weren't interested in a Constitutional Convention, they just took great pains to write the document. The Amendments were to add freedoms not EXPLICIT enough in the Constitution.
At any rate, THAT is the issue with Ms. Angle's angle on the Second Amendment. The 'CONTEXT' of the writing of the original signators of the USA Constitution CLEARLY AND CONCISELY states the use of guns are to INCLUDE a 'Well REGULATED militia..."
Regulation of weapons in the USA society in order to protect citizens from criminals and to some extent themselves is not only allowed under the USA Constitution, it is MANDATED.
End of discussion.
