This is the dumbest article. Petty, even by lib standards. Once again libs prove they can't win the issue based upon logic and reason. So they deflect to "Jefferson didn't say that".

#32 | Posted by justanoversight at 2013-02-20 10:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

How is exposing a lie spread by the right a deflection?

If jefferson didn't say it doesn't change the truth of the statement.

#31 | Posted by Sniper at 2013-02-20 10:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

...Or lack thereof, as the case may be. That is precisely the point: The statement is laughably untrue, so rightists feel compelled to invoke the (dubious) authority of one of the Founders in the hope that the cult-like adoration many Americans (on both sides) have for said Founders will be enough to obscure the statement's complete lack of merit.

BS Flag.

There statement is very true no matter who said it.

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

#49 | Posted by RonPaul at 2013-02-21 05:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Laughably untrue on a number of levels. Firstly, when the government fears the people, it represses them. Secondly, I am afraid your private popgun is hardly up to the task of scaring the US government.

If the 2nd Amendment is not so powerful then why are the Left trying to change it?

#50 | Posted by RonPaul at 2013-02-21 05:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Because it is a foolish, out of date provision that accomplishes nothing of value and makes it easier for Americans to kill one another?

A value judgment about which you are not qualified by citizenship to make. The Second Amendment is valued by many US citizens and recently twice reaffirmed by the USSC. Your foreign opinion is irrelevant.

#55 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-21 07:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

We are not in court. My citizenship or lack thereof is irrelevant, as are the opinions of the USSC. I am afraid that you will need to dispense with (fallacious) appeals to authority and produce some actual arguments.

The Second Amendment may be valued by US citizens, but that does not change the fact that it is out of date: It does not allow individuals to overthrow a tyrannical government or form effective militias for purposes of national defense. Thus, it should be done away with.

"As you once told me about the Constitution, I don't care."

And yet here you are.

"You criticize organic law of this country but lack the fundamental qualification to do so."

"Organic law?" So that is what you think your Constitution is? How amusing.

In any case, as I have already pointed out, we are not in court. We are on a public forum. I do not need legal standing here. I do not even need a stake in the question at issue. All I need is a valid argument. I have made one. You can refute it or you not as you wish, but kindly refrain from your obvious attempts to cloud the issue.

"Don't like the US Constitution, don't move here."

This is not an argument. Plenty of Americans do not like various US laws. Should they all just leave? Surely not. If they truly care about their country, one would think that, on the contrary, they would stay and work to reform the system (including by raising awareness of its myriad shortcomings).

"Also, learn that the militia clause neither adds nor subtracts from the right of self defense provided by the Second Amendment."

Is there an argument in there somewhere?

"Don't like appeals to authority then don't argue about law because authority is fundamental to the argument."

Again, we are not in court. Repeating over and over that the court has upheld this or that interpretation of the second amendment has absolutely no bearing on the deeper and more theoretical question of whether or not the second amendment is useful or worthwhile.

"Play debate class with someone else."

Maybe you should play "mock trial" with someone else. Political philosophy is clearly over your head.

Why don't you read up on why Paul Revere did his midnight ride.

#59 | Posted by RonPaul at 2013-02-21 10:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

You should worry less about "why" and more about "when." Back when the second amendment was instituted, there was little difference between civilian and military weapons. That has not been the case on land for over a century and has not been the case at sea for half again as long.

What's even more funny than this statement is that he probably would have said the opposite with Bush was POTUS.

You sound like you are about 22 years old, Dirk.

#60 | Posted by RonPaul at 2013-02-21 10:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Argumentum ad hominem. Stop making assumptions and personal attacks and start making arguments.

Then call your congressman and demand he start working toward an Ammendment to eliminate the 2nd Ammendment.

The 21st Ammendment eliminated the worst Ammendment of all time, the 18th.

#61 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-02-21 10:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, by your logic, no one should post here at all on any topic. We should all be out busily engaged in activism. Got it. Feel free to follow your own advice.

Incidentally, of course, the US Constitution is fantastically hard to amend, more so than virtually any equivalent governing document in the world.