The Czar has been quite behind in his email, and hasn’t been able to get to all of it. He does mostly read it, though. Here are some that stood out.
From Operative B:
It occurs to this minion that – and this may have been discussed by others wiser than me – the 2nd Amendment is a different mechanism than the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights. And this is because the 2nd Amendment ends with the words “shall not be infringed.”
Other amendments address what may or may not be done, how the people may or may not be treated or restricted, and whether laws may or may not be passed.
The 1st Amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law”, implying that this is a federal issue and not a state issue, but also implying that the States may make such laws.
The 5th indicates a right to property, but that the state may not take the property “without just compensation”. The government may confiscate, but it must also compensate.
The 6th and 7th speak of a jury as a means to try someone for a crime. However, neither amendment specifies the makeup of such a court or the rules for a trial – and whether those rules may be changed from State to State.
Other amendments speak of what the government may not do. Or whether the government has powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution.
But the 2nd Amendment states that the right “may not be infringed.” Since neither Congress nor the States are mentioned, nor the courts, nor compensation or any mitigation for the violation of its text, one may only assume that the right is absolute and supersedes the ability of any legislative body to pass laws aimed at its restriction.
“…shall not be infringed.”
No wonder the left has such troubles with the 2nd Amendment: there is no “wiggle room” for restrictions (infringements) when such powerful words – with such a clear and precise meaning – are present.
Yes, you have it right, and for obvious reasons, really: the 2nd Amendment is about defending your life, and there can be no stipulations on a life-or-death decision. Of course, you can define “defend” all you want—otherwise any homicide can be rationalized as self-defense if you stretch your claim enough. But your ability to defend yourself must not be hampered in any way. It is strange to see opponents of the 2nd Amendment spend so much time on the definition of the word “militia,” but “infringed” is the keystone of the Amendment.
|Most Dread and Awful Czar,
Esteemed Associate reported trouble sleeping last evening; the Democrat debate turned out to be a wonderful cure for insomnia. Just before drifting off EA committed some thoughts to memory, and upon reawakening the bush telegraph log drums began throbbing with a long-distance message from Esteemed Associate, to wit:
“I suspect that you, like myself, avoided direct exposure to the Democrat “debate” and that the dreaded Czar watched it only with a wary eye. I did, however, catch a glimpse of some notable moments with Frank Luntz and his test audience. What struck me was that their point of highest enthusiasm was when Mr. Sanders stated his wish that the whole (Clinton) email issue would go away. In echoing that sentiment and bemoaning “income inequality,” the test audience implied they care nothing about the integrity of their government so long as they get their free stuff. If this truly represents where the Democrat party has gone, they really are no different from socialists.
Recognizing that our government is based on a compromise process, this creates a dilemma for Republicans. Those moderates who seek to fill the void that used to be the center end up creating compromises somewhere in Lenin’s neighborhood. Those who want government to return to what used to be the center find themselves going further and further right in order to create a point of compromise in that now vacant center.”
I hope you enjoy this as much as I did.
The Democrats are in real trouble, and the stark difference between Jim Webb and the other candidates show how great the gap is you both observed. Hillary Clinton is very likely going to squish down Sen. Sanders and eliminate the other three before long; the Czar suspects she will need to do so by moving obnoxiously leftward.
She did, too, during the debate. No matter what preposterous thing Sanders promised, she would retort that it wasn’t enough. Really? When Sanders is an overt socialist, and Clinton says he doesn’t go far enough, what’s left?
And many voters are wondering indeed what is Left?
What’s the name of that dude, again? The one with the thing?