Keith Flaugh, of the conservative group Get Out of Our House, or GOOOH, said passing the resolution was council’s responsibility and not too big an issue for a small, local government.
“This is about protecting Second Amendment and God-given rights: the right of self-defense against crime and tyranny,” he said. “You should protect the life, liberty and property of those who hired you.”
What a terrible argumentation. What has God to do with this. And who told you about "God rights"? God? "....self-defense against crime and tyranny?" Where? Marco Island or America? It is better you stay inside your house. I guess you are a dangerous person. Ready to pull the trigger immediately.
K:
Sorry, I could NOT disagree with you more so. Perhaps, you have not relinquished the government centric basis of ideology and thought Europeans love to embrace. A suppression of individualism compounded by a dose of secularization to empower the government body.
The American perspective as written in Declaration of Independence followed by the Bill of Rights and Constitution.
Note: Rights NOT granted by man.....or shall I dear say "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
It was refreshing last nite to hear the arguments by several of our representatives as to why they would NOT support passing a resolution to reaffirm our 2nd Amendment right. Imagine,the resolution as passed included the term nullification (which has bad historical connotation per Mr. Honig), and redundancy which was a cause to vote NAY because it is being discussed by other government bodies.
Thank god, 4 council members actually voted in support. To those that voted against, I will go out on a limb, to state they believe in strict gun control.
However, I understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to prevent the federal government from enacting "gun control."
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
ajm3s writes:
K:
Sorry, I could NOT disagree with you more so. Perhaps, you have not relinquished the government centric basis of ideology and thought Europeans love to embrace. A suppression of individualism compounded by a dose of secularization to empower the government body.
The American perspective as written in Declaration of Independence followed by the Bill of Rights and Constitution.
http://www.lonang.com/conlaw/B/cB1a.htm
The 2nd Amendment protects our inalienable rights. For a perspective of unalienable vs inalienable rights, I offer the following:
http://mddall.com/sbss/0912.htm
Note: Rights NOT granted by man.....or shall I dear say "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
It was refreshing last nite to hear the arguments by several of our representatives as to why they would NOT support passing a resolution to reaffirm our 2nd Amendment right. Imagine,the resolution as passed included the term nullification (which has bad historical connotation per Mr. Honig), and redundancy which was a cause to vote NAY because it is being discussed by other government bodies.
Thank god, 4 council members actually voted in support. To those that voted against, I will go out on a limb, to state they believe in strict gun control.
However, I understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to prevent the federal government from enacting "gun control."
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.