Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Ed Shultz is so much smarter than the founding fathers


Liberals always say they don’t want to take away guns. But give them an awful tragedy like the Newtown, Conn. shooting and they get bolder and more honest. MSNBC host Ed Schultz showed a rare bout of such honesty during a brief Twitter exchange Saturday. Schultz asked “Why should anyone own an assault rifle ?” and followed it up by saying “it's the confiscation of these types of weapons that counts and will have an impact.”

Ohhhhh, "confiscation."  I see.  Heil, dumbass!!

“The Ed Show” host wasn’t done his attack on gun rights. “The NRA needs to state the case why assault weapons are needed by anyone,” he claimed. 

Right, because libiots will decide what you "need" and what you don't.  After all, they are your intellectual betters.  Don't believe it?  Just ask any one of the geniuses.

I love how the libiots just can't refrain from deciding what "should be allowed" (since your unalienable rights come from THEM.)

And after that, he (Shultz) told one poster that “a Glock pistol qualifies as an assault weapon.”  More here:

See, the framers knew there would be tyrants like this brainless twit who would want to decide things for you.  They KNEW these jackasses had been around since the beginning of time and would always be with us. 

And because of that there was a big fight about ratifying the Constitution way back then.  And it had to do with a so-called "Bill of Rights."  So they ultimately approved the Constitution with the promise that they would add the Bill of Rights later on. 

The original "Bill of Rights" consisted of twelve amendments, ten of which were ratified.  Among them, the second amendment (gun rights.)  They GUARANTEE a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public.

So I heard Mark Levin last night talking about this subject of how the lefties are always  questioning what people "need."  And he deigned to remind the libiots as to how they are called "The Bill of Rights," not "The Bill of Needs."  LMAO.

Hey Klown, what were the two amendments that didn't get ratified back then?

I knew you'd ask this if you were a conservative had the slightest bit of curiosity and were interested in learning.

Proposed amendments not passed with Bill of Rights

After the enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than two hundred representatives, nor more than one representative for every fifty thousand persons.
No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

No comments:

Post a Comment