Ken Dickface Starr is at it again. After spending seven years and proving that Bill Clinton liked fat chicks, he is now arguing for the Fascist-Mormon-Scientologist wing of the Republican party that the voters can take away rights. No...rights are, to quote the Declaration of Independence, "unalienable." Privileges can be taken away; rights can not. Hence, Crispin Cardshark Sartwell's and Crusader AXE's belief that the Second Amendment is utterly confusing, but it probably allows for a "well-regulated" right to bare arms. It's why I despise religion, but will die for your right to practice your despised, well, practice so long as it doesn't scare children, hurt animals or make the old colder in the winter. Your right guarantees mine.
So Kenny Teabags allowed himself to get dragged into the net of the old reductio ad absurdum gambit, and says that, well...
Now, why is it that right wing religious wingnuts are unable to catch themselves? Granted, Starry Star Star is talking about the California State Constitution, but the original Declaration that Mush Rushmore misquoted and miscited says something along these lines, about rights --
Now, the Preamble is pretty straight forward as well --
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (AXE emphasis)
Now, I'm in favor of non-voluted reasoning. I admire lawyers their patience, and acknowledged recently that "legalese isn't the fault of lawyers, but of their clients..." However, I'm delighted that Ken Starr is now hoist on the petard of "It depends on what your definition of "free" is..."
Comments