Thursday, October 19th, 2006...10:27 am
I Don’t Know, It May Have Helped Drake a Wee Bit if He Showed Up to the Editorial Board
Jump to Comments
The Tucson Citizen endorsed Raúl Grijalva today. The editors sum it up nicely in their opening sentence:
Pick almost any major national issue - illegal immigration, the war in Iraq, the No Child Left Behind Act - and Raúl Grijalva is ready to challenge the status quo.
Of course, the online version of the editorial is immediately followed by the de riguer racist response.
5 Comments
October 19th, 2006 at 11:05 am
Yes, especially on the issue of gun control, Raúl Grijalva is ready to challenge the status quo.
Raul Grijalva has never seen a gun control bill he doesn’t like.
He will stand with Schumer, Kennedy, Clinton, Feinstein, et al and support all efforts to undermine the Second Amendment.
Unfortunately, in Grijalva’s case, being ready to challenge the status quo doesn’t equate with being ready to defend our constitutional rights.
October 19th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Funny thing, last night, Libertarian candidate Joe Cobb praised him for standing against the patriot act and against Bush’s evisceration of habeas corpus. Of course, if your copy of the constitution only includes the second ammendment, then you wouldn’t appreciate that.
October 19th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
Tedski,
You don’t make sense. You suggest that it is OK for Grijalva to oppose one part of the Constitution (the Swecond Amendment) as long as he supports some other parts.
Great! You give Grijalva a pass to choose which parts of the Constitution he supports.
The fact is that Raul Grijalva opposes the citizens’ right to choose to own firearms to defend themselves.
You are worried about habeus corpus rights but you ignore Grijalva’s opposition to every citizen’s right to self defense?
You really do not make sense!
October 19th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
It’s a leap of logic from “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” to “citizens’ right to choose to own firearms to defend themselves”. I’m certainly no legal scholar, but I believe precedent backs me up when I say these are two distinct, though related, concepts. Like so much of Constitutional law, this particular amendment is open to plenty of interpretation.
October 24th, 2006 at 12:10 am
Really?
How much can you interpret the statement: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed?
There is a right to keep and bear arms set forth in the Second Amendment.
You are not required to keep and bear arms, that is your choice.
You have the right to choose to keep and bear arms. There is no interpretation here.