alt.politics.usa.republican

"ACOG" < @ > wrote in message
news: $ @ ...
> On 2007-08-30, RSweeney postulated:
>>
>> "ACOG" < @ > wrote in message
>> news: $ @ ...
>>> On 2007-08-30, RSweeney postulated:
>>>>
>>>> "ACOG" < @ > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>> Golly, that sounds like the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Wowee.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which are not "human rights", they're "constitutional rights".
>>>>
>>>> So the Constitution grants rights which are not human rights???
>>>>
>>>
>>> No it doesn't. It guarantees constitutional rights.
>>
>> Circular logic and in direct opposition to the 9th amendment (the
>> enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
>> construed
>> to deny or disparage others retained by the people.)
>>
>> The Constitution was intended to limit the power of government to
>> enumerated
>> powers only. This is not the same as securing only those rights of the
>> people enumated in the constitution.
>>
>> One only has to read the voluminous and well-documented period debate
>> from
>> the founders to prove the intent of the founders on the source of rights
>> to
>> understand their ideas beyond a shadow of a doubt.
>>
>> No interpretation required... the Federalist and Anti-federalist
>> arguments
>> are clear.
>>
>
> Still not "human rights". They are "constitutional rights"
> granted to "the people". Similar, but not quite the same
> thing. And that difference can mean a whole lot in some
> courts, and in some attempts to shore up a weakening defense
> of the second amendment as interpreted by the guns-4-all
> lobby.
>
> Oops! I mentioned it! Bad me!

Your argument is tied to the term "human" instead of "people"?

Yeah... That's certainly going to take you far.

Get over it. Admit your error and move on.