Bearing arms should remain a personal right

Asheville Citizen-Times ^ | Dec. 9, 2002 | Does'nt Say

[Madcelt]

Bearing arms should remain a personal right

And now, a word about the Second Amendment. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opened a real can of worms when it ruled that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is not a personal right. In a ruling last week the Court, based in San Francisco, upheld California's ban on assault weapons. Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing for the three-judge panel, said "The historical record makes it equally plain that the amendment was not adopted in order to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession.''

In other words, it's off to well-regulated state militias for gun owners.

For the record, some gun regulations are necessary, such as curbs on assault weapons designed for military uses. Breathless arguments about slippery slopes and such from the National Rifle Association aside, some bans just make sense. (Since When? Most bans don't ever solve the problems. They target legitimate owners!) There's no need for a hunter or person interested in self- defense to be lugging an M-16 around. (Really? Of all the crime committed very few "criminals" use and M-16,Its too big to hide!)

And there seems to be no real desire to take this ruling and pursue it to what could be its conclusion - a ban on personal firearms. The nation's top law official, Attorney General John Ashcroft, certainly doesn't strike us as a gun control advocate.

But in a time when government seems to be getting bigger and more invasive every day, this case bears watching as it makes its way toward an expected Supreme Court appeal.

[Madcelt]

If the author understood the concept that "one" infringement may open the door to more, I wonder if he/she would tolerate any at all?

BTW this is a LIBERAL newspaper. Thats what is so curious about it! Why the sudden uh oh!

[Madcelt]

Geta load of this! yall have a good day. I gotta run. Gotta climb a tree and get some mistle toe for the kids!( geezz ,I love my kids! )

[Fiddlstix]

Link to Various Lists

[Ohioan]

The right to use reasonable weapons for self-protection is so basic that it predates the Constitution. Even without the 2nd Amendment, it ought to be recognized on the Federal level in the 9th Amendent, and in the State Constitutions in various provisions.

The reference to Militias in the 2nd Amendment, was never intended to limit so basic an individual right. To even suggest that, is to look for a verbal contrivance to circumvent the obvious intention of the framers. The Militia language came in, solely because George Washington and others recognized how important it was that we move towards the Swiss system, where the individual families bear ultimate responsibility for the survival of their society--the militias, after all, were the entire able bodied male population over 16.

The founding fathers believed that armed individuals would not only be responsible--in part at least--for their own safety, but responsible for the survival of these United States. All of our insititutions--not just our once free market economy--were premised upon individual responsibility.

Realizing that this thread of individualism that runs through all aspects of traditional American values, is the crux of our system, is the key to preserving the America that we believe in.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[chainsaw]

How long can SCOTUS continue to ignor these misconseptions and allow this to boil. I'm thinking they will have to hear and rule on a case soon and the sooner the better.

[MonroeDNA]

The SCOTUS will take this.

ALL of the bill of rights is about individuals.

[Ahban]

We have the right to bear arms no matter what any court says. Its from Natural Law. The Constitution does NOT say. "The people shall have the right to keep and bear arms..", rather it says "The right to keep and bear arms.." The right pre-dates the state and is not a gift from it.

[al_possum39]

I agree. I think the founders took for granted the right to own hunting or self-protection weapons. I think the 2nd was intended to protect the right to have, at your home, a 72 cal military musket with bayonet. Today's equivalent would be a M16, I guess.

[LibKill]

Arms are the right of free people. Even if the "government" is too blind to see that right.

FReegards.

[Renegade]

As stated in another thread a few weeks ago .
" FREE MEN do not ask permission to bear arms "

[Auntie Dem]

Liberal knuckleheads seem to want to link the 2nd Amendment to the militias so their twisted logic can deprive individuals of the self-evident RIGHT to own guns. But, then their logic breaks apart when they say military (militia type) weapons should be banned altogether.

The Founder's purpose in providing for the 2nd Amendment in the first place was to assure MILITARY readiness and capability on the part of the individual citzen soldier.

I believe the leftist gun-grabbers know their intention is to create a tyrannical, elitest government with them at the controls. They can't have us members of the great unwashed capable of removing them from power by the force of arms.

BTW, I am not so naieve as to think one or two 2nd Amendment zealots would have any chance against even a Podunk city's SWAT team, but an entire neighborhood of 2nd Amendment Zealots would give pause to ANY Jack-Booted Thug "Team", and that is the reason the 2nd Amendment was included in the BOR.

[groanup]

"...an entire neighborhood of 2nd Amendment Zealots would give pause to ANY Jack-Booted Thug "Team", and that is the reason the 2nd Amendment was included in the BOR."

Which is why the assault weapons ban is so preposterous. The 2nd Amendment's modifying clause: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.." has an overt intent which was upheld by the Miller case of 1939; that the right to keep and bear arms includes arms suitable for militia use. According to the Miller court we should all be packing M-16's. I have my equivalent weapon but it looks like a deer rifle.

[Madcelt]

The author stated regulations.......well when does "regulation" go to the extreme? Look at this. Geesh...now they're after the bow and arrow! Your hands are next. I wonder now if Linda Sanchez is going to "register" us vets?

Connecticut Sportsmen: Beware of Anti-Bowhunting Local Ordinance

[muawiyah]

Constitutionally speaking, and if you could get one and afford it, the equivalent is a 50 megaton thermonuclear warhead.

Remember, at the time of adoption of the Constitution, private individuals actually had the largest weaponry available on the face of the Earth.

That right still exists.

"Letters of Marquis and Reprisal", both mentioned in the Constitution, reflect the situation - government actually had to go out and "rent" the really big stuff!

[glock rocks]

Molon labe   (mo-lone lah-veh)
	Two little words. With these two words, two concepts were verbalized that have lived for nearly two and a half Millennia. They signify and characterize both the heart of the Warrior, and the indomitable spirit of mankind. From the ancient Greek, they are the reply of the Spartan General-King Leonidas to Xerxes, the Persian Emperor who came with 600,000 of the fiercest fighting troops in the world to conquer and invade little Greece, then the center and birthplace of civilization as we know it. When Xerxes offered to spare the lives of Leonidas, his 300 personal bodyguards and a handful of Thebans and others who volunteered to defend their country, if they would lay down their arms, Leonidas shouted these two words back.
Molon Labe! (mo-lone lah-veh)
They mean, “Come and get them!” They live on today as the most notable quote in military history. And so began the classic example of courage and valor in its dismissal of overwhelming superiority of numbers, wherein the heart and spirit of brave men overcame insuperable odds. Today, there lies a plaque dedicated to these heroes all at the site. It reads: “Go tell the Spartans, travelers passing by, that here, obedient to their laws we lie.” We have adopted this defiant utterance as a battle cry in our war against oppression because it says so clearly and simply towards those who would take our arms. It signifies our determination to not strike the first blow, but also to not stand mute and allow our loved ones, and all that we believe in and stand for, to be trampled by men who would deprive us of our God-given – or natural, if you will – rights to suit their own ends.

Return to the Home Page of the HCI Website Battle

[Madcelt]

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." -Aristotle

True throughout history! remember the Longbow? You lost a hand or were imprisoned if you were caught with one.(unless you served the King!)

[wcbtinman]

"BTW, I am not so naieve as to think one or two 2nd Amendment zealots would have any chance against even a Podunk city's SWAT team..."

Properly executed, individual tactics can be very succesful. History is full of examples of individuals holding off or pinning down even battalion sized numbers of troops. I believe one of the more recent examples is that of Carlos Hathcock in Vietnam.

An even more recent example is that of the so-called DC sniper(s). Had these morons had even a modicum of smarts, they would still be out there putting people in the crosshairs.

Don't ever underestimate the ability of one motivated man with a good rifle.

[RightWhale]

If somebody wants to assert a right, he has to assert/insist by action the right itself. Exercise the right, that's the only way to keep the right. Academic debate won't get it. Like anything else, do it or forget it. The law starts right after that.

[Madcelt]

Everytime one of the boneheads attempts a new "law". I call. I fax. I write. You vote for it,Your outta there! No vote from me. No Go! Boloed!and then the footwork begins.. to get rid of the charlie foxtrot.

[RightWhale]

". I call. I fax. I write

Me, too. Many, especially on FR, do that. We aren't shy about letting our elected reps know what to do, what the best and proper course of action might be. A lot of times they need our input. Even a Senator can't possibly already know everything.