Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Second Amendment Rights and Black Sheep
dansargis.org ^ | October 17, 2007 | Dan Sargis

Posted on 10/17/2007 11:48:49 AM PDT by Dr.Syn

 

  

Second Amendment Rights and Black Sheep

October 18, 2007 

After carefully reviewing the historical documents pertaining to the drafting and ratification of the Bill of Rights, I am unable to find a single instance of “intent” that the Second Amendment was the bastard child of the litter.

And yet liberals (including the Mainstream Media), who treat nine of the original Amendments with the same reverence they bestow on Mao’s Little Red Book, consistently treat the Second Amendment as the flawed bastard of the Bill. 

If any of our Constitutional Rights were trampled to the same extent that the exercise of Second Amendment Rights are daily disparaged and denied...the American Civil Liberties Union would suffer a collective panty-twist. 

In June of this year James Goldberg had his gun confiscated by the Glastonbury, Connecticut police and his gun permit was revoked after he was charged with breach of peace. 

Goldberg entered a Chili’s restaurant to pick up a takeout order on June 21.  When he reached for his wallet to pay for the order a waitress spotted his legally owned and carried gun under his shirt and called the Glastonbury police. 

What happened next should frighten all Americans. 

As reported by the Hartford Courant, “Officers arrived and pushed Goldberg against the wall, while customers and wait staff watched. Goldberg, the soft-spoken son of a 30-year police veteran, said he calmly told the officers he had a permit to carry. They checked it out and found that he did. But because the waitress was alarmed he was arrested for breach of peace.” 

In true Gestapo style, Glastonbury Police Chief Thomas Sweeney had “...no problems with the officers' actions with regard to the incident,”  

And by the “always presumed guilty” treatment afforded legal gun owners, the state revoked Goldberg’s permit before his case even went to trial. 

Even though Goldberg’s arrest was dismissed by the Superior Court and his record was squeaky clean within a month of the incident, his permit was revoked and he had to apply to Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit examiners, “a civilian board that hears appeals on revoked or denied gun permits” for its reinstitution. 

The Board has given him a hearing date of May 14, 2009

Thankfully this Board is being sued by one of its own members,  M. Peter Kuck, secretary of the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, for denying citizens their due process rights with regard to the denial of their Amendment II Rights. 

And another “alarmed” individual, Susan Mazzoccoli, executive director of the board, has responded to Kuck’s lawsuit in true totalitarian fashion...”We have tried to involve the governor's office to have him removed....” 

One can only imagine the national outcry if a poll worker became “alarmed” at the sight of a black man trying to cast his ballot and the police arrested that black man because he “alarmed” the female poll worker and then the state revoked his Fifteenth Amendment Right. 

Or better yet, in response to Malik Zulu Shabazz (head of the New Black Panthers)  ranting “death to Israel...the white man is the devil...Kill every goddamn Zionist in Israel! Goddamn little babies, goddamn old ladies! Blow up Zionist supermarkets” in front of the B’nai B’rith building in Washington, D.C...how about suspending the First Amendment rights of Black Muslims?  I bet he “alarmed” a few people that day. 

But pooping on your Second Amendment Right is no big deal. 

For the sake of those needing a refresher course, Amendment II of the Constitution states that, “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.” 

Not only does contemporary discussion of the Amendment go ludicrously out of its way to question the meaning of every word in Amendment II (including the placement of commas  in the text), but it also questions the legitimacy of the Amendment.   

In every instance, the liberals toil in angst while trying to nullify the intent and simplicity of Amendment II.   

Yale Law School professor Akhil Reed Amar believes that, “The amendment speaks of a right of ‘the people’ collectively rather than a right of ‘persons’ individually.”  (as if there is a difference between some abstract group of “people” and individual citizens) 

Yet, there seems to be no problem with the word “people” when it comes to the sacred First Amendment.  How can this be?  How can “people” in Amendment I instantly become individual persons but “people” in Amendment II are argued not to be individuals? 

By making Amendment XIV a “living right”, Professor Amar justifies this dichotomy by arguing, “...given that a broad reading is a policy choice rather than a clear constitutional command, it must be functionally justified. And the mere fact that, say, the First Amendment has been read expansively is not an automatic argument for equal treatment for the Second.”   

Amar further argues that, “...other amendments have been read generously; why not the Second?   The obvious functional idea that sticks and stones and guns...can indeed hurt others in ways that ...words cannot.” 

And to this argument, one might ask the simple question, “How many “persons” did Adolf Hitler or Joseph Goebbels actually kill with a gun versus how many “people” did they kill with words?” 

Or ask about the 1932, German election that yielded a major victory for Hitler’s National Socialist Party. The party won 230 seats in the Reichstag and made Hitler Chancellor of Germany.  (You have to love that right to vote) 

Yet, liberals fight daily to restore the voting rights of convicted felons while simultaneously trying to nullify the Second Amendment Rights of the innocent. 

Sort of gives a whole new meaning to Black Sheep. 



TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: armedcitizen; banglist; beserkcop; donutwatch; leo; rkba; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 341-357 next last
To: rarestia
Not sure how we got to this cog in the wheel, but since you asked: I believe the AWB expired because the Legislators actually realized it didn't do a damn thing to curb crime.

You're kidding, right?

241 posted on 10/21/2007 8:30:31 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Kidding how, Sir? How we got here or that it did nothing to curb violent crime?

I purchased my first "assault weapon," during the later years of the ban. That semi-automatic rifle sits comfortably in my safe, and despite not having a collapsible stock, bayonet lug or flash suppressor, I can still get 1 inch groups with it at 40 yds.

242 posted on 10/21/2007 8:33:32 AM PDT by rarestia ("One man with a gun can control 100 without one." - Lenin / Molwn Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Why did they pass it?


243 posted on 10/21/2007 8:36:43 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Please explain the difference and how I'm "mis-stating what the nature of the rulings are".

I did and you either don't or won't understand the difference.

Your "statement" of the law doesn't take into account that there are three different methods of analysis which depend on the type of individual right that a law seeks to regulate.

Your "statement" is either an intentional misrepresentation or a misrepresentation born of ignorance. Or both.

Regardless, it is still a misrepresentation of the law.

244 posted on 10/21/2007 8:44:29 AM PDT by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Well, it was a Democratically controlled government at the time from top-to-bottom, as I've read. Considering I was in high school at the time, I was more interested in playing ball than politics. However, near the end of the ban, being an ardent Republican in college and reading legal papers concerning the ban, I'm really comfortable saying that it expired because the government weasels actually had an attack of conscience to realize nothing changed in the 10 years since its passage.

If removing bayonet lugs, collapsible stocks and high capacity magazines makes firearms less "deadly," then taking spoilers off of muscle cars makes them less powerful.

245 posted on 10/21/2007 8:46:22 AM PDT by rarestia ("One man with a gun can control 100 without one." - Lenin / Molwn Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
Your "statement" of the law doesn't take into account that there are three different methods of analysis which depend on the type of individual right that a law seeks to regulate.

Red herring and non sequitur. Go, baby!

246 posted on 10/21/2007 8:47:23 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
And the explicit expression of the federal limitations in the Bill of Rights has acted as a standard to which the courts have adhered, limitating open-ended interpretation of the Tenth Amendment and challenges to federal powers. Tenth Amendment decisions limiting federal powers are almost as rare as a cogent argument from Abundy.

Roscoe, you are intentionally twisting my statement.

I didn't comment on how often or successfully a federal law is challenged by a state or individual, but merely refuted your assertion that these entities could not challenge a federal law.

You even point out in your post that they are possible, yet you appeared to be arguing to Dead Corpse that they couldn't.

You also don't understand the nature of our government and clearly yearn for a more totalitarian system.

STFU.

247 posted on 10/21/2007 8:47:54 AM PDT by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; Mojave

I’m not a mod and the only person(s) either of you spank without paying for it are yourselves.


248 posted on 10/21/2007 8:48:59 AM PDT by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
I don't think that anyone ever believed it would reduce crime, on either side of the aisle.

Not that there were many Senators present when is passed.

249 posted on 10/21/2007 8:50:09 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Red herring and non sequitur. Go, baby!

Wrong @sshat, a correction to RP's mis-statement of the law.

250 posted on 10/21/2007 8:50:49 AM PDT by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
refuted your assertion that these entities could not challenge a federal law.

Red herrings, non sequiturs and now a straw man. You're working the list.

251 posted on 10/21/2007 8:51:27 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Abundy

Oh? When did I pay you?


252 posted on 10/21/2007 8:53:24 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Well you’ve schooled me in the nature of politics in the early 90’s then, Sir. The Brady Coalition and their ilk have always stated the purpose of the legislation was to clean the mean streets of those “bullet-hoses” that were “mowing down” hundreds of people a year.


253 posted on 10/21/2007 8:54:42 AM PDT by rarestia ("One man with a gun can control 100 without one." - Lenin / Molwn Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
His statement

But the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Congress may write laws which "reasonably regulate" a constitutional right provided there is a compelling government interest.

gives the impression that all a law must do to regulate a constitutional right is be reasonable.

That is either a flat out lie on his part (most likely scenario) or comes from a very vulgar understanding of constitutional law. It is pretty clear from both his and your posts that neither of you understand that area of law.

254 posted on 10/21/2007 8:55:16 AM PDT by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
The Brady Coalition and their ilk have always stated the purpose of the legislation was to clean the mean streets

What does that have to do with Robert Dole?

255 posted on 10/21/2007 8:57:03 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
gives the impression

Learn the difference between infer and imply. Question beggar.

256 posted on 10/21/2007 8:58:03 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

My apologies, I don’t take your meaning. I’ll reiterate that was 14 when the legislation first passed. I’m admittedly ignorant to the intricacies of politics in the early 90’s.


257 posted on 10/21/2007 8:58:10 AM PDT by rarestia ("One man with a gun can control 100 without one." - Lenin / Molwn Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Red herrings, non sequiturs and now a straw man. You're working the list.

No, you are clearly here to obfuscate and disrupt.

I'm done with you, but since your conduct is public record on the thread, as well as your mis-statements of the law and my posts, I believe intelligent people can see what you are attempting to do.

Have a wonderful day.

258 posted on 10/21/2007 8:58:16 AM PDT by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Abundy

Cut and run. SOP


259 posted on 10/21/2007 8:59:29 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
"Your "statement" of the law doesn't take into account that there are three different methods of analysis which depend on the type of individual right that a law seeks to regulate"

Yes there are three. But since we were discussing a fundamental right, why bring up the other two -- just to show off? I don't need to do that.

You, on the other hand ...

260 posted on 10/21/2007 9:02:26 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 341-357 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson