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Second Amendment Rights and Black Sheep October 18, 2007 After carefully reviewing the historical documents pertaining to the drafting and ratification of the Bill of Rights, I am unable to find a single instance of “intent” that the Second Amendment was the bastard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 In June of this year James Goldberg had his gun confiscated by the Glastonbury, Connecticut police and his gun permit was revoked after he was charged with breach of peace.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arrest was dismissed by the Superior Court and his record was squeaky clean within a month of the incident, his permit was revoked and he had to apply to Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit examiners, “a civilian board that hears appeals on revoked or denied gun permits” for its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. |
You're kidding, right?
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.
Why did they pass it?
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.
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.
Red herring and non sequitur. Go, baby!
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.
I’m not a mod and the only person(s) either of you spank without paying for it are yourselves.
Not that there were many Senators present when is passed.
Wrong @sshat, a correction to RP's mis-statement of the law.
Red herrings, non sequiturs and now a straw man. You're working the list.
Oh? When did I pay you?
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.
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.
What does that have to do with Robert Dole?
Learn the difference between infer and imply. Question beggar.
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.
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.
Cut and run. SOP
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 ...
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.