Any time a firearms-related thread is created on FreeRepublic, please be sure to add the "banglist" keyword to it so that interested FReepers don't miss it. Just a suggestion.
Let Freedom Ring,
Posted on 12/17/2012 6:07:10 AM PST by scottfactor
“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.” Those words, more than any other part of our Nation’s Constitution, have been the most contested. Keeping in mind that this writer is no lawyer, those words really seem simplistic to me. I think they would seem simplistic to Supreme Court Justice Scalia, also. He, of all the members of the Court, seems to have the clearest vision of how to interpret the Constitution…as it was written.
Liberals and self-described scholars seem to have a different view. They believe that the Constitution is a “living document”, one that is fluid and changes with time. Of course, these people only see the changes that benefit them and refuse to open their eyes to those which don’t. A shining example of this is our "press". The First Amendment says, in part, that “Congress shall make no law….abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” This is freely interpreted by the press as a license to lie to their heart’s desire to accomplish whatever agenda the editorial staff has chosen. I’m not sure that’s what the writers of the Constitution had in mind.
Looking at the language of both amendments, they both seem clear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and no laws shall be made to abridge the freedom of the press. Simple…to me. But there are those who like to make mountains out of molehills. So, I will try to understand some their arguments here on this page.
Some argue that the Second Amendment was created back when cap and ball muskets were the norm; That the framers couldn’t have anticipated the complex military weaponry available to the masses in this modern era. It’s a good point and deserves some consideration. The only problem is that people arguing this point are the same ones that fail to recognize that the press was a single page letterpress when the Constitution was framed. The framers couldn’t have imagined computers, the internet, podcasts, etc., when they crafted the First Amendment. While the “press” continues to argue for more gun control, noting that the framers couldn’t have anticipated the power of modern weapons to maim and kill, they fail to mention the power of the internet and pod casts to spread their lies and distortions and the damage that can be done to society with such.
I’m willing to compromise. I’m a compromising kind of guy! I’m willing to discuss limits on my firearms if and when the “press” is willing to discuss more liability for those things printed that are not proven to be true. This includes the responsibility to pay for all legal fees for people who challenge…and win…in lawsuits against the “press” for lies and distortions. This includes elimination of the limitations imposed by the definitions of slander and libel. Simple and provable lies, to be determined by a jury, should be punishable in civil court.
I won’t hold my breath on that happening. In the meantime, the “press” and gun control advocates will argue that my right to keep and bear arms CAN and WILL be infringed by laws against open carry, concealed carry, carry in government buildings, bars, schools, sporting events…not to mention restrictions on magazines and round capacity, registration of my weapons, a ban on certain types of weapons, and the requirement that I no longer consider inspection of every area of my life…commonly called a “background check”… as unreasonable search and seizure.
While I am forced to accept all of that for the sake of a false sense of security for the “press”, they continue to degrade our national security by printing classified information, distributing false truths, and supporting political candidates by printing lies and distortions about the challengers of those candidates.
The “press” is currently gearing up for the lies that will encompass the debate on gun control that has been promised by the President. After all, the press is a master of it. The press has coined such terms as “assault weapon” to define any long gun that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition, “hi capacity clips”, which are magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and “Saturday night special”, which is…well, I’m not really sure of what that is other than an attempt to label inexpensive handguns to sound sinister. All of these terms will be hammered home by the “press”, as they exercise their free speech in an attempt to suppress my right to bear arms.
Ladies and gentlemen, the tragedy at Newton was committed by a mentally damaged young man who illegally possessed firearms that were illegally taken from his mother, illegally carried those arms onto a school campus, illegally carried those arms concealed, and murdered innocent children. Gun control people will tell you that a total ban on all guns for all people would have prevented this. Would it? Cocaine, heroin, and many other drugs have been contraband for years, yet millions of pounds of these substances enter the country every year. Do you really think banning all guns would stop guns from being acquired by bad guys?
Little by little, piece by piece, your gun rights will be chipped away until you can’t own any. This is the end goal of the liberals and the press. It’s time to turn the tables on them. It’s time to start chipping away at the rights of the “free press”. It’s time for reform of libel and slander laws. Time to shut down the National Enquirer, the Poynter Institute, and other lying liberal rags that are working to erode your rights. It’s time for a serious, damaging, all-encompassing boycott of any company that sponsors, advertises, or otherwise supports any form of gun control or the media that supports it. Sure, you may have to give up your Ben and Jerry’s ice cream or stop watching Matt Damon movies. You’ll have to give up a lot. Your other choice is giving up your Constitutional rights.
Which do you prefer?
*head explodes*
/bfl
Strict gun laws seldom work. More of these not effective laws will work less.
Any time a firearms-related thread is created on FreeRepublic, please be sure to add the "banglist" keyword to it so that interested FReepers don't miss it. Just a suggestion.
Let Freedom Ring,
Just some thoughts.
“our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”
Thomas Jefferson to Dr. James Currie, January 28, 1786
“nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.”
Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, June 11, 1807
“Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.”
Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, January 8, 1789
In 1776, firearms were MORE dangerous, not less, because of the primitive medical treatment available. Any torso wound was generally fatal, after an agonizing period of massive infection. Any limb wound meant an amputation, and a 50-50 chance of survival.
Same here, compromise my A$$!
I am bound by oath to defend the Constitution against anyone who would harm it.
to libs: If you want my guns, come and take them. P.S. bring a graves registration team it will be needed.
Serious question, please pardon my ignorance: What has the National Enquirer done to erode gun rights? I’m not a reader but a small part of me has admired the Enquirer over the years for not being afraid to tell the truth about certain untouchable politcal figures - e.g. Jesse Jackson, John Edwards, even Bill Clinton.
Not to mention that the Brown Bess musket ball was 3/4 inch in diameter...that'd leave a mark!
Take action to encourage Rick Snyder to sign the bill.
Should Snyder Sign Bill Allowing Concealed Weapons in Schools?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2968896/posts
His twitter address.....
https://twitter.com/onetoughnerd
and his contact page.
http://www.michigan.gov/snyder/0,4668,7-277-57827-267869—,00.html
I’m willing to compromise. I’m a compromising kind of guy! I’m willing to discuss limits on my firearms if and when the “press” is willing to discuss more liability for those things printed that are not proven to be true. This includes the responsibility to pay for all legal fees for people who challenge…and win…in lawsuits against the “press” for lies and distortions. This includes elimination of the limitations imposed by the definitions of slander and libel. Simple and provable lies, to be determined by a jury, should be punishable in civil court.
You already have your wish. When I was a working journalist, I was taught by the publication's lawyers the requirements for a reporter avoiding defamation suits while printing the truth. (My employers were strict about what is truth -- not as squishy as the MSM's definition.) Facts have to come from three sources, so that the publication can say that they have done due diligence. Why do you think there are so many quotes of other people in most articles? So the words are attributed to another person, not the reporter. Defamation is targeted to the quoted person. Even if the person being quoted is "an anonymous source" -- you can bet the reporter's notes include the name(s) of the people behind the words.
But the topic is so-called "gun control". I won't repeat the refutations regarding existing law, "gun free zones", "mental health", and the gutting of the background check process. We need the same safety preparedness for gun and knife attacks against school children that we have to prevent fire deaths in our schools. Protection plans. Drills. Better alert procedures, so that when one classroom gets attacked the rest of the school can go into lockdown. Automatic alarms to police similar to the "fire pulls" that dot the hallways of our monuments to learning.
One thought: shouldn't any prohibition against certain types of weapons, intended for the battlefield, extend to all non-military personnel? How consistent are the gun-grabbers?
Uh, not quite. That would be flinklock muskets, percussion guns (cap and ball) came much later.
The Constitution, even before the Bill of Rights was added, gave Congress the power to issue "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" to private individuals to make war against foreign nations. Generally these was given to ship owners to become privateers. That implies that the authors of the Constitution expected that those private individuals already owned the 18th century weapon of mass destruction, the cannon.
Sadly, facts to libs are irrelevant.
Since there are many more things in the world that can kill a person and controlling all of them would be impossible my suggestion is to choose a more singular solution. Lets have our esteemed legislators, since they love passing laws, pass a law outlawing mental illness. I'm sure that will solve as many of the problems. (sarc)
And the fire arm was less reliable...
Yet everyone had one, knew how to use it, taught their children at a young age and never locked them up....
And went to church every Sunday....
Your point has been made by many. It's a very good, relevant and important point. It's logical.
The irony is that the abuse of the 1st Amendment is causing the problem (confusion) about the 2nd. There is a multitude of documentation that explains the intent of both of these amendments by our founders. They wrote letters and articles about both. The entire Bill of Rights was specifically included in the Constitution so it could be ratified. Specifically, states wanted more specific limits placed on the Fed. They did this by stating what specific rights of the individual could not be infringed and what laws could not be passed that would even “INFRINGE” on those rights. The use of the word “infringe” was brilliant. Technically, any law that put restrictions or added requirement on ANY “Arms” conflicts with the 2A.
Ammo restrictions and laws are in our future. They will go after manufactures not the citizens.
Consequently, we have violated the 1A with campaign McCain Finegold, the Fairness Doctrine, etc.
It is important to remind citizens of the even broader Constitutional debate as often as possible. The original debate concerning a constitution was whether or not a Federal Govt. was even necessary. The next debate was how to keep the Fed. small (limited) so that the people and states would retain the majority of power. The original govt design was intended to create gridlock and make passage of laws very difficult. This was suppose to filter out the trivial stuff and keep them focused on actual important issues (like slavery, treaties, currency, interstate commerce, etc.). The SC was there to remind legislatures that if they wanted changes to the constitution, amendments were necessary.
Along with a multitude of other cases the SC screwed up, Roe V. Wade should have been rejected, not even heard by the SC. They should have rejected the premise of privacy and told legislatures, “There is nothing in the Constitution about abortion. But there is something in the constitution about the pursuit of life. As such, this court has nothing to rule on. Until such time as the people of the United States ratify an amendment to the Constitution taking a position on the legality of abortion, this court cannot make a ruling and the states shall retain the right to pass laws as their citizens will determine.
As much as I hate to admit it, Marriage is not defined in the constitution either. The SC should not hear any cases based on laws that states pass concerning the subject. It's a marriage issue, not a freedom issue. Any two people, animals or things can have a ceremony announcing to the world that people or things are “married”. The States should be left to define the relevant recognition or benefits of said establishment. Like it or not, I have to be consistent.
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.