Why do I get the impression that Zachary would be crying like a girl if accosted in a back alley?
Posted on 04/05/2013 4:02:09 PM PDT by Sir Napsalot
(snip) Lost in this confusion and anxiety is the possibility that a basic consensus on guns exists among Americans. Opinion polls suggest that a majority recognize a right to bear arms, subject to reasonable regulations protecting public safety. This strong dual commitment, if clarified and entrenched in our Constitution, could reassure most, though not all, of us.
Before you mock the idea of a constitutional amendment, consider that hardly anyone is happy with our unstable status quo: gun enthusiasts fear their rights are under constant threat; gun-control advocates point to the danger of illegal guns and easy access to firearms.
(snip)
Most Americans are committed to the Constitution and rely on the courts to adapt our antique highest law to modern technological and cultural developments. Many of us trust the judiciary to balance rights against the inevitable restrictions on them. But we are left with the awkward, irresolvable phrasing of the Second Amendment: “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.”
“What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?” the gun-rights advocate asks. “What part of ‘a well regulated Militia’ do you not understand?” goes the retort.
(snip)
But in the 1980s, a movement to interpret the amendment as promoting the right to bear arms for self-defense emerged. It reached an apotheosis of sorts in the 2008 case, which struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns. It was the first time the court had ever restricted gun regulation, but the 5-to-4 vote also suggests that the decision is not fixed doctrine.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
A death rattle from a dying industry.
Liberals: still trying to find a way to re-interpret the 2A so they can take people’s guns from them.
The Constitution was written not for a point in time but to address the nature of man, which is timeless and universal.
well-regulated == well-trained
> The hubris of these uneducated mouth breathers to think they could better the work of Madison, Mason and Jefferson is astounding.
That’s insulting to mouth-breathers everywhere.
How about "because governments have a natural tendency to behave lawlessly and tyrannically if not held in check, it is the right and duty of all free people to be prepared to oppose such lawlessness and tyranny. Government actions whose purpose or substantial effect is to discourage people from arming themselves effectively against such threats are illegitimate, and lawless persons in the government who engage in such actions should be recognized as enemies of a legitimate free state."
The socialists should simply leave while they can. Walk away.
On top of that, the following US SC decision in the 2010 McDonald case incorporated the 2nd into the 14th Amendment Due Process clause, thus applying the 2nd to the states.
Damn liberals would have us think that the 2nd is not "settled law", which it is. The NYT can go screw itself.
Exactly.
And Roe v. Wade vote was what?
The first use of these militias during "peace time" was against federal tax collectors. Even the left-skewed wikipedia says this:
"The first test of the militia system occurred in July 1794, when a group of disaffected Pennsylvania farmers rebelled against federal tax collectors whom they viewed as illegitimate tools of tyrannical power."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#section_6
May be of interest to you. (If not, sorry.)
[Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
And then we can work on getting the Courts to rule in ways consistent with the intent of the Constitutions of the States and the Federal Government.
Correct. And there are those that believe 1A’s “law respecting an establishment of religion” refers to law that shows respect for religion.
Regarding the idea of a constitutional amendment, the corrupt federal government cannot afford for the Constitution's Article V, the constitutional amendment process, to be put into the limelight imo. This is because if Constitution-ignorant voters found out that only the states, not the federal government, have the power to ratify proposed amendments to the Constitution, then citizens would also know that the states have absolute control over the federal government via the Constitution, not vice-versa as the corrupt media, including Obama guard dog Fx News, evidently want citizens to think.
“What part of ‘a well regulated Militia’ do you not understand?” goes the retort. ...
The Supreme Court has officially noted the following regarding 2A. The Founding States made 2A not to confer gun rights, but to clarify that it is appropriate (my word) to use guns for the natural right to self defense, a natural right which Congress shall not interfere with.
"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States." --United States v. Cruikshank, 1875.
Finally, note that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had included 2A in his examples of constitutional statutes containing privileges or immunities which 14A applied to the states. See Bingham's mention of 2A in middle column of following page from post Civil War congressional record.
Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session
“What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?” the gun-rights advocate asks. “What part of ‘a well regulated Militia’ do you not understand?” goes the retort.
Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session
Jake Tapper to Obama and Bloomberg: If you want to regulate guns, maybe you should learn gun basics first
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/04/05/jake-tapper-to-obama-and-bloomberg-if-you-want-to-regulate-guns-maybe-you-should-learn-gun-basics-first/
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.