ABRAMS REPORT----2nd Amendment

MSNMC | 12/22/04 | therut

[therut]

Did anyone watch the Abrams Report at 5:00 EST on MSNBC?????? I was flipping channels and heard him say to a guest "sorry I did not leave you much time but I spent more time on the 2nd amendment which I am passionate about" I figure he was either discussing the Wal-mart suit or the DOJ document recognizing the 2nd amendment as an individual right put out this past week. I believe he is a big anti so I'm curious what he said and who was on.. Does The Abrams Report repeat later tonight. I checked the web page but it did not say and

it takes forever to load.

[JackOfVA]

Eugene Volokh was supposed to be on The Abrams Report tonight to discuss 2nd Amendment issues.

He will likely summarize his view on his blog at http://volokh.com/. He is a law professor and an important 2nd Amendment supporter.

Jack

[elbucko]

...the DOJ document recognizing the 2nd amendment as an individual right put out this past week.

I hope this means the beginning of the end for such an illegitimate concept as "collective" rights. Collective rights is like the living dead, both are oxymorons and both do not in reality exist. When a right has the status of being collective, it has ceased to be a right and has become a government power.

So, unless the 2nd Amendment is repealed and replaced with "the Power of the States to arm their own militias", comes to pass, the 2nd. Amendment is individual. Collective rights is just another term for tyranny.

[genefromjersey]

I caught a few minutes. Professor Volokh was indeed on,and was making his case impressively.The interviewer was getting madded and madder, because Volokh refused to be shaken.

I had to leave. I'm sure the interviewer left the viewers with some inane nonsense.

[TheSarce]

Didn't see anyone actually answer your question, LOL...

My cable schedule shows a repeat showing of The Abrams Report at 1:00 AM ET (that's 12:00 Midnight Central time). I'm pretty sure that should be standard around the country, but you can probably confirm your local schedule by going to this website and plugging in your zip code:

www.zap2it.com

Thanks for the heads-up on this, sounds interesting enough to set the VCR for.

[therut]

Thanks I'm going to stay up and watch. Snowed in here in Arkansas so no work tomorrow!

[Sivad]

From the "The Federalist #47:

....."It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circum-
stanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of reg-
ular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last
successful resistance of this country against the British arms will be
most inclined to deny the possibility of it. BESIDES THE
ADVANTAGE OF BEING ARMED, WHICH THE AMERICANS POSSESS OVER
THE PEOPLE OF ALMOST EVERY OTHER NATION (my caps), the
existence of subordinate governments, to which the people
are attached, and by which the militia officers are appoint-
ed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition,
more insurmountable than any which a simple government of
any form can admit of. Notwithstanding, the military estab-
lishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are car-
ried as far as the public resources will bear, THE GOVERN-
MENTS ARE AFRAID TO TRUST THE PEOPLE WITH ARMS. AND IT IS
NOT CERTAIN THAT WITH THIS AID ALONE THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SHAKE OFF THEIR YOKES" (my caps).......

So says 'The Father of the Constitution', James Madison.
I often wonder why we keep having to fight this battle.

[T.L.Sink]

Your quote from Federalist #47 was very appropriate. I strongly recommend John Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime" if you havn't read it. It's been widely acclaimed
and is the most thoroughly researched book on the subject.
A professor (Gary Kleck) here in Fla. has written alot on
the subject from a criminologists' point of view. Anyone
who has seriously looked into the subject has seen the
mythology of "gun control" exploded. Those who advocate
such not only hate the Second Amendment but are of the same
ilk as the others who want to gradually take all our freedoms away in the name of Big Brother and tell us that
they know what's for the rest of us.

[Joann37]

MSNBC prints the transcripts of their shows usually the next day, I think. Here's the link that's there now; Wednesday's transcript is not there yet. But check tomorrow.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3719710/

[Sivad]

Madison not only proclaims private gun ownership, he brags
about it! Just another arrogant American........(he-he)

[First_Salute]

W. T.

Your remarks at Sajak Tweaks Hollywood . . . Again, article by Pat Sajak in Human Events Online, Dec. 6, 2004, posted to Free Republic, Dec. 6, 2004, by hinterlander.

First_Salute said: "The purpose of the wording in the Second Amendment, was to answer a question for both States rights advocates and federalist advocates: What are we to do, given that the people have the right to keep and bear Arms? How are we to be protected? The answer was in the muster."

[You said:] While some of what you say is true, it seems to miss the point that the right protected from infringement is an individual right to keep and bear arms. You make it sound as if the Founders had a fear of presumably law-abiding, armed people. I am unaware of any such concern.

Reply 7 by Sivad, is one of Madison's observations about the situation in which government officialdom should find itself, in order for our liberty to be preserved:

"THE GOVERNMENTS ARE AFRAID TO TRUST THE PEOPLE WITH ARMS..."

I did not, as you have misrepresented my remarks at that page, "make it sound as if the Founders had a fear..." Instead, I wrote what I meant to write, which was in no way any argument against (that was your assertion) the individual right to keep and bear Arms, except in instances where the common law, as established lawfully by the people, bars some person who is not able-bodied.

Again, the central purpose of the wording of --- the way they wrote out --- the Second Amendment, most addresses, the matter of potential martial power that is affected by more than a few people, assembled; what is to be made of that power?

The Founders sought to ease concerns on various sides of the debate, by affirming the rights of the States, to muster the able-bodied individuals as a well-regulated --- which means well-trained to Arms and military organization respecting and answerable to civilian authority (chiefly the States' Legislatures and Governor, Lt. Governor, etc.) --- militia.

Mostly, the federalists wished to know, what was to be the protection for government, against an unlawful assembly of armed men?

To which, the Second Amendment responds, that in such a situation, the militia powers of the States shall govern.

In the history of the writing of the Second Amendment, the federalists were left with some recognition for the federal government's military readiness, that is, that the federal government may, from time to time, express its expectations of military standards, so that the militia would be able to respond to a national emergency. In general, the power to affect the National Guard acts, comes from that history.

So, we do have an individual right to keep and bear Arms.

At the State level, we are responsible for individually maintaining our health and readiness, to answer the call, the muster, in the event that the State requires our services. We have been fortunate, that during most of the 20th Century, we have not had to serve, so, but on the other hand, that lack of drilling, the failure to muster the militia for training, has let the old and lawful practices languish.

That does not mean, that our rights have languished; only that the presence or context of such training, as part of our lives, would do us better to be refreshed. Yet there are many people who do not want to be bothered by even the thought.

Meanwhile, also at the State level, how a person individually uses a firearm and maintains firearms, is subject to the laws of the State, though not of the federal government, if the Second Amendment is to be honored by the federal government.

If a person should not act responsibly, he or she will usually find his or her self in front of a judge, under the common law, as it was in the time of our Found Fathers. A person who let loose a wayward round in Philadelphia, in 1792, would get almost the same trip to see the local magistrate, has a person would today.

That is, the right to keep and bear Arms, is a responsible individual's right.

Given that, when many such men and women answer the call of the muster, for an actual State emergency, the may be a potent martial force.

That right of militia power, includes military weapons, but again, they must be kept well, in accordance with the militia laws of the State, which may vary from State to State, depending upon the perspective of the people, expressed through their duly-elected Legislators.

I personally think that the militia of each State, ought to have, county by county, its own Militia Armories, which may or may not be part of the National Guard Armories, again depending upon the wishes of the people.

While sidearms and hunting rifles remain our individual responsibility at home.

An old reply, 24, of mine, may interest you; it was reposted a few times and developed a title, "A Call to Arms."

Also, this old FR webpage with hundreds of links about the Second Amendment, may interest you: Updated Gun Control and related links here (#9), posted to Free Republic, Mar. 29, 2000, by ~Kim4VRWC's~.

[vannrox]

...Mordue held that Bach could not allege a constitutional right to bear arms because the "Second Amendment is not a source of individual rights."...

IGNORANT OR INTENTIONALLY REVISIONIST JUDGES!

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights

---

[This is a note to me from Dr. Linda Thompson of the American Justice Federation that I am passing along to everyone...email me with your comments ken]

[to ken]
You left off the MOST IMPORTANT PART of the Bill of Rights -- the PREAMBLE which tells SPECIFICALLY that the Bill of Rights was to make sure the government knew it was limited to the powers stated in the Constitution and if it didn't, the amendments were rights of the people the government couldn't screw with.
Our revisionist historians ALWAYS leave this off the Constitution!!!
Here's a copy!!!

---

Effective December 15, 1791
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

PREAMBLE
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

---

The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the powers of our Constitution.

There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of this text. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the amendments can be changed by the will of the people. By this line of reasoning the amendments are open to interpretation. This is a clever deception. The Bill of Rights is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.

End the deception.