Posted on 03/19/2008 11:00:14 AM PDT by JZelle
Does the Constitution grant individuals the right to bear arms, or is that right reserved exclusively for members of a "well-regulated militia"? After 69 years of silence on the Second Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court took up that question yesterday in the historic case of District of Columbia v. Heller, a challenge to the District's ban on all functional firearms.
I helped bring this case to court on behalf of six Washington, D.C., residents who want to keep functional firearms in their homes to defend themselves and their families should the need arise. But D.C. law bans all handguns not registered before 1976 and requires that lawfully owned shotguns and rifles in the home be kept unloaded and either disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times. There is no exception for self-defense. D.C., often known as the "murder capital of the nation," cannot defend its citizens and will not allow them to defend themselves.
This case requires, at a minimum, two findings from the Supreme Court: First, the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms — not a right limited to persons engaged in state militia service. Second, the District's ban on all functional firearms violates that individual right and is, therefore, unconstitutional.
An outpouring of modern scholarship — much of it by liberal constitutional scholars, like Laurence Tribe at Harvard and Akhil Amar at Yale — supports the view that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. After all, the Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, the part of the Constitution explicitly designed to secure individual rights. And the text of the Amendment refers to the "right of the people" — the same people mentioned in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
And they are trying to do so in many places, in complete defiance of the Constitution of this country.
And there are shills and maggots helping them.
Traitors should hang, as they did in the 1700s, in my opinion, and the United States Government needs to enforce treason laws.
Exactly.
“Traitors should hang”
You are right so why is Johnathan Pollard still breathing?
Treason laws as well as border laws. Pollution laws and white collar criminal laws.
I still like Keel Hauling for a punishment though.
No. You’re wrong.
You, like many others paint the US Government with a broad brush. They, to a man (or woman) are nothing more or less than you or are. Men (or women) and human beings who can and do make mistakes.
But... make no mistake here... the United States is made up of all of us, and the government proper is made up of many, may people, not just congress, the executive branch or the supreme court - but numerous bureaucrats who themselves tend to be guilty of such things as “power mongering”.
Understand when I say “traitors” I’m being very specific in my meaning. I mean ANY American citizen, by birth or naturalization who stands and says that the second Amendment doesn’t mean individual rights.
Those people are misinformed, ignorant and if they continue to press their lies, they become traitors. That includes Congress persons, or normal, everyday citizens.
Taking our guns is not going to happen without a fight.
Ping.
IBrp Ping.
Neither. The Constitution protects the pre-existing right of individual to keep and bear arms.
An idea that's been around for a while:
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We WANT them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
-- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Taking our guns is not going to happen without a fight.
You just may be right. I think it will shake this country upside down and may end up in a civil war.
People in government are humans.
Humans are sinful in nature.
Therefore, their power over others must be severely and strictly limited.
The leftist worldview is that humans can be perfected, and that the few (leftist) elite are capable of, and should, make the rules for everyone else.
Well... ok.
I work for the United States government. And no, not all people are bad, and government isn’t “bad”. Some PEOPLE in government are bad.
So... you’re view is a bit too strict. However, I completely agree that Leftist views of the world, and of humans strive toward “their perfect IDEALISM” of how things should be, in their VIEW.
That means the Left wishes to perfect human nature by forcing us each to fit into a mold that would force us to live by THEIR thinking.
I’m sorry to say this, but there are people on the Right that do that too. In fact, there are people scattered all over the spectrum of idealism that want us each to live by their particular “perfect” view of things.
I have a neighbor like that. I hate her, but I still am polite to her, even though she’s a bitch towards me and my family. I think she needs to simply vanish - but is that me imposing MY idealism and projecting it on her? She lives her life the way she does and she’s welcome to it - but interfering my life is wrong of her.
For me to interfere in HER’s is as bad. Thus, I won’t do it (as much as I’d LIKE to...) doing so is simply improper and it would be hypocritical of me to do so.
On the other hand, I won’t stand there and let someone push me around either.
As for your example,
the difference between you and your neighbor, and the busybodies in the government,
is that you and your neighbor can’t legally threaten to use deadly force against the other to impose your will on the other.
That’s what the gov’t can do. And that’s why their powers over the individual must be severely limited.
Thomas Paine disagrees - "Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
This is what it was all about folks! Thank you Mr. Levy.
Semper Fi
An Old Man
Amen to that. It is a God-given right.
Abolition through incrementalism!
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.