COURT SHOWS COURAGE ON GUNS

Niagara Falls Reporter ^ | March 25 2008 | Mike Hudson

[marktwain]

Great history about gun control in New York City. Instituted by a thug to disarm his victims. This should be taught in all the schools.

[383rr]

bookmark

[Inyo-Mono]

Excellent article.

[Inyo-Mono]

Adding a ping.

[singfreedom]

Congratulations, great post!

[TheWasteLand]

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

[marktwain]

Where are all the articles showing the similarity between Tim Sullivan and Governor Spitzer? I would think the opinion pages would be full of them!

[JDoutrider]

Warms the cockles of my heart BUMP!!!

[Jet Jaguar]

Good article.

[ME-262]

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

considering the clear statement in the constitution and the founding fathers clear belief in an armed populace, I think the only way to misinterpret the second amendment is to do it intentionally because you disagree.

[Nailbiter]

LOL

Thanks I needed a good laugh.

[RexFamilia]

This is insane!

Just think how many people will not be able to make a
(dis)honest living.
Can you imagine the emotional trauma when a citizen, you are trying to rob, pulls a gun on you.

[onguard]

“I think the only way to misinterpret the second amendment is to do it intentionally because you disagree.”

One of the major issues before the Supreme Court is to what extent the people are entitled to keep and bear arms. In oral argument, the Court clearly felt that the Second Amendment did not give an absolute right to possess any and all weapons, but seemed to be debating between a right limited by arms such as would be used by a militia (by which criteria, as the attorney pointed out, would mean that machine guns would be legal) or such arms as would be commonly and reasonably used for self-defense. I don’t believe there was any mention of the rights or desires of hunters. There certainly was no discussion of an absolute right to bear any and all weapons, such as RPG’s, tanks, Stinger missiles, etc....

How do you draw the line? I submit, it’s not easy, because the array of weaponry now available is far beyond the imaginings of our constitution’s framers.

[Nathan Zachary]

"Great history about gun control in New York City. Instituted by a thug to disarm his victims."

Nowadays the "thug" is still the Democrat party, just as it was back then. The goal remains the same, disarm their victims, us.

Democrats need to feel secure, minimizing any chance of a civil uprizing as they take away the few remaining freedoms we have- along with 90% of our paychecks.

[SiVisPacemParaBellum]

1911 = a banner year for firearms.

One great pistol, and one stupid law to suppress the right to own/use one all in the same year. How ironic.

[Neil E. Wright]

IBRP!!!!!!!! :)

[DieHard the Hunter]

> For many, that meaning has long been clear as glassmud: "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."

I would be surprised if anyone could make sense of the Second Amendment: it is about the worst example of functionally-illiterate legalese I've seen. I've just tried in vain to parse the quoted text: I don't think that it is even a proper sentence. What is the Subject? What is the Verb? The four phrases join together into a massive non-sequitir.

Surely at least there is a comma-fault-or-two in there.

Naturally, it is unhelpful for a foreigner to criticize the work of the Founding Fathers without offering a suggested solution. Here's my best attempt:

"A well regulated Militia, beingis necessary to the security of a free State, ; therefore the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , shall not be infringed."

(armor on. Flame away!)

[gusopol3]

thanks

[Gondring]

You underestimate the framers, I believe.

[Gondring]

Bless your support of the US, but please read up on some history of the Second Amendment and the language of the time. First of all, the original version of the second Amendment sent to the states for ratification did not have the last comma. Secondly, the grammatical construct used in the three-comma version was not uncommon for the time.

See, for example, http://www.guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html.