Posted on 06/26/2008 6:59:27 AM PDT by shortstop
This is easy. Change the Bill of Rights to state that it is our right to own guns. Leave out anything that can be challenged. This will stop the Supreme Court from ever addressing this again. In fact, add in the idea that the Supreme Court “cannot address it again”.
I agree with the author of the article overall. I disagree with a small technicality of the argument though. The author claims that the Second Amendment is primarily about ones right to overthrow an oppressive governemnt. I disagree with this from the aspect that such a right was only given as an example of the reason for guaranteeing the right to bear arms which the people of the time would recognize aznd agre with, but not the only reason.
The part of the overall debate that I’m still mulling over is where do we draw the line. At what point is a weapon too powerful to be considered personal protection or necessary for ensuring civil liberties? If the police have automatic weapons and become puppets in a fascist regime, then in order to have the ability to overthrow the civil authorites the citizens would need at least the same. Or to escalate this into the realm of the ridiculous, what about nukes? Well a nuke would probably be overkill and take out far more than just the leaders of a government. The line has to be somewhere between a pea shooter and a nuclear weapon, but where and why?
That's a ridiculous headline.
Should that unhappy day arrive, the doors of the local National Guard Armories would swing wide open. Many — not all but many — of the citizens who are in the Guard would be on the barricades with the rest of us.
We’d probably have all the M-60s, MA2s, ammo and the rest we’d need to give a good account of ourselves.
Heller has been affirmed. RKBA upheld. Whew! Close one, that. Five/four decision of course. But what if it had gone the other way? No doubt there would have been a lot of posts here on FR expressing ourage. But what else? Does anyone think there would have been any more reaction than just talk?
The incredible part of the 5-4 decision is the fact that there are four anti-Constitution Supreme Court judges who don't understand the Constitution. These four people are a disgrace to our country.
Considering our Founding Fathers put a provision in the Constitution for contracting warships from citizens (Letters of Marque), I don't see that they did draw a line. Warships were the most powerful weapons of their day.
That said, I do think there is a legitimate concern for the regulation of NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical) weapons. These things are inherently unstable and even the government has problems with containment. They should be considered a public hazard, not a weapon protected by the 2nd Amendment.
... and I’ll say here like I’ve said on other threads, they should be IMPEACHED immediately.
When you have to sit and decide what the authors of the 2nd Ammendment really meant, something is wrong. The 2nd Ammendment should be changed to be absolute and not interpreted by the court.
I wonder if this affects the restrictions on carry that is allowed by issuing judges in New York State.
It is common for judges to issue cc permits but restricted to “hunting and target” and NOT for selof-protection or self-defense.
That practice seems unconstitutional but it is very common in New York.
I hope someone challenges that infringement in a NY court.
Lol!
The militia is the people. A militia is not well regulated without a means to resist.
A seminal question, to be sure. And to which I must reply: "Would you trust a politician with nuclear weapons?"
Because you do. The most powerful weapons on the planet are controlled by people most of us would not buy a used car from.
Most of us cannot afford the 'care and feeding', the proper storage and maintenance of a nuke, much less a viable delivery system. However, virtually any man-portable weapon is a different matter, and would be even easier from a financial viewpoint if the supply was not limited by law, causing the price of the arms and their parts to be much higher than they are on the world market.
Having read the Federalist Papers, the RKBA was seen as the counter, in extremis, to the misuse of the military (be it the Federal standing army or the state militias) against the people, the bulwark against the usurpation of the power resident in the people, who are governed only by their consent.
Thus, whatever weapon, whatever arm necessary for the people to retain that power in the face of an overreaching government which can be effectively served and maintained by them should be included in the right.
Gun is a MAN MADE right. Even freedom of religion is a man made right.
Those 4 should be impeached and as Rush just said how scary it is for the fate of the Nation to be dependent on how “Justice” Kennedy happens to feel on any given day.
“At issue is whether the Bill of Rights empowers the state to organize an army to keep you subdued or whether it guarantees you the right to arm yourself against the oppression of the state.”
This is absolutely correct although I prefer the word tyranny to oppression. (a minor point)
The bill of rights is intended to empower ‘the people’.
These rights are NOT bestowed upon ‘the people’(that’s us)by the state.
Contrarily, it is the people that bestows power upon the state.
At the very beginning of our Constitution it says:
‘We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, ...’
The State is intended to be a servant of ‘the people’ NOT the other way around.
A ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people,..” (Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address)
To the extent the State no longer represents the people, to the extent the State subverts the bill of rights, to THAT (aforementioned)extent the state has become tyrannical, in that it is misusing the power that we the people have bestowed upon it.
... And yes, the right to self defense is natural (some may argue God Given)and self evident.
The founding fathers show an understanding of natural law (extending from God) when they used the term ‘inalienable rights’ — in the Declaration of Independence.
STE=Q
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.