Posted on 06/26/2008 11:51:58 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Liberals, who hate guns almost as much as they hate cars, got a well-deserved lesson in Second Amendment rights when the Supreme Court spit in their face by ruling that the Constitution really does guarantee the right of Americans to own guns.
The ruling, which struck down the District of Columbia’s laws almost totally restricting handgun ownership, affirmed the traditional view that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says when it guarantees "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
The avid gun-grabbers have long insisted that the accompanying clause, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" restricts the right to bear arms to members of said militia -- a sophistry in view of the fact that at the time the amendment was adopted, the “militia” included all able-bodied adult white males.
As Thomas B. McAffee & Michael J. Quinlan, writing in the North Carolina Law Review, March 1997, Page 781, stated "... Madison did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment -- the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions."
Obviously, the Founders were not gun grabbers, as the gun-grabbing community would have us believe. Actually, unlike today’s liberals, they had faith in their fellow citizens and in their ability to avail themselves of their rights in a safe and reasonable manner.
The District of Columbia law was based on the fallacious idea that by banning hand gun ownership by citizens except under the most onerous conditions, criminals -- a not un-sizeable part of the district’s population even with the exclusion of members of Congress as a criminal class -- wouldn’t be able to buy and own guns and thus continue their murderous ways.
C’mon now. Do they really believe that criminals buy their guns in legitimate gun shops? Or do they understand that their anti-handgun laws haven’t made even the slightest dent to the city’s incredible murder rate? Don’t they realize that their Draconian gun laws punish honest citizens unable to protect themselves and their homes, and not the thugs who are on a killing rampage on the streets of the nation’s capital?
They share the fantasies of the nation’s elitist gun-grabber fanatics who simply refuse to believe that the majority of their fellow citizens are mature enough to be trusted to own handguns, or for that matter, to conduct their affairs without Big Brother’s guidance and control.
The liberals who want to ban gun ownership are the same liberals who’d like to drive family-sized automobiles off the nation’s streets and highways, prohibit the use of fossil fuels because they allegedly harm the environment and contribute to non-existent global warming -- a fantasy they are inflicting on the American people -- and demonizing carbon dioxide, a natural gas without which life on earth cannot survive.
The Supreme Court ruling has been greeted by the American people as a welcome sign that many of their rights long threatened by out-of-control judges who make or misinterpret laws, rather than enforcing them, are now at last being safeguarded by the High Court.
That’s a dangerous misconception. The new decision was a 5-4 ruling. That tiny majority, often reversed in other rulings that defy the meaning of the Constitution, will vanish if the liberals manage to elect Barack Obama and give his party sufficient control of Congress to guarantee that future Court vacancies will be filled with activist liberal justices who will turn the Constitution upside down.
We won a big one this time but the battle is far from won.
I'm rude because I don't want to go to a country, after a citizen of that country, tells me it's more violent?
I guess you prefer robbers and yobs to "rude" people. LOL
I agree absolutely. Which is why any move that encourages the further disruption of the family has to be opposed.
I think a lot of violence (by young people especially) is caused by a feeling of discontent with their lot. Its hard to comprehend...this current generation is materially the most well off ever - they live longer, they have more opportunity and education and better food than any other generation that has walked the earth, but they still feel estranged. I put a lot of that down to the “cult of celebrity” that afflicts most of the western world.
I’m a teetotaller.
That is exactly my take as well. No ... my rights are inherent rights .. granted by THE Creator as all mans rights are.
The Supreme Court, much to the chagrin of many people are nothing more than human ... frail creatures of dust as we all are.
Their practice over the years as using the office as a legislative body must be stopped. Certainly the Magic Negro will do everything to keep that happening ... there has never been a major Democrat ruling that evey passed legislatively ... they MUST rely on the courts. Unfortunately John McLame is not smart enough to understand it either. (see gang of 14) he wants the presidency so bad he is ready to “wet” himself over it. And .. it doesn’t matter how many liberals he will cross over to to get it. He is one thing for certain ... consistent in spitting on conservatives.
Might makes right? :)
Oh for goodness sake..do you think theres a robbery going on at every street corner twice an hour? The average Britons experience with crime is about the same as the average Americans. And what is more, a disproportionate amount of crime tends to occur in a few parts of both countries.
Luke 22:36
As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord and keep our powder dry. May we never have to use the latter.
Blessings on you and your house.
Every day in every way - strongly recommend the M1911A1 in .45; makes the bad guys keep their distance and the neighbors soooo respectful. ;-)
Tell me, how does one "engage" an argument with one who throws up emotionally charged straw men in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? I can only guess you have some emotional reason to cling to this feeble fiber of a liberal mantra.
Wait! okay, okay, you live in England! That explains a lot. I was puzzled that you diminuated my anecdotal evidence, but now understand better.
OK, I have more anecdotal evidence. We protected our farm in France last decade, with arms! Typically unarmed neighbors there relied on dogs who would get poisoned. We knew who the criminals were and they knew about us crazy Americans, stayed away for the same reason. We never got robbed, but our neighbors did.
I would be glad if you acknowledged my anecdotal presence in the Channel Islands as well, as in our place there, I had no such armament. I suffered the threat the same as the British subjects and didn't enjoy it one bit. The answer there was a flipping camera on every light post, as big government protected us. Now, my friends and neighbors there shared my concern with one huge difference. They really did not know what freedom was, as we see it here in America. They had no concept outside the thought that coppers were their only safety net. It is difficult to explain that freedom to one who hasn't tasted it.
Here is another anecdotal story not to discount that quickly. A son of a relative, a former Gendarme from France, came to visit. He was trained in arms of course, but had no grasp of what it was like to be free enough to be able to defend oneself. He didn't understand the American freedom, even returned to France, still baffled and shaking his head. He tried many of our guns and loved it, but was just a little reckless, not comfortable as we are with carrying weapons and cell phones. Example: We took him through a typical business area where new cars and used cars line both sides of the road, right out in the open. He was stunned! He returned at late night just to see for sure the cars were not all secured behind a fence for security. He took tons of photos of that to take back to shock his friends in France. Yet, he could not wipe that myopia out of his eyes, went back to his limited understanding of freedom, French style, or perhaps UK style.
Oh yes, and one more thing. Having also lived in rural Canada, we experienced similar events there except our Canadian friends and neighbors said the hell with the Crown and had their own arms for self-defense, above and beyond what the law would allow. They understood better, like we do, it is safer to one's body to carry 1911 than to dial 911. At least in Canada, they had the chance to keep and cache arms before the government tried to stop it all. Our freedom is now limited here compared to years ago, but vastly better than that where we were. We love freedom too much to return to such restriction voluntarily. Yet some prisoners prefer the comfort of their cell than the awesome responsibility of self reliance.
Point is we will always have those who would harm us. All our do-gooder projects will not change it, but our self-defense will keep them polite. Meanwhile keep trying with your argument. You may convince yourself.
Have a go.
8mm
Here is a person, Vanders9, that admits his country is more dangerous yet refuses to stand up for the right to defend himself by any means necessary.
To me, it's a clear indication the doctrine of be a "victim first" has fully taken hold in Britain. The don't even allow the cops to carry guns to protect the citizens.
It almost harks back to the time in the Revolutionary War where the Brits would stand in line waiting to be shot while the Colonists would hide behind trees and rocks. The British were at a loss as to how the Colonists could be so "unfair".
Luke 22: 49-51.
“...May we never have to use the latter.”
Amen to that.
“Tell me, how does one “engage” an argument with one who throws up emotionally charged straw men in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? I can only guess you have some emotional reason to cling to this feeble fiber of a liberal mantra.”
What is this “emotionally charged straw men” argument that you speak of?
“I am amazed at the self imposed sense of secondary importance “Vanders9” puts on his own safety. It’s a clear indication that he is willing to take a chance on his being attacked and injured rather than admit that Britain’s gun “control” has made him less safe.”
I wasn’t talking about gun control. Everyone seems to think I am, but Im not. OK, if its so important to you. I admit that increasing crime rate in Britain, specifically relating to armed assault, is making me less safe. Happy now?
“Here is a person, Vanders9, that admits his country is more dangerous yet refuses to stand up for the right to defend himself by any means necessary.”
Twaddle. You are twisting my words. I was pointing out that I dont think Britain is a less violent place than the US, but that the murder rate is much less.
“To me, it’s a clear indication the doctrine of be a “victim first” has fully taken hold in Britain. The don’t even allow the cops to carry guns to protect the citizens.”
Again rubbish. There are plenty of armed police in Britain. Ordinary cops don’t carry guns as standard, but they have NEVER carried guns. So much for your amateur sociological assertion that “victim first” has fully taken hold.
“It almost harks back to the time in the Revolutionary War where the Brits would stand in line waiting to be shot while the Colonists would hide behind trees and rocks. The British were at a loss as to how the Colonists could be so “unfair”.”
Sanctimonious, pro-yankee urban myth. That just simply is not true.
Are you referring to comment #50 as a “straw man argument”? Cos I notice you havent commented on that. Oh, and I notice I specifically stated in there that I didnt want to disrespect your anecdotal evidence, in spite of your assertion to the contrary.
Thank you for the opportunity by your responses for which I am glad, to air these issues. Perhaps some visitor will realize the socialist hoodwink and wipe away the veil. As I said before, have a go.
I won't engage with responses to some comments reflecting your myopic view through the prism of European socialism. I understand the cozy warmth under the jumper of socialism and realize it has stuck, however unwittingly, and is now too snug to remove easily.
Consider this, as how it has affected your perspective. As many from across the sea have visited us, their reaction is universal. When they notice I have a 38 tucked under my guernsey, or my wife's .45 in her purse, they react as if shocked by a jolt of electricity. Why? People here don't.
Our European visitors somehow imagined we all swaggered around like movie cowboys ready to blaze away, and cannot resolve that we remain polite and peaceful. It is a matter of projection, another tool of the left. I would be scared of them if they had the guns as they would be reckless and dangerous. Perhaps they think we would be the same. We aren't. We walk about in confident peace and tranquility as citizens, not subjects, and have little to fear about outside threat. We think of such items as reasonable accessories and fun things. No cowboy stuff here, just reasonable (to us Americans...) things to have. Because lots of us have such accessories, we are much safer, much like the "real" old west, not that portrayed in movies. We see self-defense as our own responsibility, not that of the government to protect us. A loud minority would say otherwise, would love to see us slip into the socialism already engulfing Europe. And we have our defense against it, not just against criminals but against any rogue action by our government itself. Our Constitution guarantees that.
How would you react to meet me on the street and realize I am packing heat? Would you fuss, be nervous, be upset? I bet so. You see, such conditioning has been so thoroughly ingrained in you that you may consider it natural and logical, although the support is emotion, not logic, and so transparent you may not discern the difference.
In an earlier thread, you used the term, "yankee". In France, some visitors from the UK passed by to admire our farm, and called out to us from the road above our house. When I responded in American accent, the visitors angrily shouted, "Yanks!" as an epitaph and huffed off. I did not respond in kind, laughed instead.
That wasn't very polite of them now was it?
Oh, by the way, cheekiness, no matter how polite doesn't go over well here.
I do not engage in the polemic you proffer. It persists only too often as a tool of socialist leftists to steer conversation to safer shores.
Now, after reading this far, how did you react so far, with conditioned emotions or with cold logic? I guess you flared up. Right?
8mm
The initial comment was “Unfortunately, hanging onto guns hasn’t changed it very much either.” Notice it doesnt say hasnt affected it. It just says, “hasnt changed it VERY MUCH”. It cant do that because fending off murderers and robbers with firearms only stops that particular crime at that point. It doesnt alter why people go into crime in the first place. I defy you to find any other statement I have made in this series that says I am against private gun ownership.
Let me clear it up nice and simply, for everyone out there. I am not against private ownership of firearms. Everyone got that now?
“Now, after reading this far, how did you react so far, with conditioned emotions or with cold logic? I guess you flared up. Right?”
Well I certainly responded with less emotion than most of the people on this board.
As to perspectives, well of course they affect us all - including your good self. Your snide comments re europeans reveal your own prejudices just as significantly. France is a far more socialist country than Britain and they have no problems with gun ownership. Belgium is a more socialist country and they LOVE guns. And the Swiss are in a league of their own..everyone over twelve seems to have a couple of assault rifles in their back bedroom!
Of course Brits react like that when they see you packing “heat”. They’re not used to it. But I would contend that is a cultural aspect of the UK. Its not specifically “socialist”.
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.