Posted on 06/27/2008 5:09:33 AM PDT by Zakeet
Thirty-thousand Americans are killed by guns every year — on the job, walking to school, at the shopping mall. The Supreme Court on Thursday all but ensured that even more Americans will die senselessly with its wrongheaded and dangerous ruling striking down key parts of the District of Columbia’s gun-control law.
In a radical break from 70 years of Supreme Court precedent, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, declared that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms for nonmilitary uses, even though the amendment clearly links the right to service in a “militia.” The ruling will give gun-rights advocates a powerful new legal tool to try to strike down gun-control laws across the nation.
This is a decision that will cost innocent lives, cause immeasurable pain and suffering and turn America into a more dangerous country. It will also diminish our standing in the world, sending yet another message that the United States values gun rights over human life.
There already is a national glut of firearms: estimates run between 193 million and 250 million guns. The harm they do is constantly on heartbreaking display. Thirty-three dead last year in the shootings at Virginia Tech. Six killed this year at Northern Illinois University.
On Wednesday, as the court was getting ready to release its decision, a worker in a Kentucky plastics plant shot his supervisor, four co-workers and himself to death.
Cities and states have tried to stanch the killing with gun-control laws. The District of Columbia, which has one of the nation’s highest crime rates, banned the possession of nearly all handguns and required that other firearms be stored unloaded and disassembled, or bound with a trigger lock.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“Liberals thinks that because we don’t have militias anymore...”
We the people are the militia and militia’s can organize rather spontaneously as circustances may dictate. In addition to citizen action post Katrina, one need look no further than the passengers of United flight 93.
correction:
“militia’s” = “militias”
“Individuals bearing arms- could become a “militia” very quickly- right?”
This is exactly what the editors of the NYT fears. Armed citizens will be able to resist the imposition of a communist dictatorship that the NYT desires.
That statement so twist the words as to be an outright Lie. A lie from a newspaper, the New York Times. I can recall when my father so respected the New York Times. The New York Times's masthead logo was once, "All the News That's Fit to Print," dating back to 1896. What is their masthead logo today; surely it has changed.
If the writer had stated the truth of the 1939 Supreme Court decision, he could not have made his point. A true statement regarding the 1939 decision would have said; “the Second Amendment only protects the right of people to carry guns militia type weapons for military use in a militia.
Note: the Miller decision only required evidence that the weapon contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The Court never said the defendants had to belong to a well-regulated militia. Also worth nothing: in the entire text of Miller, neither the words "state militia" nor "National Guard" are to be found.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, declared that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms for nonmilitary uses, even though the amendment clearly links the right to service in a “militia.”Lie #1. Justice Scalia addressed that and shot it down (pun intended)
But that’s a sharp reversal for the court: as early as 1939, it made clear that the Second Amendment only protects the right of people to carry guns for military use in a militia.
Lie #2. Miller only addressed the type of weapon - a sawed off shotgun. This was also covered by Scalia, in DETAIL.
The District of Columbia, which has one of the nation’s highest crime rates, banned the possession of nearly all handguns (blah, blah)
The irony here is not just dripping, but flows like Niagara Falls. These ijits don't 'get' that they're confirming that Gun Control Laws are USELESS and ineffective as the criminals, well, they're CRIMINALS, and don't give a crap about any law.
While true, an achademic should be able to look to history for evidence of what happens when utopia is pursued. Which tells me they have an agenda beyond achademia.
Still contemplating the rest of your analysis. Thanks.
Today's "historians" are frequently Deconstructionists who reject the very idea of objectivity, view language as infinitely malleable and find their purpose in kicking the pillars out from beneath the institutions that house our civilization.
More completely expected bed-wetting from the NY Times.
This is not vigilantism. This is the recognition that within the Common Law, there is an inherent need for citizens to have "inherent deputization".
In turn, this means that as States have "Good Samaritan" laws to protect those who render medical aid in emergency situations, they also need "Good Deputy" laws to protect citizens who render law enforcement aid to prevent or interfere with criminal activity.
That’s an average of 82 people per day so the MSM better quit bitching about Iraq and Afghanistan.
I wonder where the figure 30,000 per year killed by guns comes from.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
DOJ department of Justice, FBI, etc.
approx breakdown
32,000
16,000 sucides
11,000 homicide, one or both of shooters with police record killing each other. drug war ect.
5000 mixture of innocent life taken, accident, family disputes etc.
That’s an average of 82 people per day so the MSM better quit bitching about Iraq and Afghanistan.
I wonder where the figure 30,000 per year killed by guns comes from.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
DOJ department of Justice, FBI, etc.
approx breakdown
32,000
16,000 sucides
11,000 homicide, one or both of shooters with police record killing each other. drug war ect.
5000 mixture of innocent life taken, accident, family disputes etc.
How many people die from medical malpractice...
Cities and states have tried to stanch the killing with gun-control laws.
What The New York Times fails to mention is that, for quite some time preceding the massacre, guns were banned on the campus of Virginia Tech, as they were at the University of Virginia and every other public college and university in Virginia.
Of course, that's a rather inconvenient truth, eh?
BTTT!
Might become mentally impaired?
Cordially,
Cordially,
Thank you. I’ve spent my life studying these people; the faces come and go but their essential nature never changes.
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.