Posted on 02/13/2012 1:19:23 PM PST by Nachum
When Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association (NRA), spoke at CPAC on February 10th, he predicted that if Barack Obama wins a second term it will usher in an all-out attack on the Second Amendment. In so many words, he said the same people who brought us Fast and Furious, “a criminal enterprise” for which there has yet to be prosecutions, will use four more years to gut constitutional protections on the right to keep and bear arms. And anyone who wonders what this assault on the Second Amendment might look like need look no further than Illinois, where a judge that President Obama appointed has just ruled that we have the right to keep arms, but not to bear them.
That’s not a typo. Rather, it’s an unbelievable decision recently delivered by U.S. Judge Sue Myerscough, in a challenge which the Second Amendment Foundation filed against Illinois’s ongoing prohibition against carrying concealed weapons in that state. Said Myerscough, in rendering her decision: “[Although the] plaintiffs argue that the Second Amendment protects a general right to carry guns that include a right to carry operable guns in public … [the] Supreme Court has not recognized a right to bear firearms outside the home.”
This is troubling for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that Myerscough has completely disregarded the fact that our natural, God-given rights are not subject to court approval for viability. Rather, our Founding Fathers used the Bill of Rights to build a hedge of protection around those rights with which we were endowed by our Creator. And one of those rights was the right to self-defense, and therefore the right not only to keep but also to bear the arms necessary to defend ourselves. On this point, the language
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
“If one is truly interested in reigning in these out of control courts that are destroying our culture then Newt should be your candidate, all others are either running from the issue or burying their head in the sand.”
Excellent. Well said.
No effective way to reign in the Judiciary, the fatal flaw of our Constitution.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Impeachment, you know that process that congress refuses to do. Even the justices of the Supreme Court are subject to same.
The judgey thinks like someone who has done way too many recreational drugs.
Flip answer: I have the right to keep arms trained on what I’m aiming at.
Serious answer: Shall not be infringed.
We should be grateful that our Founders created a government that limited our rights and individual liberties and thankful that our judges keep it that way.
That’s correct since impeachment creates a messy political climate and it’s so much easier to get Congress to simply dissolve a district and appoint Consitutionalists ala Thomas.
When was the last time that happened? The truth is there aren’t going to be any liberalesque quick fixes to our troubles. Government schools are indoctrinating kids to be ashamed of America, misunderstand the Constitution and dislike the fundamental Judeo-Christian traditions that created America. We’ll need school vouchers (along with a breaking of the government monopoly on what constitutes an education) and at least two generations of control over Congress. Then we’ll get our country back.
Common sense bump...
I remember when Clinton was in a panic to disarm the US too. There’s only so much tyranny the government can get away with if we are armed — the right to bear arms is like a shock absorber when creeps are in power. And it’s a chilling affect on thuggish government schemes.
Of course, without free speech and property rights, gun rights would also slowly erode. People todya rarely make a bold, united stand on a minor infringement; they don’t seem to understand the slippery slope concept well enough yet.
The perverse thing about removal of justices is that our current products of “higher” learning are taught that only bad personal behavior is a good reason to ax one, such as a justice who was removed for spitting in public. But according to our progressive ruling class professors, rulings enjoy immunity from removal.
The truth is different of course. Our founding fathers never wanted legislation from the bench, and removal of justices is an enumerated power. But our tenured acid-dropping professors of today will keep milling out more of our future leaders. [Note their fanatical support of Bill Ayers.]
Until college is reformed, the dangers of rogue courts will escalate. That is the fundamental divide between the ruling class and We the People. Individuals and government leaders funding colleges need to pressure colleges to behave themselves [regarding constitutionalism] far more than they currently are.
Corrupt judges, presidents, attorneys general etc., will not be impeached by corrupt legislators who themselves should be impeached. We are looking in a barrel of rotten apples and should not expect to find fresh fruit.
We have a totally corrupt government and we have it because the people have become weak and flabby. The national podium is occupied by people who spout pure idiocy and are confident that they will not be called out. Anyone who dares point out the Alice in Wonderland absurdity of modern life is called everything from racist to murderer. The “news” media is run almost exclusively by clowns of the worst sort. Who would have imagined that the ultimate replacement for Olberdoofus would be Al Sharpton who almost makes Olberdingdong look like a sensible man by comparison.
Why don’t we grab a few confirmed winos out of the gutter and bring them in complete with a bottle of “MadDog” wine and call them the new press corps, or is it corpse now, they would almost certainly be an improvement.
What’s the difference between self-defense in the home and outside the home?
I submit that they don’t want you to take it upon yourself to individually protect yourself in EITHER situation, they want you to rely on the collective. The more dependent you are, the more controllable you are.
The difference, though?
They know they have a much tougher argument saying you can’t defend yourself when someone has broken into your home. In DC (liberal central) for example, it is/was illegal for you to even defend yourself inside your home.
So, it’s not a matter of logical inconsistency. It’s a matter of pragmatism. They can’t as effectively argue against self defense in the home as they can in “public”.
In the infamous Dred Scott (1856) case, the Chief Justice's reason for thinking it absurd to consider blacks having the rights of citizens, was that doing so would mean:
For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police [p417] regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.
The dictionary supplies two definitions of regulated:
regulated: past participle, past tense of reg·u·late (Verb)
Verb:
1) Control or maintain the rate or speed of
(a machine or process) so that it operates properly.
2) Control or supervise (something, esp. a company
or business activity) by means of rules and
regulations.
Definition 1 was what was intended, not 2. The Regular Army is called that because they are trained to be well regulated (definition 1)
Having ample abilities is one thing, using them is another. I do not believe there is any way the founders could possibly have foreseen the executive and legislative branches being chock full of greedy crooks and criminals.
And yet... here we are.
What are YOU going to do now? Will you try and VOTE, just one more time? Will you form a PAC to support a candidate who MIGHT help sway the issue in the various legislatures? Will you try to impeach that blatantly partisan justice in the face of a system that isn't set up to make your job easy?
How long do we keep playing by the rules while our political enemies laugh at us...
I really do understand that the liberals don’t want citizens to protect themselves. But they make a distinction between protecting someone protecting himself in the home as opposed to protecting himself in public. To me, there is no difference other than in the fantasy mind of the liberals.
You are correct and bring up a very important point - one that is almost universally ignored, purposely obfuscated or misunderstood. "Regulate", in the language of the Constitution, is most accurately understood as "regularize" or "standardize", not as intending control, restriction, limitation or infringement. This applies both to 2A as well as the Commerce Clause.
One major characteristic of 18th Century battle is that your infantry had to operate like clockwork. Everybody had to load together and be ready to fire together. You could NOT have somebody loading volatile gunpowder into his musket standing next to somebody firing and sending sparks everywhere. When the rate of fire of a company was limited by the reloading speed of its slowest member, there was a great interest in making things “regular”.
2nd Amendment supporters should make a series of “Mayhem” ads concerning self defense.
Like the Allstate Mayhem Ads.
“I’m a robber, and I have been casing your house all week long. Based off your Anti-Gun Bumper stickers and the City laws that prohibit you from owning a gun I am feeling really good about my heist tonight.”
[breaks into house]
“Even if you call 911 the cops are minutes away, which give me enough time to take all your valuables”
[Homeowner wakes up lights turn on]
Home owner: “Hey what are you doing?”
[Punching, Knifing and Gun Sounds]
“And even if you try to stop me I will always have the upper hand or knife or gun, because I am a Criminal and I don’t care if the Law tells me not to carry a weapon of my own]
[Outside with Bag Loot and Ambulance outside house with covered stretcher taken from house]
“So get your own gun for self defense, or be defenseless from criminal mayhem, like me”
[Mayhem laughs as he walk away]
Really? Some might argue that. But what makes the courts any different?
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.