Posted on 05/10/2002 4:34:45 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
Nothing new here
Heads up guy. People know their history here.
Not only did they bring their 'guns' to battle, they brought their ships too.
And canons.
5.56mm
Okay, Dan. You didn't actually expect some liberal columnist for CBS to have actually read the Federalist Papers, did you? And you don't think he actually went into the context of Miller, now did you?
Remember, you're dealing with liberals who tend to lead with their sentiments. One of their sentiments is that "Guns" aren't for the Unwashed Masses.
We conservatives must remember that its only a short leap to fascism from that kind of thinking.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Translation: Dickiepoo realizes that he's on the losing side of the argument. The 2nd Amendment is real and it means what it says: The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Thus the only way to save gun control is to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
One has to admire Ashcroft. A little footnote in a case has brought these totalitarians out into the open, spouting in rage and unwittingly spewing their actual agendas.
Unfortunately for them, they have "jumped the gun" just a bit early. Not enough generations of schoolkids are completely brainwashed yet. Nor are enough of the old vets dead or in wheelchairs. Nor has the vast majority of the population forgotten the Way It Was back when America was America - and not an approaching third-world slum wannabe sold out by these very people who now want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment first (just before they get rid of the other 9).
Yup. They're a little early on the draw. They're just a mite too anxious to get this thing done and get on with ruling America to their own liking.
But, it's a close thing. In another 10 years, the deed would have been done easily, especially with another Clinton in office and 10 more years of unrelenting Liberal propaganda. Now, if they want to try such an un-Constitutional stunt, there will blood to pay and people to make sure it will be paid. And it won't be political or rhetorical blood.
They better check again and see if they really want to do this and go to the mat. This is not a game to those who are serious about the Constitution!
For all the left leaning gun control nuts who see the well regulated militia as meaning only government sanctioned police and soldiers, I say screw you. The founders probably had a Swiss model in mind where all the people possessed a decent war rifle (assault in today's vernacular). The Swiss lived a loosely confederated society unlike today's collectivists.
Long live individual rights. All Swiss men possess an assault weapon and live without fear
John Adams, U.S. President, Signer of the Declaration, One of the two signers of the Bill of Rights.
"The said Constitution should be never construed...to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration, "Father of the American Revolution"
"The right...of bearing arms...is declared to be inherent in the people."
Fisher Adams, A Framer of the Second Amendment in the First Congress.
"The great object is that every man be armed...Every one who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry, Governor, Patriot Leader
"And what country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President, Signer of the Declaration
"No citizen shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands."
Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President, Signer of the Declaration
DICKhead over to your local library and study up on things prior to composing--leftist pile of excrement! There's more than enough evidence to prove to any sane person that the Framers had clearly understood that a free individual has the natural, God-given right to defend his or her property, person, life and limb.
No Second Amendment? All right then, where do you get the Right that there is a First Amendment.? The government has the Right to print newspapers and have Television? Is that what you're saying? The Justice Department has returned to the same stance that it has in this country for the first Two Hundred years. It was only in the last few decades that innocent people have gone to jail or had their wife murdered for a scrap of metal. It isn't the policy makers of the government or the media that have gone unprotected. It's the cabdrivers or the cashiers hiding behind bullet-proof glass that have had their Rights taken away. Just in the last couple of weeks there was a newspaper that was shut down for 3 hours while the authorities looked for a Billing Receipt. Who's going to cry if CBS is shut down for the next couple of decades like the gunowners who have been waiting for their Rights to be returned?
Dick, if you don't believe in guns, don't have one.
Come on guys. Start those letters to the Editor.
What I really need is a removal of the "no profanity" clause so I can tell people what I really feel about these enemies of Freedom.
Mr. Meyer, I would take issue with your entire article except for one point: if you, or anyone else, want to eliminate my fundamental, indivdual right to own firearms you must repeal the Second Amendment to do so. My credentials are not as impressive as yours, being a media persona and all, but as a former police officer and now an attorney, I think I can offer some educated information to you that will be helpful.I would proffer that such a repeal would call into question the legitimacy of the Congress that voted to do so, but that is a debate for another day. I will include my contact information if you would like to engage in a civilized, rational discourse on the subject. Suffice it to say that you are grossly misinformed on the Constitutional issues, as well as the practical issues that surround this very important issue.
I will point out the absurdity of your entire article with the following assertion:
While the Founding Fathers intended that the Press be free, as a practical matter is no longer is such given the entangled corporate connections between the corporate media executives, lobbying groups and congress. Therefore the First Amendment is an anachronism and ought to be repealed along with the Second.
Chew on that thought for a while.
With all due respect,
I found that sentence to be the most frightening of his irrational spewings. Worse than even his rehashed, discredited anti-gun bromides, and those were bad enough.
What the left, in desperation, is saying is that nothing means nothing, and even the simplest sentences are devoid of any meaning. This is the equivalent of klinton's "definition of 'is'" statement.
This is their dishonest way (nothing new for them) of saying they'll do what they damn well feel like when they get back in power, and nobody will be able to appeal to a higher source to counter them. They will provide the final proof as to WHY we have a Second Ammendment.
"Firearms serve the people of this country a useful purpose wholly aside from hunting, and under a constitution like ours, granting to aliens who are bona fide residents of the state the same rights in respect to the possession, enjoyment, and inheritance of property as native-born citizens, and to every person the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state, while the Legislature has power in the most comprehensive manner to regulate the carrying and use of firearms, that body has no power to constitute it a crime for a person, alien or citizen, to possess a revolver for the legitimate defense of himself and his property. The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary.
The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot he made subject to the will of the sheriff."
People v. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)
"There is no qualifications of the prohibition against the carrying of a pistol in the city ordinance before us but it is made unlawful 'to carry on or about the person any pistol,' that is, any sort of pistol in any sort of manner. *** [W]e must accordingly hold the provision of this ordinance as to the carrying of a pistol invalid."
Glasscock v. City of Chattanooga, 157 Tenn. 518, at 520, 11 S.W. 2d 678 (1928)
"It is equally clear that the act wholly disarms aliens for all purposes. The state ... cannot disarm any class of persons or deprive them of the right guaranteed under section 13, article II of the Constitution, to bear arms in defense of home, person and property. The guaranty thus extended is meaningless if any person is denied the right to posses arms for such protection."
People v. Nakamura, 99 Colo. 262, at 264, 62 P.2d 246 (en banc 1936)
"A state cannot impose a license, tax or fee on a constitutionally protected right."
Murdock vs. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1942).
"The second amendment to the constitution of the United States provides the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This of course does not prevent the enactment of a law against carrying concealed weapons, but it does indicate it should be kept in mind, in the construction of a statute of such character, that it is aimed at persons of criminal instincts, and for the prevention of crime, and not against use in the protection of person or property."
People v. Liss, 406 Ill. 419, 94 N.E. 2d 320, at 323 (1950)
"The law of this jurisdiction accords to the defendant the right to keep and bear arms and to use same in defense of his own home, his person and property."
State v. Nickerson, 126 Mt. 157, 247 P.2d 188, at 192 (1952)
"It is our opinion that an ordinance may not deny the people the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms, and to that extent the ordinance under consideration is void."
City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 82 N.M. 626, 485 P.2d 737, at 738 (N.M. App. 1971)
"As an example, we note that this ordinance would prohibit gunsmiths, pawnbrokers and sporting goods stores from carrying on a substantial part of their business. Also, the ordinance appears to prohibit individuals from transporting guns to and from such places of business. Furthermore, it makes it unlawful for a person to possess a firearm in a vehicle or in a place of business for the purpose of self-defense. Several of these activities are constitutionally protected. Colo. Const. art. II, sec 13."
City of Lakewood v. Pillow, 180 Colo. 20, 501 P.2d 744, at 745 (en banc 1972)
"The pistols in question are not contraband. * * * Under Art. I, sec 23, Mo. Const. 1945, V.A.M.S., every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, with the limitation that this section shall not justify the wearing of concealed arms."
Taylor v. McNeal, 523 S.W.2d 148, at 150 (Mo. App. 1975)
"We think it clear that our constitution provides our citizenry the right to bear arms for their self-defense."
Schubert v. DeBard, 398 N.E.2d 1339, at 1341 (Ind. App. 1980) (motion to transfer denied 8-28-1980)
[N]ot making applications available at the chief's office effectively denied members of the community the opportunity to obtain a gun permit and bear arms for their self-defense."
Motley v. Kellogg, 409 N.E.2d 1207, at 1210 (Ind. App. 1980) (motion to transfer denied 1-27-1981)
"We are not unmindful that there is current controversy over the wisdom of a right to bear arms, and that the original motivations for such a provision might not seem compelling if debated as a new issue. Our task, however, in construing a constitutional provision is to respect the principles given the status of constitutional guarantees and limitations by the drafters; it is not to abandon these principles when this fits the needs of the moment." "Therefore, the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons commonly used for defense. The term 'arms' would not have included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militia-men or private citizens."
State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 614 P.2d 94, at 95, at 98 (1980)
"The statute is written as a total proscription of the mere possession of certain weapons, and that mere possession, insofar as a billy is concerned, is constitutionally protected."
"In these circumstances, we conclude that it is proper for us to consider defendant's 'overbreadth' attack to mean that the statute swept so broadly as to infringe rights that it could not reach, which in this setting means the right to possess arms guaranteed by sec 27."
State v. Blocker, 291 Or. 255, -- -- -- P.2d -- -- -- (1981) "Although an individual's right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, see United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178-79 (1939), the posession of a gun, especially by anyone who has been convicted of a violent crime, is nevertheless a highly regulated activity, and everyone knows it."
United States of America v. Cody Jeremiah Hutzell. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 5, 2000.
That is because the issue has never reached the courts. I just love these idiots who think they understand the law, court decisions, or the constitution.
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.