Skip to comments.
Who Is Right about the Right to Bear Arms?
Stanford (Alumni Magazine) ^
| March/April 2006
| Stanford Magazine
Posted on 03/13/2006 2:39:12 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 341-351 next last
To: Carry_Okie
What this so called expert forgets is that it doesn't take long for anarchy to ensue and his adored government to disintegrate. And then we are no better of than when it was "an artifact of a model of citizenship."
Think it took just a day after Katrina hit for this to happen.
21
posted on
03/13/2006 3:05:04 PM PST
by
dhs12345
To: EBH
We the people have relinquished that responsibility to a variety of others from law enforcement on up. It's been a huge mistake. When citizens are no longer "capable" of law enforcement, they no longer keep tabs on the laws and true civil liberties take a dive (like letting your kids go for a walk unsupervised). We are raising a generation with no idea what it is to experience freedom to protect the license of the depraved and violent.
22
posted on
03/13/2006 3:07:37 PM PST
by
Carry_Okie
(There are people in power who are truly evil.)
To: Beelzebubba
Gun control advocates have argued for the states rights model,Then it would have read: "The right of the States to keep and bear arms..."
It also would not have been included among the first 10 amendment, known collectively as the Bill of Rights.
23
posted on
03/13/2006 3:07:57 PM PST
by
holymoly
(Dick DeVos for MI Governor: http://www.devosforgovernor.com/)
To: dhs12345
Think it took just a day after Katrina hit for this to happen. Lacking that "artifact of a model," executing 9-11 was a piece of cake.
24
posted on
03/13/2006 3:09:11 PM PST
by
Carry_Okie
(There are people in power who are truly evil.)
To: Beelzebubba
Why is it this stuff comes back like a bad penny ( or Crevo threads )?
If nothing else, I suspect it is because certain individuals have something they would like to do to you, but refrain because you may or may not be armed.
To: Diana in Wisconsin
I think you came up with either a tagline or a bumper sticker.
"I went shooting today and not a single fetus was harmed"
26
posted on
03/13/2006 3:10:35 PM PST
by
Shooter 2.5
(Vote a Straight Republican Ballot. Rid the country of dems. NRA)
To: Beelzebubba
a sawed-off shotgun has no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.This statement is inaccurate, as well as being the opinion of Mullahs that I doubt ever had to do a building-to-building rout of a gang oriented terrorist group. That weapon would also be useful to a private citizen defending themself (and very possibly others) in a few other scenarios.
Hopefully when this decision is revisited clearer heads will prevail.
27
posted on
03/13/2006 3:10:45 PM PST
by
1_Of_We
To: Vaquero
Speaking of Dred Scott v Sanford. It is a delightful case where the Court allowed itself the luxury of determining who exactly is a "person" who enjoys the protection of the Constitution and who does not. In that point, it is in the same mindset as Roe v Wade.
But I would encourage people to read the majority opinion of Dred Scott. It is easily found with Google. For example, here:
http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Scott/
Even though the Court was going to justify ruling that blacks slaves who had escaped their masters were "property", they did so in the (otherwise plain) light of the text.
The unquestioned Right to Keep and Bear Arms was a component in their decision:
(from the opinion)
"Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding."
If this be the case, then free blacks who were able to enjoy the benefits of the Constitution might (gasp!) be able to travel freely and keep and bear arms!
Well they didn't say it so directly. The majority wrote:
"...It would give to persons of the Negro race, who were recognized 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. "
We are more sophisticated today. We can grant Negros full civil rights with the right hand and take away selected rights (such as the right to keep and bear arms, and with Kelo, the right to property) with the left hand, not only for Negros, but for every class of person we care to affect.
Anyone who ignores or forgets that the Constitution was meant to limit the power of government over the lives and affairs of free citizens, who were free to do anything they pleased, of course they will view the Constitution as a Document that gives rights. Once it gives rights, those rights can be interpreted away. This is why the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were murdered.
To: Beelzebubba
Ironically, a Federal government that strictly adhered to the principles of the U.S. Constitution would have been incapable of fighting most of the wars the U.S. has fought in the last 100 years.
To: Diana in Wisconsin
"We had our Spring Trap Shoot this past weekend out here at the farm and not one fetus was harmed in the process, though lots of clay pidgeons were blasted to smithereens. ;)"
Wait until PETCP (People for the Ethical Treatment of Clay Pidgeons) hears about that!:>)
30
posted on
03/13/2006 3:17:37 PM PST
by
Panzerlied
("We shall never surrender!")
To: Vaquero
Just because pompous asses can get themselves appointed to the SCOTUS....does not make them correct....take for example Marbury vs Madison or the Dred Scott decision for examples of despotic rule of law.Or Wickard v Filburn.
31
posted on
03/13/2006 3:21:42 PM PST
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: Carry_Okie
Yup. We are not as safe and cozy as this idiot would like us to believe because the Government can't/wont always be there to save us.
I can understand why he has difficulty with this concept. He's a pro-Government Liberal.
32
posted on
03/13/2006 3:24:30 PM PST
by
dhs12345
To: Beelzebubba
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed Yeah, that's pretty ambiguous, not at all like the fourth amendment which guarantees the right to abortion on demand.
33
posted on
03/13/2006 3:36:40 PM PST
by
KarinG1
(Some of us are trying to engage in philosophical discourse. Please don't allow us to interrupt you.)
To: pcottraux
You know, it's really not that difficult.
No it isn't, if the average man of that period could
understand it, so can we, without the help of scholars
or lawyers.
"On every question of construction (of the constitution) let us
carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson
1823
34
posted on
03/13/2006 3:44:12 PM PST
by
tet68
( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
To: JWinNC
Sounds like a good bumper sticker.
Bill of Rights.
1,4,9,10 = 2!
35
posted on
03/13/2006 3:46:17 PM PST
by
tet68
( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
To: Beelzebubba
It isn't really that difficult, and every serious scholar who looks at the issue with objectivity, liberal or conservative, comes to pretty much the same conclusion.
Of course, to those for whom the Constitution is a "living document" it's merely a starting place for social engineering by legislation. Should the Second Amendment be affirmed by the Supreme Court, and it will, we will see a sudden and very well-publicized campaign for the repeal of that pesky amendment. Expect that to fail.
To: Beelzebubba
The court said the law against the modified weapon was constitutional because a sawed-off shotgun has no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. Ummm, no, the Supreme Court said nothing of the sort. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the lower court, asking the lower court to make a determination as to whether a sawed-off shotgun bore a reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and that if it did, then the law was UNconstitutional. Given that there was ample evidence at the time that sawed-off shotguns HAD been used in military operations, the finding would have been that the law was unconstitutional. However, the original defendants were not present or represented at the Supreme Court proceeding, so no evidence to that effect was presented there. The lower case never revisited the case, because one of the two defendants had died, and the other had already accepted a deal in which he plead guilty in exchange for a probation-only sentence.
As is often the case when debating the Second Amendment, both sides claim Miller supports their argument.
And as far as I can tell, virtually no one on either side actually READS the case before claiming it supports their argument. Join the elite club here:
Overview of surrounding circumstances: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2337
The SC decision: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/miller.txt
To: groanup
'If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'
Or possibly: To prevent tyranny of the people by a select few, the right of the people...
38
posted on
03/13/2006 3:51:03 PM PST
by
Nova
To: Beelzebubba; Everybody; Mojave; robertpaulsen
"-- Ready for the big one? California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms. --"
129 posted on 11/20/2003 1:30 PM PST by robertpaulsen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"-- No court has ever held that the 2nd Amendment bars regulating firearms by the states. Feel free to produce even a single cite. --"
39 posted on 02/19/2006 10:59:09 AM PST by Mojave
39
posted on
03/13/2006 3:51:54 PM PST
by
tpaine
To: groanup
Thank you, sir, for your post #20. That was the most enlightening explanation of the language of the Second Amendment that I have ever read...and I have read quite a few.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 341-351 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson