The Second Amendment Doesn't Mean What it Says (Mass ACLU Barf-a-rama)

Massachusetts ACLU Loonies ^ | Mass ACLU

[Freedom4US]

The Second Amendment was never intended as a gun license for the entire American populace

Like hell. One can disagree with the wisdom of the 2nd A, but don't try and blow smoke up my @#$ and tell me it doesn't mean what it says.

[Travis McGee]

Thanks for posting that superb RKBA quote collection, I just saved and printed it for future ref.

[Sloth]

The SCOTUS can no more declare a part of the Constitution to be unconstitutional than it can declare white to be black.

Why not? If we're going to draw this artificial distinction, why can't the court, say, declare snow to be "legally" black in color, while acknowledging that legally black is not necessarily the same as colorimetrically black?

In this age of emanations of penumbras I have no difficulty at all seeing an imaginary SCOTUS full of Gore nominees declare the 2nd Amendment to be unconstitutional due to being inconsistent with the 'domestic tranquility' and 'general welfare' elements of the Preamble, or some such nonsense. If they did so, would the 2nd Amendment no longer be "legally" constitutional?

[KoestlersRedFiat]

Reading this has given me a dull headache...and a flashback to when I was reading Orwell's Animal Farm. Specifically, the part where Squealer was explaining to the animals why it was OK for the pigs to be sleeping in beds.

The Mass. ACLU is doing to the 2nd Amendment what the pigs did with the Seven Commandments in AF.

[Travis McGee]

I'm not saying that SCOTUS decisions are always right. I'm saying that they're always legal. "Constitutional" is a defined legal term, not a moral opinion.

Slavery was once defined as "legal" by the SCOTUS.

Would you have "obeyed the law" if you found a runaway slave in your barn, and turned him in, or fed him and sent him on, becoming a law breaker?

After you answer that, I will follow up with a contemporary question.

[RonF]

Actually, not a bad analogy. But there's a critical difference. There's enough access to technology for all citizens, and enough different corporations with enough different political viewpoints, that all viewpoints get heard and citizens can have sufficient perspective (if they care to) to make up their own minds before any one message has much of a deleterious effect.

Whereas if some nut fires an automatic weapon at a crowd, it doesn't matter if someone else has one and can fire back. You've still got a bunch of innocent corpses on hand.

[Sloth]

I think your post was intended for RonF.

[RonF]

Very nice. Did you collect these on your own? If not, what's the source?

[Travis McGee]

Whoops, that was meant for RonF. Thanks.

[RonF]

I would have become a law breaker. I'm not saying that the law is always right. I'm saying it's always the law, until the courts decide different. I rather suspect that Henry David Thoreau is not held in wide regard here on FR, but it's seems what we're talking about here is Civil Disobedience. It's not legal, but it's moral if based on moral principles. Whether or not something is constitutional is a legal judgement, not a moral one.

[Travis McGee]

Whereas if some nut fires an automatic weapon at a crowd, it doesn't matter if someone else has one and can fire back. You've still got a bunch of innocent corpses on hand.

The exact same situation existed in 1790, "some nut" could fire a one inch bore duck gun filled with dirty shot at a Sunday church picnic and do the same exact thing.

But the wounded would spend days screaming in pain as their infections killed them.

The slaughter would be the same, in 1790 or 2003. Medical science has more than kept pace with firearms, so your "weapons are more dangerous today" arguement holds zero water.

[Travis McGee]

My nightmare is that the war goes south with WMDs released in the USA and our economy collapses, and we wind up with President Evita, Attorney General Schumer, etc.

Then we will get the judges who will call black white, say that 2+2=5, and rule that there is no right of individuals to own firearms. In that case, we will soon arrive at a situation similar to the one described in my novel. (Click cover to read 28 chapters and see how it could happen.)

[RJayneJ]

Thanks for the nomination! };^D)

[dark_lord]

Essentially, the Court took the position that the militia clause provided guidance on the definition of the term "arms", and concluded that it meant "weapons of a type typically wielded by individual soldiers".

Bummer. So I can't have my own artillery piece. However, I should be able to have my own mortar, or shoulder fired missle, as long as I can lug and its ammo around on my own back. COOL!

[A Navy Vet]

Guntruths

[Chemist_Geek]

You may believe that gun control laws are unconstitutional, but they will not be unconstitutional unless and until the Supreme Court rules them as such.

Which is, of course, why we need to have a pro-firearms-rights President and Senate, who will appoint and confirm pro-firearms-rights Justices.

Eyes on the ball, people!

[A Navy Vet]

My pleasure.

[Travis McGee]

I have seen most of them, but that puts them all in one nice list.

[Tahts-a-dats-ago]

The best way I can answer your question is this: sometimes.

Various courts rule in various manners. Some are clearly stacked with leftists and rule accordingly. Others have some common sense and an ability to read the Constitution (along with the thoughts of the framers etc..) and rule accordingly.

Quite often US vs Miller is cited as nothing more than a means to approve of gun control measures - since the ruling did not favor an unimpeded right to bear arms.

I view this as a clear warning that we've a lot of work to do.

[spunkets]

Thanks...email. I changed the words a bit. Glad you enjoyed it.