Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[red states rule]

With the recent USSC ruling stating law abiding citizens do have the right to own guns, the liberal media is flipping out

This recent op-ed in Sen Obama's hometown paper is really off the deep end

Will the messiah take a stand against the paper?


Repeal the 2nd Amendment
June 27, 2008
No, we don't suppose that's going to happen any time soon. But it should.

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If the founders had limited themselves to the final 14 words, the amendment would have been an unambiguous declaration of the right to possess firearms. But they didn't, and it isn't. The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias. The inartful wording has left the amendment open to public debate for more than 200 years. But in its last major decision on gun rights, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that that was the correct interpretation.

On Tuesday, five members of the court edited the 2nd Amendment. In essence, they said: Scratch the preamble, only 14 words count.

In doing so, they have curtailed the power of the legislatures and the city councils to protect their citizens.

The majority opinion in the 5-4 decision to overturn a Washington, D.C., ban on handgun possession goes to great lengths to parse the words of the 2nd Amendment. The opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, spends 111/2 pages just on the meaning of the words "keep and bear arms."

But as Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a compelling dissent, the five justices in the majority found no new evidence that the 2nd Amendment was intended to limit the power of government to regulate the use of firearms. They found no new evidence to overturn decades of court precedent.

They have claimed, Stevens wrote, "a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th Centuries."

for the compete op-ed
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0627edit1jun27,0,2350076.story

[DragonStryk72]

Very well, then, we should all form up militias, I'm certain would make things so much better. I mean, seriously, to be a part of the militia, alls you need to really do is be signed up, and show up every so often to show you can still shoot a gun, and walk the right way.

In all seriousness, guns are in fact vital as a first line deterrent to crime. No it isn't the police force, who are, quite necessarily, limited in their ability to deal with crime.

Look at every statistic, and you will see the same pattern form: The greater the gun control becomes, the higher the gun-crime rate, and the greater the purchase of illegal firearms. this should tell people something very basic, but apparently it needs to be spelled out: Criminals fear citizens that are armed, not the police force in general, because a citizen that is armed is far more likely to shoot them than the police are.

[red states rule]

Very well, then, we should all form up militias, I'm certain would make things so much better. I mean, seriously, to be a part of the militia, alls you need to really do is be signed up, and show up every so often to show you can still shoot a gun, and walk the right way.

In all seriousness, guns are in fact vital as a first line deterrent to crime. No it isn't the police force, who are, quite necessarily, limited in their ability to deal with crime.

Look at every statistic, and you will see the same pattern form: The greater the gun control becomes, the higher the gun-crime rate, and the greater the purchase of illegal firearms. this should tell people something very basic, but apparently it needs to be spelled out: Criminals fear citizens that are armed, not the police force in general, because a citizen that is armed is far more likely to shoot them than the police are.

So are you saying a law abiding citizen like myself, who has never had a problem with the law (except the occassional speeding ticket) should not own a gun to protect my life and property?

What should bother folks is there were 4 Justices who said I do not have such a right

[Abbey Marie]

So are you saying a law abiding citizen like myself, who has never had a problem with the law (except the occassional speeding ticket) should not own a gun to protect my life and property?

What should bother folks is there were 4 Justices who said I do not have such a right

RSR, I think he was agreeing with you.

[red states rule]

RSR, I think he was agreeing with you.

I failed to catch the sarcasim in his first paragraph

I stand corrected then

[CooterBrown44]

The four in the minority actually recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, which was the main issue at hand.

[red states rule]

The four in the minority actually recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, which was the main issue at hand.

Not so. The 4 libs on the court were willing to let the DC gun ban stand

So they did not see a constitutional reason for law abiding citizens to won a gun

[avatar4321]

I hate it when people arrogantly think they know better than their ancestors without ever trying to see things from their perspective.

[Hobbit]

The four in the minority actually recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, which was the main issue at hand.

Check Stevens' opinion. He not only believes that the founding fathers wanted the government to be able to take away your guns, but that to believe otherwise is stupid.

[red states rule]

The four in the minority actually recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, which was the main issue at hand.

In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

So yes, the 4 libs on the USCS believe law abiding people have no right to own a gun for protection.

Even in crime ridden DC

[CooterBrown44]

Not so. The 4 libs on the court were willing to let the DC gun ban stand

So they did not see a constitutional reason for law abiding citizens to won a gun


Letting the gun ban stand does not mean that they didn't recognize an individual right. From Stevens' dissent, joined by the other three dissenting Justices.


The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a "collective right" or an "individual right." Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

That's the opening paragraph of his opinion. What the dissenters are getting to is the scope of the right, and they believe that D. C. can ban the outright possession of handguns. While recognizing an individual right, they would limit it to military uses. That's patently absurd.

Stevens makes a mistake when he relies on Miller as providing a precedent that the power of the state with regards to firearms is to regulate the possession and use of firearms with the exception of military purposes . Miller said nothing of the kind, and has been misconstrued by gun grabbers for decades.

The 2nd Amendment isn't one of issues that I pay a great deal of attention to, although I do keep up to some extent, so I'm not claiming to be an expert. I have read the opinions, and listened to what people say who know a great deal more about the issue than I do. Over the years, as a general rule, I have found the anti gun people to be dishonest. I can deal with differences of opinion, but we are not entitled to our own facts.

[gabosaurus]

Right after the Supreme Court decision was handed down, there was a story on a weird news site about a man who loved guns. He had a huge collection of guns.
A burglar broke into his home and shot him. The homeowner had a lot of guns, but couldn't get to any of them in time to prevent the robbery.
Live with guns, die with guns.

[Little-Acorn]

Check it out.

Gabby describes how a homeowner was shot when he couldn't get to his guns, basically dying without a gun in his hand.

Then she concludes, "Live with guns, die with guns."

With "opposition" like this, getting our gun rights back should be a cakewalk. :lol:

--------------------------------

BTW, I haven't seen the actual story, for which gabby provided no link or reference ("weird news site" could be anything from The Onion to MSNBC or the New York Times). But I wonder if the homeowner couldn't "get to his guns" because of gabby's favorite laws, about requiring them to be locked up or disassembled, thus preventing him from having one cocked and locked in a holster where he could have actually used it for its intended purpose: Defense against sudden, unexpected threats.

[Hagbard Celine]

I hate it when people arrogantly think they know better than their ancestors without ever trying to see things from their perspective.

I hate it when people arrogantly think that ancestral knowledge always trumps contemporary knowledge no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary.

[avatar4321]

I hate it when people arrogantly think that ancestral knowledge always trumps contemporary knowledge no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary.

Well when you can show contrary evidence, or any evidence at all, let me know.

But then you have never been big on evidence.

[Monkeybone]

Right after the Supreme Court decision was handed down, there was a story on a weird news site about a man who loved guns. He had a huge collection of guns.
A burglar broke into his home and shot him. The homeowner had a lot of guns, but couldn't get to any of them in time to prevent the robbery.
Live with guns, die with guns.

what makes it weird? that it didn't exisit? :link:

besides, having a gun in your house and then collecting and storing them are two different things sometimes. so guns that are collected aren't even fired.

[Hagbard Celine]

Well when you can show contrary evidence, or any evidence at all, let me know.

But then you have never been big on evidence.

What a coincidence!