Little-Acorn
03-01-2016, 11:57 AM
Today's liberals seem unable to take the hint.
The 2nd amendment in modern language, says that since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.
And it doesn't say "unless they aren't very nice people" or "unless they beat their wife ten years ago and did time for it" or any other such restriction. Other passages and amendments in the Constitution make exceptions ("except by due process of law" or "reasonable searches and seizures" etc.), but the Framers were careful to make sure the 2nd did not. It was a flat ban on ANY government involvement in deciding who can have a gun.
But here we have a college professor in a position to influence young minds, announcing that violent people shouldn't own gun, because of the chance that they might be violent.
Yes, it's true that someone who has been violent in the past might do it again. But it's far more often true that someone who has been violent, does it only once in a situation of extreme emotional stress, and never does it again. But there are (unconstitutional) laws in the country, saying that a person who was recklessly violent once, loses his right to keep and bear arms for the rest of his life.
If the people who wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights wanted it that way, why did they write a flat ban on such laws, into the 2nd amendment?
Could it be that they thought that government having ANY say in who can keep and bear arms, would do the nation far more harm in the long run, than letting government impose such restrictions on "some groups" of people?
Did they look over the long history of governments throughout the ages, and find that governments who had "a little" influence on the question of who can keep and bear arms, eventually started abusing that power, imposing restrictions on more and more of their populaces, and eventually leave them helpless to resist the rest of their rights being taken away?
The answer lies in what they wrote for our government. They felt it was more important for govt to be completely banned from restricting people's right to own and carry weapons, than for govt to have even the power to take that right away from "some groups" of people.
The Framers didn't leave us long treatises explaining what studies they did (although they did study many past government extensively) and why they came to the conclusions they did.
But they did leave us the conclusion. And that was to flatly ban govt from having ANY say in who can keep and bear arms.
If that college professor wants to keep professing the facts, maybe HE should study up, even half as much as the Framers did, and find the facts. Before he starts telling trusting young souls what they are.
-----------------------------------------------
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/might-why-justice-clarence-thomas-200806704.html
This might be why Justice Clarence Thomas finally asked a question after 10 years
Business Insider
By Erin Fuchs
Feb. 29, 2016
20 hours ago
The case that spurred Thomas' torrent of questions centered on whether a "reckless" domestic-assault conviction counts as a federal "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" that would carry with it a lifetime firearm ban. Thirty-four states have "reckless" assault laws that hold people accountable for carelessness that injures somebody else even when they don't necessarily intend harm, according to SCOTUSBlog.
Thomas' line of questioning seemed to suggest that he didn't favor gun bans for misdemeanor domestic-violence offenders and thought such bans could be a slippery slope leading to the denial of other constitutional rights for people convicted of misdemeanors.
"Can you give me a — this is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor question suspends a constitutional right?" Thomas asked Eisenstein, according to the court transcript.
The usually silent justice may have spoken up because neither side had addressed this question in the briefs they filed, according to Winkler.
"Thomas's question was an important one. Why is the right to bear arms is the only right that people lose for a misdemeanor?" Winkler asked in his email, before going ahead and answering the question himself.
"The answer is recidivism. Even though some domestic violence is only a misdemeanor, it shows a propensity to engage in violence," Winkler added. "Violent people shouldn't have access to guns."
The 2nd amendment in modern language, says that since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.
And it doesn't say "unless they aren't very nice people" or "unless they beat their wife ten years ago and did time for it" or any other such restriction. Other passages and amendments in the Constitution make exceptions ("except by due process of law" or "reasonable searches and seizures" etc.), but the Framers were careful to make sure the 2nd did not. It was a flat ban on ANY government involvement in deciding who can have a gun.
But here we have a college professor in a position to influence young minds, announcing that violent people shouldn't own gun, because of the chance that they might be violent.
Yes, it's true that someone who has been violent in the past might do it again. But it's far more often true that someone who has been violent, does it only once in a situation of extreme emotional stress, and never does it again. But there are (unconstitutional) laws in the country, saying that a person who was recklessly violent once, loses his right to keep and bear arms for the rest of his life.
If the people who wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights wanted it that way, why did they write a flat ban on such laws, into the 2nd amendment?
Could it be that they thought that government having ANY say in who can keep and bear arms, would do the nation far more harm in the long run, than letting government impose such restrictions on "some groups" of people?
Did they look over the long history of governments throughout the ages, and find that governments who had "a little" influence on the question of who can keep and bear arms, eventually started abusing that power, imposing restrictions on more and more of their populaces, and eventually leave them helpless to resist the rest of their rights being taken away?
The answer lies in what they wrote for our government. They felt it was more important for govt to be completely banned from restricting people's right to own and carry weapons, than for govt to have even the power to take that right away from "some groups" of people.
The Framers didn't leave us long treatises explaining what studies they did (although they did study many past government extensively) and why they came to the conclusions they did.
But they did leave us the conclusion. And that was to flatly ban govt from having ANY say in who can keep and bear arms.
If that college professor wants to keep professing the facts, maybe HE should study up, even half as much as the Framers did, and find the facts. Before he starts telling trusting young souls what they are.
-----------------------------------------------
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/might-why-justice-clarence-thomas-200806704.html
This might be why Justice Clarence Thomas finally asked a question after 10 years
Business Insider
By Erin Fuchs
Feb. 29, 2016
20 hours ago
The case that spurred Thomas' torrent of questions centered on whether a "reckless" domestic-assault conviction counts as a federal "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" that would carry with it a lifetime firearm ban. Thirty-four states have "reckless" assault laws that hold people accountable for carelessness that injures somebody else even when they don't necessarily intend harm, according to SCOTUSBlog.
Thomas' line of questioning seemed to suggest that he didn't favor gun bans for misdemeanor domestic-violence offenders and thought such bans could be a slippery slope leading to the denial of other constitutional rights for people convicted of misdemeanors.
"Can you give me a — this is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor question suspends a constitutional right?" Thomas asked Eisenstein, according to the court transcript.
The usually silent justice may have spoken up because neither side had addressed this question in the briefs they filed, according to Winkler.
"Thomas's question was an important one. Why is the right to bear arms is the only right that people lose for a misdemeanor?" Winkler asked in his email, before going ahead and answering the question himself.
"The answer is recidivism. Even though some domestic violence is only a misdemeanor, it shows a propensity to engage in violence," Winkler added. "Violent people shouldn't have access to guns."