Politics - Excellent write up on the Second Amendment

Welcome to the Leverguns.Com Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here ... politely.

Moderators: AmBraCol, Hobie

Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.

Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Ysabel Kid
Moderator
Posts: 27907
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:10 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA
Contact:

Politics - Excellent write up on the Second Amendment

Post by Ysabel Kid »

This came out in last Friday's (05/30/2008) "Patriot Post". Awesome article! :D

*************************************************************

"The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." -- Samuel Adams

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

By Mark Alexander

"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." -- Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

There is no more important constitutional issue than that of defending the plain language and original intent of the Second Amendment.

Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by our Constitution's principal author, James Madison, wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

It is no small irony that the latest assault on the Second Amendment is taking place in our nation's capital. The Supreme Court will announce its decision in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller in June, and that decision will likely have far-reaching implications for the "interpretation" of our Constitution's most important provision.

And make no mistake, the newly-emboldened Left, with Barack Hussein Obama leading the charge, is gunning for those rights. Obama supports the D.C. regulations because he, "...wanted to make sure that local communities were recognized as having a right to regulate firearms... The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun laws isn't born out by our Constitution."

Does he suggest, by extension then, that our national Constitution can be amended by judicial dictates and local ordinances?

Of course, in addition to serving on the Woods Fund board with Weather Underground terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Obama also served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which since 2000, has given more than $15 Million to radical gun control organizations and is closely linked to the Soros Open Society Institute, which advocates a worldwide ban on civilian firearm ownership.

Indeed, the Second Amendment is "the palladium of the liberties of the republic," and those who fail to support it as such, and reject detractors like Obama, do so at great peril to themselves and the liberty of future generations of Americans.

The subject of this dispute is the Washington, DC, "Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975," which banned handguns and mandated that all other firearms, including shotguns and rifles, be kept "unloaded and
disassembled or bound by a trigger lock," ostensibly to deter so-called "gun violence." D.C.'s FCRA actually prohibits a person who owns a legal handgun (pre-1976 grandfathered one) from transporting the handgun from one room to another in his or her own home.

Of course, suggesting that violence is a "gun problem" ignores the real problem---that of socio-pathology and the Leftists who nurture it.

Will that decision comport with the Constructionist view (original intent) of our Constitution, or will it be another adulterated interpretation of the so-called "Living Constitution", the ACLU's perverted distortion of our Constitution by its cadre of judicial activists?

It is our hope that the Court will affirm the ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the District's ordinance banning possession of handguns is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

Though every constitutional constructionist knows that the Second Amendment assures an individual right to keep and bear arms, militias being the people, the ACLU's "Living Constitution" mob argues that "the people" means "the state militia," as outlined on the ACLU's website under "Gun Control": "We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias. ... The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns."

Well, they may believe that, but in the inimitable words of Founder John Adams, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

It seems the lawyers at the ACLU are always viewing the First Amendment through a wide-angle lens, while they view the Second through a pinhole. Alas, they have it backwards.

In the 1788 Massachusetts Convention debates to ratify the U.S. Constitution, Founder Samuel Adams stated: "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

That same year, James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers (No. 46), "The ultimate authority... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition."

Similarly, Federalist Noah Webster wrote: "Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state."

To understand how the right to bear arms was understood in proper context as an individual right, consider some of the earliest state constitutional provisions both before and after the ratification of the Bill of Rights:

Pennsylvania---That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state (1776);

Vermont---[T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State (1777);

Kentucky---[T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792).

Tennessee---[T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796) and,

Connecticut---Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818).

These are not references to state guard units as the ACLU insists. Though the Supreme Court rarely referenced the Second Amendment in the first hundred years of our nation's existence, because its meaning was understood, in one early reference, Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856), the Court noted, "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union...the full liberty...to keep and carry arms wherever they went." The implication is that the right to carry arms was considered to be universal right for U.S. citizens.

Of course, Washington, D.C. is not the only major city violating the Second Amendment. New York City has restrictive gun regulations, but consider this comment from Timothy Dwight, President of Yale College, from an 1821 commentary on American life: "In both New-England, and New-York, every man is permitted, and in some, if not all the States, is required to possess fire arms."

Times have indeed changed, and not in the interest of liberty.

If you know some of those Chardonnay-sipping elitists who insist that guns should be banned, get them a few of these "Gun Free Household" stickers for their front and back doors.

Speaking of Chardonnay, here's an interesting fact: Alcohol-related traffic deaths outnumber homicides with guns by a wide margin. In the latest year of record, there were 12,253 homicides with firearms (many of which involved alcohol) but 16,885 alcohol related highway fatalities. (Perhaps the ACLU should be fighting for a five-day waiting period to purchase alcohol?)

Here's another inconvenient truth for the Leftist gun-grabbers: The U.S. ranks 41st in the world in homicides but first in the world in private gun ownership (39 percent of households). The firearm homicide rate in the United States was 4.17 per 100,000 in 2005. But Israel, which is awash in so-called "assault weapons," has a total homicide rate of 2.62 per 100,000.

The National Institute of Justice estimates that Americans use firearms in self-defense approximately 2.73 million times per year. While firearms are used in 67 percent of illegal homicides in the United States, they are used in 99 percent of justifiable homicides. In other words, bad guys use guns sometimes, but good guys use guns almost all the time.

Put another way, smart guys protect their families with "Second Amendment Security".

On this point, I would argue that gun ownership is not only a right, but a duty and obligation of all Patriots. After all, we are the Militia.

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

"For more than two decades, I've opposed efforts to ban guns, ban ammunition, ban magazines, and dismiss gun owners as some kind of fringe group unwelcome in 'modern' America. The Second Amendment isn't some archaic custom that matters only to rural Americans, who find solace in firearms out of frustration with their economic circumstances. The Second Amendment is unique in the world. It guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. To argue anything else is to reject the clear meaning of our Founding Fathers. Self-reliance is the ethic that made America great, and our Founders understood that. They knew
there would be circumstances where Americans might need to use firearms to protect themselves and their families... The clear meaning of the Second Amendment has not stopped those who want to punish firearms owners---and those who make and sell firearms---for the actions of criminals. It seems like every time there is a particularly violent crime, the anti-gun activists demand yet another restriction on the Second Amendment... After Senator Obama made his unfortunate comment that Pennsylvanians 'cling to guns and religion' out of bitterness, Senator Clinton quickly affirmed her support for the Second Amendment. That drew Senator Obama's derision. 'She's running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment,' he said. 'Like she's on the duck blind every Sunday...packin' a six shooter!' Someone should tell Senator Obama that ducks are usually hunted with shotguns... The next President will appoint literally hundreds of federal judges, and is likely to have the opportunity to nominate one or more Supreme Court justices." -- John McCain

THE BIG LIE

"We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measures that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions. I think there's a lot of room before bumping against a constitutional barrier... I am not in favor of concealed weapons. There has not been any evidence that allowing people to carry a concealed weapon is going to make anybody safer... I wanted to make sure that local communities were recognized as having a right to regulate firearms. The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun laws isn't born out by our Constitution." -- Barack Hussein Obama on "thoughtful" adulteration of our Constitution.

NON-COMPOS MENTIS

"While I may favor common-sense gun control laws, that doesn't keep me from reaching out to NRA members... I'm a strong believer in the rights of hunters and sportsmen to have firearms." -- Obama on "common-sense" adulteration of our Constitution.

ON CROSS-EXAMINATION...

"I knew Obama during the mid-1990s. The first time I introduced myself to him he said 'Oh, you are the gun guy.' I responded 'Yes, I guess so.' He simply responded, 'I don't believe that people should be able to own
guns."' -- Professor John Lott, PhD, author of More Guns, Less Crime
Image
DixieBoy
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1244
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 9:51 am
Location: Central Florida

Post by DixieBoy »

Good one here. Thanks. - DixieBoy
When the People Fear Their Government There is Tyranny; When the Government Fears the People There is Liberty.
User avatar
FWiedner
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: North Texas

Post by FWiedner »

Don't fall for it.

John McCain has supported central portions of the gun-control agenda. In more than one case, McCain has authored anti-gun legislation himself.

In McCain’s America, instead of just requiring background checks on sales at gun shows, a special license would be required to operate a gun show. Those licenses could be denied without the federal government even having to give a reason, and there would be no time limit on how long the government had to make its decision to deny or approve the issue.

Gun-control groups have been trying for years to register the names of gun owners, and McCain would help to accomplish this by requiring the registration of all people who attend any gun show. Gun show operators would be subject to criminal penalties and imprisonment if any unregistered attendee were to trade a gun after the show, or if any gun were discussed in any way during any show. The operators would have no choice but to register everyone.

McCain acknowledges that these regulations would be abused, but, according to him, the goals are too important to compromise, and McCain assures us that we should trust the regulators.

Of course, like any gun-control proponent, McCain’s justification for more regulation is based on lies. McCain crows about the “gun show loopholeâ€
Government office attracts the power-mad, yet it's people who just want to be left alone to live life on their own terms who are considered dangerous.

History teaches that it's a small window in which people can fight back before it is too dangerous to fight back.
adirondakjack
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1925
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:09 pm
Location: Upstate NY
Contact:

Post by adirondakjack »

The fear in the Dred Scott argument is born out.

Nobody REALLY cares about the arms owned by the "average white, suburbanite slob" (to quote Dennis Leary), they care about, have nighmares about, the guns in the hands of urban blacks, latinos, and poor white "wannabees" who regularly shoot people and commit armed robberies to support their chosen profession of gangsta thug. The "saviors" who mouthpiece the "anti" moevement are, by and large, the same "saviors" who voice criticism of the prison system, who champion the inmate class (the future of the nation of color has numbers on their shirts), and who mouthpiece the immigrant amnesty stuff.

YES, it's a race and culture war. The dirty little secret is, we can't SAY THAT in America. Our PC stuff mindset has so rotted our ability to think and speak plainly that we can't say IT IS CULTURALLY BANKRUPT THUGS who the "antis" fear, and they suffer magical thinking that all of a sudden 100 million guns will turn themselves into tomato stakes and paperweights at the stroke of a pen, and Jose and Jamal and Leqoueesha and Kensa and Pepe will be safe, sane, honest, productive and happy. They imagine that crack andstealing and whoring and AIDS and the need for projects and welfare and the world's largest prison polulation will melt away. there will be free Popeyes Chicken and big Macs for all, and we'll have "Nike Air" swap shops run by former Crips.

It's magical thinking.


BUT, it is the legacy of our Civil Rights movement and all the equality for all under the law. Ultimately WHITE PEOPLE in America and Slave Traders in Africa are to blame. We "bred and conditioned" blacks to "leave the body intact, but weaken the mind" (a quote from a very good film called "The debaters" by Denzel Washington) for 400 years, and in the 150 years since, have strongly resisted the eventual cure, in order that THEY stay in their place. On the one hand we demanded full participation and responsibility from our "unfortunate" descendants of eugenics / free labor, on the other hand we insisted on equality under the law by watering down the rights of ALL, whenever the stubborn problems of the permanent underclass proved resistant to other methods.

The stat above regarding crime and gun ownership in Israel is instructve. Israel doesn't have a "culturally bankrupt" underclass. VERMONT is also instructive. Easy gun laws, almost no problems. See a connection anybody?

Yet the answer is with us. Eventually it will come to pass, as sure as Darwin predicts it. EVOLUTION, selection of the fittest, favors MIXING of genes. the Tiger Woods, the Barack Obama, the Condoleeza Rice, these are our future. These are "fully functioning" people as able to take their place at the table of "all men" as "all white men" (the real original founders intent, as blacks weren't even considered human then), who are culturally and genetically CAPABLE of conforming their behavior in polite society.

I note that there is in this country a thriving Black middle class of decent and honet folk that HATES the gangsta subculture, and they too fall victim to the magical thinking that guns can be swept away and all of a sudden the gangsta will become a car salesman...

When "black" comes to mean "brown" and MOST PEOPLE are some racial mix, we won't NEED the strident calls to disarm our city streets. Until then, mayors and preachers will try to take our guns in an effort to save their cities from ruin because they are IMPOTENT to solve the real problems of cultually bankrupt underclass "gangsta" life.
Certified gun nut
User avatar
Ysabel Kid
Moderator
Posts: 27907
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:10 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA
Contact:

Post by Ysabel Kid »

FWiedner wrote:Don't fall for it.

:?
Haven't and won't - and neither has Mark Alexander of the Federalist/Patriot Post. It is just that John McCain is the lesser of the two evils - and there is some hope he'll ask a true conservative with impeccable 2A credentials to be his VP. No hope of that on the DEM ticket...
Image
greasy dan
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 118
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:02 pm
Location: NC

Post by greasy dan »

I have not been following the posts on Leverguns for the past month or so, due to family business. I may have missed some important stuff, or what follows may be a Repeat of something already said. If so, please forgive me.

Regarding the original post by Ysable Kid... I picked this out of an email that came my way today. A quote:

"Militia Act of 1903 was the beginning of the National Guard and directed the federalization of the National Guard. "The National Defense Act of 1916 … transformed the militia from individual state forces into a Reserve Component of the U.S. Army - and made the term 'National Guard' mandatory".[16] Since the National Guard was not invented or authorized until after 1900, there could have been no understanding in 1889 that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to authorize the states to arm the National Guard."
from: http://progunleaders.org/argument.html

Then there is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec

I am not very happy with the direction Our Country... the country I grew up in... is currently headed.
I too, have children and grand-children...
John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Henry Fonda and Winchesters. I'm a kid again.
brucew44guns
Senior Levergunner
Posts: 1403
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: kansas

Post by brucew44guns »

This was a good post Jay, and the Supreme Court decision is nearing too. Common sense and the Supremes doing the right thing may turn out to be a joke. I can see all this turning into stuff right before our eyes, with little recourse. Of course I hope it turns out good for the 2nd, but just seeing the 3 candidates for Pres is enough to show me that "ANYTHING" is possible these days.
To hell with them fellas, buzzards gotta eat same as the worms.
Outlaw Josey Wales

Member GOA
NRA Benefactor-Life
User avatar
Ysabel Kid
Moderator
Posts: 27907
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:10 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA
Contact:

Post by Ysabel Kid »

brucew44guns wrote:This was a good post Jay, and the Supreme Court decision is nearing too. Common sense and the Supremes doing the right thing may turn out to be a joke. I can see all this turning into stuff right before our eyes, with little recourse. Of course I hope it turns out good for the 2nd, but just seeing the 3 candidates for Pres is enough to show me that "ANYTHING" is possible these days.
Bruce - I hope you're wrong; I fear you're right...

I think the SCOTUS will come out with a wishy-washy decision that doesn't really solve anything, and that DC will rewrite it's gun laws immediately to scoot around the new prohibition but accomplish the same draconian effect... :evil:
Image
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 32234
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Post by AJMD429 »

I hate to say it, but...

We Should'a Nominated Paul - We Should'a Nominated Paul - We Should'a Nominated Paul - We Should'a Nominated Paul - We Should'a Nominated Paul - We Should'a Nominated Paul - We Should'a Nominated Paul - We Should'a Nominated Paul - We Should'a Nominated Paul - We Should'a Nominated Paul - We Should'a Nominated Paul - We Should'a Nominated Paul - We Should'a Nominated Paul - We Should'a Nominated Paul - We Should'a Nominated Paul - We Should'a Nominated Paul - We Should'a Nominated Paul.

Or Huckabee...

Yeah, I KNOW the East-coast news media decreed him "unelectable" and we swallowed that one hook, line, and sinker, but I keep thinking that Republicans, Conservatives, and Gun Owners will learn from the past.

They evidently never do... :cry:
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
User avatar
Ysabel Kid
Moderator
Posts: 27907
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:10 pm
Location: South Carolina, USA
Contact:

Post by Ysabel Kid »

My only problem Paul is his view on the war, which is just burying his head in the sand.

My problem with Huckabee is he is an extension of the "compasionate conservatism" of Bush - i.e. - "big government our way".

I liked Thompson, but he got in too late and ran a poor race for as short as it was.

Only hope now is McCain picks a fantastic running mate. Lots of them out there - but I am confident he'll mess this up too... :(
Image
ole pizen slinger
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 404
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 5:16 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by ole pizen slinger »

For those that know how--best recourse now is to pray!
ole pizen slinger
Post Reply