Judges, Guns and Money: Part I
by Josie WalesI’m the innocent bystander…not anymore!
In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. See Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, and n. 14. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
And so, our 2nd Amendment right to firearms settles into its proper place among our pantheon of fundamental rights. The truth of the matter is that we always retained that right, but the law had been interpreted contrary to the Constitution.
Two arguments were the focus of McDonald v. Chicago: (1) the narrow interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s “privileges and immunities” clause adopted in the Slaughter-House Cases should be rejected; and (2) the 14th Amendment’s “due process” clause incorporates the 2nd Amendment right. Justice Thomas addressed the first argument in a concurring opinion (arguably the bigger precedent), but we will turn to that topic in Part II. Justice Scalia skewered Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion in another concurring opinion, but that will be the topic of Part III. First let us examine Justice Alito’s plurality opinion concerning the second argument, and the dissent of Justice Breyer.
Alito ducks the “privileges and immunities” argument for lack of consensus, instead focusing on the Supreme Court’s history of incorporating the Bill of Rights. “Incorporation” is the process by which fundamental rights protected from the national government apply to the states via the 14th Amendment. Alito notes Justice Cardozo’s standard for this process in Palko v. Connecticut:
And in Palko, the Court famously said that due process protects those rights that are “the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty” and essential to “a fair and enlightened system of justice.”
Cardozo’s process of incorporation required a measured examination of fundamental rights on a case-by-case basis, and not all rights identified by the Constitution have been incorporated, including the 5th Amendment requirement for grand jury indictments.
Alito gets straight to the point on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment from DC v. Heller:
Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day,[ 15 ] and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right.
Scalia recounted much of the history surrounding the 2nd Amendment in Heller, but Alito expanded upon Scalia’s analysis by adding a lesson from history regarding the right to self-defense. The first Civil Rights Acts enacted after the Civil War addressed the issue of self-defense, especially in light of attempts to disarm former slaves in the South. The reign of terror perpetrated against blacks in the South follows a common historical theme that begins with disarming a population. Fortunately, the American experience did not end in genocide, largely because the right to self-defense was protected.
Not only did the attorneys for Chicago ignore the long tradition of self-defense through the right to bear arms, they introduced a skewed outlook on the process of incorporation. Chicago argued that incorporation should only apply to rights recognized by all civilized legal systems. Alito quickly points out the flaw in this line of reasoning:
For example, many of the rights that our Bill of Rights provides for persons accused of criminal offenses are virtually unique to this country. If our understanding of the right to a jury trial, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel were necessary attributes of any civilized country, it would follow that the United States is the only civilized Nation in the world.
Not to mention the fact that if we followed this logic we would have to consider countries like China and Russia when determining fundamental rights. Another argument warped the idea that states should be left to find solutions to problems as independent laboratories of freedom as justification for experimenting with gun control. When we parallel that line of argument to speech control the flaw in the reasoning is magnified. In yet another novel argument, Chicago complained of an increase of litigation should the Supreme Court extend Heller. Just imagine the Court failing to incorporate the 1st Amendment for the same reasoning.
After Alito swatted down each of the asinine arguments presented by Chicago’s attorneys, he turned his attention to the dissent. He notes that Breyer’s dissent rests on four points: (1)the lack of popular consensus regarding the 2nd Amendment; (2) the right does not protect political minorities; (3) incorporation of the 2nd Amendment intrudes upon the balance of federalism; and (4) judges will be forced to make difficult decisions outside their area of expertise.
The first argument is rather ridiculous. Rights do not exist as a result of popular consensus. Our rights exist outside of government, as I have argued time and again, and the evidence of this comes from the 9th Amendment. Alito further ridicules this argument by proving consensus. A majority of States, Senators and Representatives supported incorporation. Alito addresses the second argument from the facts of the case. The current powers that be in Chicago were unable to protect those in high-crime areas despite a firearm ban. There were as many victims in Chicago in the last year as American soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Furthermore, a vast majority of those victims were racial minorities. The third argument is laughable coming from the liberal wing of the court. Since when do progressives care about federalism. And the fourth argument lacks merit when judges must unequivocally recognize one’s 2nd Amendment rights as a result of the present decision. There is no case-by-case approach when dealing with recognized fundamental rights.
Another line of legal argument that Breyer addresses is the idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias. The first problem with this argument is that militias do not exist as they did 200 years ago. The national government controls the National Guard. What good is it to recognize a right in the National Guard to protect the citizens from the national government when the national government controls the Guard? Secondly, rights are not communal, they are personal. Even the right to assemble does not belong to the group, but rather to the individuals that comprise the group. Either way, this legal reasoning is flawed.
Breyer ends his dissent with an accounting of history that would make Howard Zinn proud. Not only does he ignore the relevant history of the 2nd Amendment and self-defense in America, he pulls a nice little bait-and-switch. None of the history that Breyer recounts involves outright bans, as is the issue in McDonald, but rather it recounts a history of regulation. McDonald did not eliminate all regulations on firearms, but it did bring those regulations under greater scrutiny. Breyer’s dissent fails.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
351 Comments
Our entire way of life is under attack. Our entire system of government, of checks and balances, sways precariously in the breeze. I used to believe that calmer heads would prevail, but where are they? There is no light in the darkness.
The court's liberal block still thinks this is the 60s, somehow. Always cheerleading social engineering at the expense of our divinely inspired Constitutional rights, and always wrong.
It's almost torture to read those touchy-feely, euro-love minority opinions produced by the leftist justices. Breyer's reasoning borders on junior high semantics. Seriously, Breyer? The right to bear arms "doesn't protect political minorities"? WTH does that mean in your corner of Bizarroville, USA?
This illustrates that just because something is a law, it doesn't make it correct.
Remember that, and remember that a dumb neoconservative is almost as dumb as a dumb liberal.
This was a 5-4 ruling when it should've been 9-0 ruling. Watch out, once Kagan Nazi gets in, we're screwed. Unless, there's a way around the rulings once Kagan gets in. After all, if Obama can ignore the courts, can't we? Just asking…..
Don't like it…don't fund it!=more bullets to buy!
"Dumb neoconservative"?
I read the post, but am a little lost as to the antecedent inspiring the comment.
(1)the lack of popular consensus regarding the 2nd Amendment; (2) the right does not protect political minorities; (3) incorporation of the 2nd Amendment intrudes upon the balance of federalism; and (4) judges will be forced to make difficult decisions outside their area of expertise.????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Excellent work Mr. Wales.
Wait until popular consensus, political minorities & federal re-balance manifests in the process of impeachment. The evidence is piled higher than the Statue Of Liberty. The Jokers in the White House and the Clowns at the DOJ are not only showing you their cards they are throwing them in YOUR FACES and grabbing the pot too.
Breyer's dissent did fail. It is imperative for the survival of the USA that WE DO NOT FAIL.
Anyone besides me find that it is amusing that the two gun cases are from Chicago and Washington DC? Crook in chief was from one and lives in the other.
Neoconservatives like laws that are unconstitutional as well.
The only good news is that she is replacing an equally un-American clown. The net gain is zero. It is the next Justice that should scare the living crap out of everyone which is the number one reason we must impeach this POTUS.
Justice Alito, I salute you.
Breyer, you're a moron.
Example?
Should we start a list of laws that are unconstitutional that neoconservatives prefer?
Who is suppose to declare war in the United States, and according to what document?
HUH? What in the hell is a neoconservative? If honoring the Constitution and US sovereignty is new then I guess that makes the dinosaurs what? 50 is the new 30?
Drawing conclusions of this magnitude shows nothing but utter contempt for logic.
I decided to ask my friends and fans on this site to help me make a list. I started a new thread below.
Mr. Knoxs, don't give all the answers away.
In the immortal words of former NRA president, Charlton Heston, you can take my guns when you pry them from "… my cold, dead hands."
I don't understand the anti-gun crowd, and I'm not going to try to. However, I intend to continue voting with a vengeance. Elected representatives that vote against the NRA will get no vote from me on election day.
I also will continue protecting my home, my family, and our Constitution as provided under the simple words of that Constitution. I can read and understand plain English even if activist jurists can't. There is absolutely nothing confusing about the meaning of "the right of the people" to me. I, like all of you, am one of "the people."
The National Rifle Association announced Thursday it will oppose Senate confirmation of Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court and plans to score senators' votes in its annual evaluation of their records.
"Unfortunately, Ms. Kagan's record on the Second Amendment gives us no confidence that if confirmed to the Court, she will faithfully defend the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms of law-abiding Americans," Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president and chief operating officer and Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA .
… from Yahoo News
Now you're just trolling. And not particularly cleverly, either.
Google neoconservative and you will get your answer.
Do I need to hold your hand?
::cricket noises::
Yes. Start a list. You're on the clock. Go.
(This is of course done with absolutely zero regard for your brainless attempt to justify bad behavior by citing other [imaginary] examples of bad behavior.)
Breyer, the next retirement…
Yeah, and they should have taken a better stand on the DISCLOSE legislation….rather than carve out a exclusion for themselves.
Your quote on your icon says it all.
Remember, its ok to put makeup on or grill a hamburger on a portable while driving down the road, but if you text message you will be in trouble.
They would have used Detroit, but anybody that can afford to buy a gun has picked up and left.
Last time I checked, the United States Constitution was adopted in 1787 and the 2nd Amendment in 1791. Today's date is July 1, 2010. Quite a few things have changed in the last 223 years. One of those things is the practical need to possess firearms. The gun nuts out there who continue to quote the Constitution are unwilling to address the progress that has occurred in the last 223 years. There were reasons why the 2nd amendment was added and very few of them still apply in our modern world.
In general, progress is something that is looked down upon by a large segment of our population. In many ways, I believe that segment of the population would prefer to live in the 18th Century. But of course, they'd like to live longer than 40 years and they'd still like to drive big pick-up trucks and watch Nascar races and not have to pick their own tobacco.
Wake up people. It's 2010.
Right. Didn't they also endorse Spector?
Your light in the darkness is money, or should I say lack of money.
The economic forces at work will cause necessary change, no government, no federal reserve, no banker, and no army will stop it.
Once people have a taste of discomfort again, (remember, most "poor" people in the U.S. are overweight, have cable, have air conditioning, and enjoy larger living space than many non poor Europeans)
It will take enough discomfort for people to get motivated. The young kids of today are obese, watch the stupid box (TV), play video games, and text all day on cell phones, that's all they do.
The kids come out government schools and don't have enough common sense to change the oil in a car.
Mozey's definition of trolling: when an established, respected member of the big gov site disagrees with his/her position, it must be a big bad troll under the bridge.
bookmike,
What progress are you referring to? Millions of babies borne to fatherless families, most of them black or brown. Millions of babies aborted – most of those black. The destruction of the most productive country, with the ability to feed the ENTIRE world, for the benefit of one man with a funny name, who happens to have coned you to vote against your own self interest.
The Second Amendment is vital to my survival as an American who is of the jewish faith. Without it I and my family are at risk of being killed. My relatives gave up their guns – I will not make the same mistake.
Joe
Very few of them still apply in the modern world? Are you kidding? Gangs are rampant in just about every city and town in the country – and you think things have progressed ie: the bad guys vs. the good guys? Pretty obvious you either don't own a gun or have a clue which end of it that the round comes out of. The only progress coming from progressives is they are actually coming out from the shadows and exposing themselves for who they really are. For that – expect a good arse whoopin on your buddies in D.C. this November.
When it only takes seconds for a home invader to kill you, a cop will be minutes away.
I was hoping my friends and fans on this site would help start a list.
#1. Up to and including a felony charge can be levied for promoting the use of, or owning more than six dildos.
I think your gang defense is pure paranoia. Where are you from, sir? And what are your experiences traveling the country? Where are all of these gangs? And who are the gang members you speak of?
Of course the only way to combat the millions of gangs you mention is to buy more guns – right?
Let's not try to figure out why all of these alleged gang members are in said gangs and fix the problem that way. Let's add fuel to the fire.
find the statistics that show how many home invasions result in murder vs. how many accidental gun deaths are attributed to LICENSED guns. Usually it's the kids who die.
Kagan's gotta go.
Obama needs one minority Party (Republican) vote form the Judiciary Committee to move her confirmation to a floor vote on the US Senate.
Republicans on that committee include.
J. Sessions 202 224-4124
L. Graham 202 224-5972
O. Hatch 202 224 5251
J. Kyl 202 224-4521
J. Cornyn 202 224-2934
T. Coburn 202 224-5754
C. Grassley 202 224-3744
also Arlene Spector is still open 202 224-4254
CALL, KEEP CALLING
This Kagan lady is a Socialist wanna-be our worst nightmare, STOP HER NOW
PLEASE CALL
On a more serious note, The REAL ID ACT was one that didn't sit well with states, and they rightly ignored it.
It is 2010, which makes it all the more ridiculous to think there are still people such as yourself who believe a disarmed citizenry is a smart idea.
Take a quick glance over the past century of human history. The greatest atrocities mankind has witnessed—from the Armenian genocide to the Holocaust to Mao's China to Stalin's gulags—have been possible because of governments taking away the right of citizens to own weapons for self-defense.
Yet you sit here and lecture us that there no longer is a "practical need to possess firearms?" Go tell that to the Armenians, or the Jews, or imprisoned Chinese and Soviet dissidents.
Go tell it to Native Americans.
Yeah. Rally those troops. The more the merrier. Ignorance is subtraction by addition.
Since you're obviously interested in providing actual comparative examples – you know, apples-to-apples – you're either going to point to the Constitutional amendment that specifically prohibits the government from inhibiting private dildo ownership or you're going to admit your "example" was, at best, a poor attempt at humor.
In any event, in response to the overall tone of your "example" – it is absolutely possible for a law to be stupid, unenforceable, and even vile (i.e. slavery) – but also be 100% Constitutional.
So do social conservatives.
"One of those things is the practical need to possess firearms." You're right, Mike. The "practical need to possess firearms" was much LESS pronounced in 1791, when our government was made up of honorable men who believed the things that they wrote, including "…when the government fears the people there is liberty." (TJ)
The "practical need" was much LESS pronounced when crime was less rampant, drug laws were not creating chaos everywhere, and the world was a LESS dangerous place.
The "practical need" was much LESS pronounced, when we did not have people within the government structure, saying things like "we kind of agree with Mao (who killed millions of his own people) that power comes at the point of a gun."
If you want to call that "progress," that's your prerogative. Me, I require some basic understanding of the meaning of words !
: : : : more cricket noises : : : :
That's not my hand you're holding…
The kids die because their parents are stupid.
If we outlawed stupidity, then Liberalism would be a crime.
Wait. You may be on to something…
You have a good point – a little incorrect on the numbers but still a good point. Her name is Bristol Palin. No progress made at all.
If you want to talk about funny names, let's talk about the Palin kids. Tryg, Trip, Hummer, Blower, Bristol, Track, Field – how many are there anyway? As a Jew, you should understand this. Plenty of your people were forced to change their names in OUR country. You know, the USA – where freedom rings (except for some of course).
On some serious notes, please don't use your Jewishness in this way. It's insulting to the rest of us. Jews giving up their guns did not cause or feed the Holocaust. A brainwashed, misguided, and desperate German populace with a deep-seeded hatred and jealousy of the Jewish people caused the Holocaust.
You're only at risk of being killed if you continue to spew this garbage to the wrong person. It seems like you better load up Joe!
Why don't you find the statistics? Your argument is as weak as their argument at this point.
The kids die because their stupid parents have guns. No guns in the house, no kids dying due to accidental shootings.
Minutes?! You must have non union cops in your neck of the woods.
Finally, a real Troll, billygoat breath and all…
As a fellow Jew, I concur. We Jews should be required to have guns and other weapons as needed. Our Torah teaches us that self defense is a personal requirement!
Actually, aren't Christians required to have swords (and logically guns), too? http://bible.cc/luke/22-36.htm
And if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one!
But whether Kagan is a commie, a socialist, a Jew, or an atheist, she probably counts on bodyguards, and doesn't think much about the need for weapons.
That is quite a theory you have there. But your paranoia masks the true goal – which is not to make it illegal to have a gun, but maybe make it a little more difficult to get one.
I understand that the paranoia sometimes overpowers the logic and common sense, but you need to rethink this theory.
I will no longer argue with idiots, other then the initial comment – it is a waste of my time.
Are you implying legislating behavior? That is an unliberal position. What's unconstitutional with belonging in a gang? Nothing.
Is he gone now? Looks like he thumbed his way out of here.
Should the government outlaw kitchen knives? How about 2×4's? How about sling shots and bow and arrows? How about spray paint since you can huff yourself to death with it?
J. Sessions – Actual person, Sessions hasn't made up his mind, but said there were getting "alot" of no votes
L. Graham – Got a voice mail, left a no vote.
O. Hatch – Actual person, Hatch hasn't made a decision yet, left a no vote
J. Kyl – Got a voice mail, left a no vote.
J. Cornyn – Got a voice mail, left a no vote.
T. Coburn – Acutal person, stated that Sen. Cogburn opposes, left a supporting no vote
C. Grassley – Actual person, put on hold, called back and put on hold again.
Why don't you give us the link to those statistics since you know right where they are?
Because making a statement such as "When it only takes seconds for a home invader to kill you, a cop will be minutes away" – while very possible is something that rarely ever happens. But by making a statement such as that it makes the author's paranoia shine through.
Murders that occur due to home invasions are very very rare. It only appears to be a more common occurrence because they frequently make the news.
What's theoretical about it? Who do you think is more likely to be a victim: someone who is armed or someone who is unarmed?
Speaking of paranoia, maybe you should spend some time looking at the statistics regarding automobiles. Pretty scary. If you aren't a complete hypocrite, I assume you'll also be calling for the government to get rid of cars.
[...] more: » Judges, Guns and Money: Part I – Big Government Post Published: 02 July 2010 Author: admin Found in section: [...]
[...] more: » Judges, Guns and Money: Part I – Big Government Post Published: 02 July 2010 Author: admin Found in section: [...]
You want less home invasions? Then you want to live in an area where the citizens all have guns in their homes. There will be no home invasions to speak of.
But Joe, you're the one you made the idiotic comments. Why is Barack Obama a funny name but those Palin kids' names are not?
Why are the black girls having kids all bad and the white daughter of a half-term governor just fine to you?
But it's only become that way in the last year and a half, right? Prior to January 20, 2009, everything was hunky dory here in America.
When Obama's 8 years are through, will you automatically blame the next President for all of the world's ills or will you wait to see if he/she is Democrat or Republican first?
"Plenty of your people were forced to change their names in OUR country. You know, the USA – where freedom rings (except for some of course)."
Well OBVIOUSLY in light of our government's past behavior, it makes perfect sense for us all to just willingly disarm. Right? I mean, it's not like the government has ever done anything bad or singled out specific groups.
I'm sure Japanese-Americans are collectively rolling their eyes at you right now. Maybe you should travel to some areas out west and marvel at all the "Trust the government? Ask an Indian!" bumper stickers you see.
Here is a great example of what our founders intended for all of us.
A little history, is all we need to remember where we came from, and who we are as a nation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzYl48V0HTM
Our Founding Fathers instinctively knew our rights come from God and not goverment. That's why the left-wing socialists like Obama hate the absoluteness of the Constitution and see it as an obstacle.
What boggles my mind is this collective paranoia about the current government. When Bush and Dick were in the White House, everything was fine. No need to be paranoid. No need to arm ourselves for the revolution.
Again, keep your guns – but let's not make it so easy to get one or 12.
I'm more worried about dying on the highways than from someone shooting me.
More deaths on the highway than by guns. The majority of gun deaths are suicides.
Thanks
I'm an equal opportunity blamer, and this country has been going off the rails for about a hundred years now, regardless of who's been in charge. All the more reason not to give up our right to self-defense.
I'm sure your much more intelligent than a Harvard Law School graduate.
First of all, I'm not a liberal.
Secondly, I was just trying to understand JinOH's experience with gangs and the country outside of his/her front door. Where is he getting this information from? Why haven't I seen all of these gangs where I have lived?
I live in Ohio – where conceal carry is allowed. Take a night time stroll in certain parts of any of the 3 cities in Ohio and you'll see all the gangs you think don't exist. By your attitude, I assume you live in Berkley or San Franscisco – am I right?
It's called prepared – not paranoid. If someone kicks in your door – whatcha gonna do – throw a toaster at them? I plan to bring a gun to a gunfight – not rely on a cop that may only show up to tape the area off and call the coroner. That way he can take the report from me while he calls the coroner for the bad guy.
Your absolutely right Cowboy. Kagan should not be confirmed. She is a political operative. Obfuscates on simple straight forward questions, "did you write this?".
Weak kneed Repubes need to filibuster this one.
Again, no one wants to outlaw your precious guns. But in practical terms – and I know practicality isn't a strong suit for the gun nuts out there – but guns have very limited purposes. People own handguns and automatic weapons to kill or injure people or animals. That's it. You can't cut a steak with a gun. You can't build a fence with a gun.
You could also say that it is rare to be shot by a gun in the United States then. George Bush used your logic with terrorism and 9/11 to get the United States involved in two "wars".
From your logic, you are paranoid as well. You want to restrict gun sales because you think they are a big threat to people's lives. We all know far more deaths occur on the highways than by guns.
Should the government outlaw cars?
"When Bush and Dick were in the White House, everything was fine."
No it wasn't, and I was shouting about it then, too. The gradual centralization of power in this country has occurred under Democrat and Republican administrations, and anyone with functioning eyeballs knows that's a fact.
Here's what boggles my mind. Think back 200 years. In a battle between citizens and their government, it would have been guns versus guns. Now it would be guns versus tanks/planes/missiles/bombs/etc. Hardly a fair fight, but you seem to think it's best if we're completely unarmed in the event that our government, however unlikely the case may be, decides to turn against us.
You seem to have this funny notion that governments have somehow gotten past the whole massacring of innocent citizens thing, but all you have to do is turn on the news every night to see that just isn't true.
Any law-abiding citizen who isn't mentally retarded or psychologically paranoid should be able to own a weapon. The problem is that it's way too easy to get one or 12.
No, Bush was just as bad.
You need to remind me of when I said that the government should get rid of guns. Never said it, never will.
It should be made far more difficult to purchase a gun than it is currently. Trust me, I think that plenty of people shouldn't be on the roads either.
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/index.html
I think this will get you started.
Related parody: As Political Compromise, Democrats Propose Ignoring Both the Second and Third Amendments to the Constitution http://optoons.blogspot.com/2010/07/as-political-...
That might be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. You need to get out more and see the world.
Then how come I didn't see this much anger from 1981-1992 and from 2008-2009?
Many of the issues that get attention on this site have roots in the Reagan, Bush, and Bush administrations. There is no denying that – but for some reason (I wonder what it could be), it's all coming out now.
Everything you said is flatly immaterial. If you don't like the 2nd Amendment, arrange to have it repealed (via another Amendment).
If not for subsequent Amendments to the Constitution, all sorts of things would still be "Constitutional" to this day – regardless of how "times have changed" – including prohibiting women from voting and slavery. Similarly, other things would be flatly "un-Constitutional" without Amendments that made them otherwise – including the Federal Income Tax.
This is by design. Respect the design. You don't like guns – you think the idea is antiquated – you think "the will of the people" is on your side? Go pound the pavement and get working on amending the document, then. Good luck with that. Be sure to study the history of the failed debacle that was "ERA" (Equal Rights Amendment) to get a good idea of what you are up against.
Living, breathing document, my arse.
As a side note – any and all arguments RE: "home defense [from burglary and whatnot]", "hunting", "shooting targets/trap/skeet", "personal defense [from rape/mugging, etc...]" are all completely and utterly beside the point. The purpose of the Amendment is to maintain an armed populace in order to discourage a tyrannical government. The Second Amendment, by its implementation, provides for the shooting of people – unless, of course, you happen to be subjected to a particularly oppressive deer or clay pigeon.
Please don't assume. You just make yourself sound more ridiculous. For what it's worth, I am from New York City. And I have lived in Boston, Chicago, and the Twin Cities.
The millions of gangs you talk about must disguise themselves pretty well. Like GI Joe characters or something.
Maybe in your little corner of Ohio, there is a gang problem. But don't generalize about the entire country unless you have something other than paranoia as a defense.
Left a message with Specter, pointing out his own words that delaying or denying the nomination is the only way to get a straight answer from Kagan.
It's amazing how anti-Israel the Democratic Party's replacement Sestak is.
Also, can we start calling Kagan "Justice Partial Birth Abortion" in honor of her lies to get that allowed?
Who says anything about outlawing your previous guns? Not me.
When a gun can drive me to work or to the store, please let me know. Currently, guns kill people and not much else. Well, they can kill defenseless animals from helicopters too, but that's just another Palin jab.
No, no, no. Never said anything about disarming the gun nuts. I would just prefer a more stringent approach to the sale of guns in my country.
The "government" is not going to turn against us in ways that require us to purchase automatic weapons. The government turns against us in less violent ways.
How are "tougher gun laws" going to affect crime? By definition, criminals don't care about laws.
Think about the gun bans in Chicago and Washington, D.C. Why did those two cities have the highest murder rates in the country? Because the bans weren't tough enough? Possession of a firearm was completely illegal.
Instead of focusing on gun laws, why don't we prosecute violent criminals more harshly? Fifteen years for murder is not a deterrent.
I don't see a lot of drug use either.
But based on how much is shipped across the border, probably many drug users are around. If I went searching for them, I would probably find them. But I don't want to.
You just stepped from "Mildly Delusional Land" into "Tripping Harder than the Beetles Ever Did Land".
8 Years? I will bet you cash money that BHO will be leaving office in 2013 – whether it be because of the GOP or Hillary. He's going to get crushed from all sides.
You're absolutely right. The 2nd Amendment should be revised to meet the challenges and issues of our modern society – not the one that existed in 1791.
Even a cursory review of the written comments from the men who wrote the 2nd Amendment shows the fallacy of your argument. They didn't include this language for "self defense" nor hunting or target shooting, or any other recreational or personal reason. They specifically indicated that "the people" should remain armed in order to be able to insure that the government they were creating didn't become oppressive, or totalitarian. They were giving "the people" the right to a 2nd Revolution, if circumstances warranted. The passage of 223 years hasn't changed that possibility one iota. I don't know what "other reasons" you might be considering, but none of them apply, when you do a little research on the subject, reflecting the thoughts of the founders.
Go back far enough in my posting history and you'll find me arguing about the Patriot Act and getting called a liberal.
Folks have this weird idea that the stuff their party does while in power is great, no matter what, because they'll be in charge forever. But we all know control swings back and forth. So now conservatives are screaming that the government has too much power—which is what liberals were doing when Bush was president. And when Bush was in power, conservatives were eager to hand the government more authority.
Haven't you noticed how the Left has gotten quiet when it comes to the wars, wiretapping, habeas corpus, etc.? Obama has said he has the power to order the assassination of Americans citizens, and there's complete silence among the Left. They'd be screaming if Sarah Palin had that authority, and so would I.
There are many reasons to limit the power of the government. There are few reasons to limit the power of the citizen.
You know what set me off? When certain Republican politicians decided that people on the terror watch lists shouldn't have to face tougher restrictions for the purchase of firearms.
Guns in the right hands are not terrible. Problem is that so many guns are purchased LEGALLY and end up in the police blotter.
They typically only kill each other, i.e. crips kill bloods, etc., they generally don't bother the general public.
If you are a whitey in gangland, they assume you are either a cop, looking for a hook, or a customer for drugs. Why shoot your customer?
Contrary to the angry, paranoid, anti-Obama rhetoric that proliferates this site – we are not dealing with the issues of a new country and a new government.
so are you protecting yourself from a guy down the street smoking pot too?
You must be logged in to post a comment.