I’ve hesitated to pop the cork on the champagne after learning of the affirmation in the 
said the amendment protected an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for self-defense within the home. While good news, what is problematic to me, was the narrow decision. We have four Supreme Court justices who quite simply rejected the
Ask any citizen where our rights as Americans emanate from and the usual response will be from our constitution. This education is so wrong as to be criminal and the educational system doling out this pabulum need face indictment with prejudice. The sacred words of Thomas Jefferson in our Declaration of Independence; “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” To repeat, we are endowed by our creator. Our rights come from God, not government. The bill of rights, including our second amendment, was written to protect those God given rights from government intrusion. The bill of rights is singular, not collective, meaning they apply to the individual, not communally. To understand our constitution one must understand the authors and their reasoning. Our founders were suspicious and fearful of government and felt that absolute power must abide within the electorate not the elected. One must remember the colonies were escaping the oppressiveness of King George.
But, it isn’t that simple. The document conceived by the patriots who pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor had to have been divinely inspired; there is no other reasonable explanation. And, today, four Justices of the United States Supreme court not only cheapened this document that we conservative hold as sacrosanct, they desecrated the memory of those brave men that bore this country.
Conservative
4 comments:
Wow - that's idiotic! I’m going to ignore your font choice, which – along with your inept writing ability – makes you come off as a low functioning 3rd grader. But I digress . . .
Your pompous assumption that the nation does not understand “the inception of our constitution, its purpose and its inspiration” is simply moronic. How can you claim to know what I and others comprehend? And – better yet – your analysis is wrong. The Declaration of Independence, while it is a beautiful historical document, grants no rights. Yes, the rights delineated in it are supposedly endowed by God, but those rights are guaranteed by the US Constitution. Without that, and our government to enforce it, we don’t have anything but mere promises. No guns for you – no free speech for me.
To claim that the Constitution was “divinely inspired” ignores the centuries of political, economic and philosophical thought that served as its direct predecessor. The Declaration of Independence and US Constitution were simply the next steps in a long an illustrious tradition that freed human kind from the chains of aristocracy. Perhaps you should read some books not written by Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh (BTW - mega dittos make you look fat anyway, Tish).
But let’s get to the question at hand: 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.
That amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias. But the Supremes decided to ignore all but the final 14 words (and the 4th word of the last 14 must also be interpreted as "the body of people" and not "individuals").
The ambiguity of the Second Amendment should have led the justices to follow precedent and allow lawmakers to decide the issue. Instead, the majority took matters (and public policy) into their own hands – a practice usually decried by conservatives. In a scathing dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens warned that yesterday's decision would likely lead to a new era of judicial involvement in an issue that is best left to elected lawmakers - a powerful reminder that the conservative justices are activists when it serves their political agenda.
As for the impact of this decision, in the short term it will only be felt in DC – and may not effect much more than that even in the long term. In his majority opinion, Scalia took pains to emphasize that the decision, while historic, was narrow and its practical effects limited. The individual right to gun ownership is not unlimited, and Scalia said the court would still uphold certain restrictions. Additionally, Justice Scalia made note that the Second Amendment’s protections apply only to weapons in common use, like rifles and pistols. A Justice Department spokesman, said the court had “appropriately recognized that the ‘carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons,’ such as machine guns, is not protected” and that the Justice Department would vigorously defend all existing federal firearms laws. So it may not be time yet to buy your toddler that Leitner-Wise .499 she had her eye on . . .
All in all, I think the Supreme Court made a mistake on this one, as they often do. However, your comically inept misinterpretation of this decision made up for it by reminding me that conservatives like you have no ability to understand complex public policy issues and are best used simply as laughing stocks . . .
Rock, Perhaps you should read what the founders actually said about gun ownership to understand their intent.
Top 10 Founders' Quotes on Guns
1. Madison's Resolution for Amendments to the Constitution (June 8, 1789)
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&documentid=9506
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
2. House Committee Report (July 28, 1789)
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&documentid=9507
{6} "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
3. Amendments to the Constitution (September 28, 1789)
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&documentid=9505
ARTICLE THE FOURTH. 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
4. Amendments Proposed by the Virginia Convention (June 27, 1788)
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=9524
SEVENTEENTH, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State.
5. English Bill of Rights (February 13, 1689)
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=65670
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law...
6. Journal Notes of the Virginia Ratification Convention Proceedings (June 14, 1788) [George Mason]
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=5135
The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before. That is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them.
7. Journal Notes of the Virginia Ratification Convention Proceedings (June 27, 1788)
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=5148&ssug=1
[In Amendments Proposed by the Virginia Convention]:That the people have a right to keep and bear arms: that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
8. Journal Notes of the Massachusetts Ratification Convention Proceedings, A.M. (February 6, 1788) [Samuel Adams]
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&documentid=5063
A motion was made and seconded, that the report of the Committee made on Monday last, be amended so far as to add the following, to the first article therein mentioned viz."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; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them;
9. Federalist 29
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=706&ssug=1
If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.
In times of insurrection or invasion it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighbouring state should be marched into another to resist a common enemy or to guard the republic against the violences of faction or sedition. This was frequently the case in respect to the first object in the course of the late war; and this mutual succour is indeed a principal end of our political association. If the power of affording it be placed under the direction of the union, there will be no danger of a supine and listless inattention to the dangers of a neighbour, till its near approach had superadded the incitements of self preservation to the too feeble impulses of duty and sympathy.
10. The Dissent of the Minority of the Pennsylvania Convention (December 18, 1787)
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&documentid=851
[In proposing articles of amendments to the Constitution]: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.
Tish
Wait . . . so according to you I have to be a practicing Protestant in order to own a gun?? Dang! Thanks for those worthless historical tidbits . . .
You can trot out any personal opinion you want it doesn’t change the simple fact that no right – even one “granted by God and the Bill of Rights - is absolute. Our 1st Amendment right to free speech is often and rightly curtailed - libel is prohibited; the oft-cited “FIRE” in a crowded theatre is banned, and so on.
If YOUR right to own a gun interferes with OUR right to public safety, then your right can morally be abridged, in order to protect public safety. And the courts have agreed with this position.
Rock, How does my right to own a gun endanger your safety? Let's look at the bans in D.C. and Chicago, two of the worst cities in America for gun violence. Yet, handguns are illegal in both cities. Heroin is also illegal, so, only lawbreakers use it and it is never in short supply, Tish.
Post a Comment