In Search of the Second Amendment

posted at 9:07 am on February 14, 2007 by Bryan

In Search of the 2nd Amendment

Download Vent for your iPod

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Muslims are organized and already asking for gun control in the US.

The article is titled

In the Fight Against Terrorism, Some Rights Must Be Repealed
By Junaid Afeef
ISPU Research Associate

and ends with the following:

“So long as guns remain available to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians.

The Second Amendment is not worth such risks.”

Check out the list of “scholars” at that site.

heroyalwhyness on February 14, 2007 at 9:17 AM

LOL…. talk about a REAL Inconvenient Truth…

Romeo13 on February 14, 2007 at 9:25 AM

The Second Amendment is much more than an individual right. It is the National Defense of last resort. As long as American infidels are armed, they will never become part of a global caliphate.

RedWinged Blackbird on February 14, 2007 at 9:27 AM

The funny thing about the 6th circus court is that their rulings often make perfect sense when taking into account stare decisis. The real problem is not these activist judges, but the muddled mess of case law that the Supreme Court has passed on (even from before the Warren Court). Sandra Day O’Conner’s “tests” were so ridiculous that she often modified them in later rulings and made them even more ridiculous.

So, as much as we like to poke fun at these appointed judges, sadly, they are actually upholding the rulings of higher courts.

cmay on February 14, 2007 at 9:37 AM

It was fairly well understood at the time that the Bill of Rights applied to the people as a collective, i.e. as states. While they left the language somewhat vague for ratification, this was the interpretation of SCOTUS for 150 years. This is better because we can rely on states more to protect our rights than the federal government. If we put the federal government in charge of protecting our individual right to bear arms, they have to decide what are reasonable limitations, such as tanks, grenades and so forth. When the federal government is in charge of deciding what rights we have, we have less rights than when the states decide it.

JohnJ on February 14, 2007 at 9:43 AM

I exercise my second amendment rights enough for several people. I’ll soon add to that a Springfield M1A1.

csdeven on February 14, 2007 at 9:56 AM

LOL…. talk about a REAL Inconvenient Truth…

Romeo13 on February 14, 2007 at 9:25 AM

You beat me to the punch line.

Lawrence on February 14, 2007 at 9:56 AM

Great Googly Moogly! Is the soundtrack available also? The strings section was beyond awesome.

allie on February 14, 2007 at 9:56 AM

In the Fight Against Terrorism, Some Rights Must Be Repealed
By Junaid Afeef
ISPU Research Associate

heroyalwhyness on February 14, 2007 at 9:17 AM

Which is one of the main objectives of the terrorists, to make us change our culture by scaring us into repealing our freedoms.

Lawrence on February 14, 2007 at 9:59 AM

The right to defend oneself, like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is God-given. It will not be legislated away and enforced in the United States without meaningful resistance.

Valiant on February 14, 2007 at 10:09 AM

This still doesn’t explain why I can’t buy an Hk-53.

=(

Ringmaster on February 14, 2007 at 10:11 AM

Nice vent, Michelle. Thanks for presenting this to us.

We enjoy our civil rights based upon legislation. For example, the 1st Amendment gives us free speech, but NOT TOTAL free speech (aside from the traditional “you cannot yell fire in a crowed theatre”). The McLame-Foolsgold Act hampers free speech some 30 days before an election. The point is that we enjoy our Bill of Rights according to how legislation ALLOWS us to enjoy them.

All too often, cities are constantly trying to restrict ownership. In the Semi-Socialist City of New York, firearms ownership is quite difficult to aquire. Regulations can change WITHOUT an owner’s knowledge (the counter argument is that the owner is supposed to know the law regardless and should contact the police once a year to see what changes have occured!). I have spoken to gun owners who claim that they discover changes in the laws BY ACCIDENT! NICE SHELL GAME GOING ON, EVIDENTLY!

Yes, my fellow and sister commentors, the weaker the people are, the stronger the government becomes.

Indeed, if our government does not trust us with firearms, then WHY SHOULD WE TRUST THEM WITH FIREARMS?

Indeed, criminals, the insane, and those who want to overthrow our government should not be armed. OBVIOUSLY! The 2nd Amendment exists for a reason

WHEN THE PEOPLE ARE ARMED, THE GOVERNMENT THINKS TWICE AND THE CRIMINALS STAY PUT.

The False Dervish on February 14, 2007 at 10:14 AM

The jihadists are engaged in active rebellion. By this fact, we should keep our guns and empty the caches in the ammo dumps they maintain.
Also, I have not seen any press on the concept that the Utah Shooter being held at bay by an off-duty cop with a gun is moer evidence that a armed populace is better than a herd of sheep.

bbz123 on February 14, 2007 at 10:21 AM

The American Revolution is still in effect. It’s an ongoing process; the moment we sit idle the enemies of liberty, self determination and freedom will counter attack.

Note, those attacks may be in the form of activist leftist judicial rulings, as well as actual physical attacks. Ever vigilant we must be.

Regardless of any Comrade Rudy and Blimpocrat Teddy legislation, or any rulings from a “progressive” judge, my close circle of family and friends will quietly remain armed, alert and ready to continue the battle for the ideals of the forefathers. I know there are other citizen patriots here, ready to rise to the cause -like the minutemen before us- to ensure our way of life for our future generations, regardless of the personal consequences.

Alden Pyle on February 14, 2007 at 10:24 AM

Michelle: Thanks for this Vent and your support of Second Amendment. I sincelerely appreciate your advocacy…

IntheNet on February 14, 2007 at 10:25 AM

Guns don’t kill people, People kill people.

Gun Control = Hitting what I aim at!

I always laugh at those stupid people thinking if we went the way of Australia then crime and gun deaths would cease to exist. Pull your head out of your fifth point of contact! If you can smuggle people and drugs across the border how hard can it be to bring in guns?

It’s all about training. I took gun safety as a young pup. When I was older I had additional training at the lovely ranges of Ft Knox (the evil army helped pay for my college*). This Saturday I’m taking my conceal class.

I guess I’m EVIL since I’m a college educated white male, in my late 30′s earning more than 50k. If so I want Rove powers too!

* = sarcasm! I loved my time in the National Guard and I would do it again. NG helped pay for my school and student loans.

VikingGoneWild on February 14, 2007 at 10:26 AM

Can someone please explain to me WHY IT IS WE NEED A WHOLE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (the NRA) DEDICATED to “DEFENDING” a Right WE CLEARLY ALREADY HAVE????I understand a PAC for gay rights or some other such stupidity, but one for a well established CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT?

The LIBS CAN FIND PRIVACY rights that are CLEARLY NOT EMNUMERATED in the 14th Amendment…but CAN’T READ WHAT IS ALREADY CLEARLY WRITTEN??

seejanemom on February 14, 2007 at 10:26 AM

In the Fight Against Terrorism, Some Rights Must Be Repealed
By Junaid Afeef
ISPU Research Associate

Interesting that Mr. Afeef isn’t calling for the same resrictions in Gaza and the West Bank.

Alden Pyle on February 14, 2007 at 10:24 AM

Well stated.

infidel4life on February 14, 2007 at 10:33 AM

Imagine if we did not have guns. No one would be killed. There would be no more wars. We could actually have heaven here on earth. Pass the Kool-Aid.

infidel on February 14, 2007 at 10:38 AM

As someone who lives in an urban area, I would like to see some type of gun control (such as background checks, etc.). I know that is blasphemous to many of the people on this site, but that’s how I feel.

Nevertheless, my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that we are all allowed to carry guns. And this is coming from someone who doesn’t necessarily agree with it.

So when people say that is not what the 2nd Amendment says, they’re simply being disingenuous. No need to have to further convince me.

asc85 on February 14, 2007 at 10:39 AM

States do not have “rights”. Rights are moral principles sanctioning the liberty of individual humans. If someone points a gun at me and says “your money or your life”, he is WRONG and I am RIGHT. (If, perhaps, I reach into my pocket and pull out a gun instead of my wallet, and blow him away.)

The Declaration of Independence spells this out. We have these rights by virtue of our nature (granted to us by our Creator). Governments are instituted for the purpose of defending those rights, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

A state has just POWERS to defend the RIGHTS of its citizens. It requires a law school education to explain this away.

The Monster on February 14, 2007 at 11:02 AM

“So long as guns remain available to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians.

The Second Amendment is not worth such risks.”

What? I’d say the opposite. It’s because of that right that the people are best equipped to fight terrorism. Flight United 93 would likely have stayed in the air if people had been allowed to carry their guns onboard. And the others would have stood a chance against the terrorists.

I’ve even heard some say that it is because of the 2nd Ammendment that Russia didn’t want to attack us on the ground during the Cold War.

The right to own a gun guarantees all of our other rights.

Esthier on February 14, 2007 at 11:05 AM

As someone who lives in an urban area, I would like to see some type of gun control (such as background checks, etc.). I know that is blasphemous to many of the people on this site, but that’s how I feel.

Checking to see if someone trying to purchase a weapon is a criminal is certainly “reasonable” gun control. Checking to see if someone is a convicted felon who is loose is also reasonable. Checking to see if someone has ever been convicted of a crime is not reasonable, because if they have paid their debt to society, they should no longer be considered a criminal and their Constitutional rights should be restored. The problem is that liberal minded DA’s make deals, liberal minded judges are loathe to punish criminals, and liberal minded parole boards apparently can’t wait to turn dangerous criminals and perverts back loose on an innocent society.

IF we handled criminal behavior the way a God fearing society should, there would be less criminals, there would be less criminals that could be turned loose because they would have been executed, and there would be less crime because the convicted criminals would not be getting out to further prey on society.

So, thank the next liberal minded person you see for the crime rates in America, and thank them for also handing the ammunition to the liberal minded politicians who want to take away the guns and ignore the 2nd Amendment in the mistaken belief that it somehow “protects” society. Because actually convicting criminals and putting them in jail and keeping there is the only thing that REALLY protects society.

Liberals are liars. They lie to themselves and to anyone around them. Of course, they are not usually lying on purpose, they lie because the “truth” to them is what they WANT to believe, not what the facts necessarily are.

NRA4Freedom on February 14, 2007 at 11:17 AM

Too bad more folks in Salt Lake City didn’t have guns at that mall yesterday …

Professor Blather on February 14, 2007 at 11:18 AM

If you support stricter gun control or even banning of firearms, then step up and be an example for the rest of the country.


Remove all firearms from your home and place a sign outside that clearly states “This is a gun-free home”.

Yeah. That’ll really help resolve this issue.

Lone Star on February 14, 2007 at 11:37 AM

Too bad more folks in Salt Lake City didn’t have guns at that mall yesterday …

And did you notice that when the story came across the news wire, the Democraticunderground.com lit up and a couple threads went on the whole day bashing the NRA, bashing law abiding citizen gun owners, bashing the “crazy” notion that the people should be “allowed” to even HAVE a gun?

I noticed then that when the story came over the wire saying that the Utah gunman turned out to be a MUSLIM, no one at the DU cared about the story anymore.

I guess because a gunman shooting people at a Mall is cannon fodder for liberal democrats to bash the 2nd Amendment, but a Muslim TERRORIST killing people here is just ammo for the war on terror, which they WANT us to lose…

NRA4Freedom on February 14, 2007 at 11:42 AM

The 2nd Ammendment is the reset button on the Constitution.

mrfixit on February 14, 2007 at 11:57 AM

heroyalwhyness on February 14, 2007 at 9:17 AM

Thanks for bringing that to our attention, heroyalwhyness. Very eye-opening and illustrative of the exact reason why we need the right to bear arms despite the author’s intent being the polar opposite of that.

thirteen28 on February 14, 2007 at 12:03 PM

If the right to bear arms is a right of the state, not an individual right, why did the founding fathers write it into the Bill of Rights which specified the rights of every citizen? Was that some sort of monumental mistake? Does this mean the other ammendments in the Bill of Rights are rights of the state too?

As for the idiot Muslim arguing that we should give up the right to bear arms in the face of Muslim terror attacks, my response is unprintable. However, it surely must occur to even the dimmest wits that Muslims who intend to perpetrate the capital crime of murder are not likely to be worried about breaking gun control laws, a much lesser crime.

Tantor on February 14, 2007 at 12:21 PM

I’ll “lock and load” to that one…..

johnnyU on February 14, 2007 at 12:52 PM

More anti-gun fascism: Gun stores in L.A. will be required to post signs warning potential buyers that guns are dangerous! Who knew?

http://www.kfi640.com/cc-common/news/sections/local/?newsart=1

L.A. City Councilman Bernard Parks says it’s just part of the ongoing effort to make the city safer.

Yeah right. Focusing on law-abiding citizens rather than criminals, illegal aliens and gang bangers. What hypocrisy.

infidel4life on February 14, 2007 at 1:00 PM

“the idiot Muslim arguing that we should give up the right to bear arms in the face of Muslim terror attacks” can be reached at junaid.afeef@gmail.com.

georgej on February 14, 2007 at 1:15 PM

So long as guns remain available to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians.

The Second Amendment is not worth such risks.”
I have a few baseballs and bats that can do more damage and carnage in anyplace that is packed or crowded and I want to hurt someone. Typical bonehead, trying to justify why guns are bad. I have guns and I know how to use them and I will teach my sons and grandsons how to use themPROPERLY I guess common sense isn’t so common anymore. Get a grip, hope it will be on a 45.

bones47 on February 14, 2007 at 1:31 PM

BTW, the gun grabbers believe that with the Democrats running things, they can enact their “dream” legislation and ban all firearms.

The war against gun owners is going on right now, and this incident will be used to justify banning the private ownership guns or repealing CCW laws on the books.

Oh, they’ll call it “sensible gun control,” but there is NO sense in disarming the law abiding citizen or in waiting periods, one-gun-a-month, banning so-called “assault weapons,” “bullet taxes” (proposed in Cook County, IL), and other idiotic schemes that have the singular goal of making it impossible for the private citizen to own a firearm — except to make law abiding people vulnerable to Jihadists and felons.

Schumer and Feinstein in the Senate and McCarthy in the House HAVE ALREADY INTRODUCED GUN BAN LEGISLATION.

This renewed assault on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is WHY DEMOCRATS SHOULD NEVER CONTROL CONGRESS OR THE WHITE HOUSE!

DOH!!

And it is why Rudy (and McCain) are no friends to gun owners. Neither one of them has seen a gun control bill that they haven’t liked!

So the next time you think that because you don’t like the President’s stance on immigration, or the war, or the Republican’s spending, or yada, yada, and decide to “sit the election out,” throw your vote away on a 3rd party candidate or (horrors of all horrors) vote “democratic” in protest, you should know that a FORSEEN consequence is new gun control laws.

Oh, it’s no coincidence that all those US appellate district courts in the movie say that gun control is a “state’s right.” The judges sitting on the panels were appointed by Clinton, or approved by a litmus-testing liberal dominated or filibustered US Senate.

georgej on February 14, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Arrgh. The idiocy.
Rulers prefer unarmed serfs!

If we outlaw firearms, only outlaws will have firearms.

It’s so simple.

I’m sure the gun stores have been doing good business since the Dems won the election. Smart citizens know it’s a matter of time before our guns are snatched by the fascist libs. The fact we have to register them is bad enough, and straight out of Hitler’s playbook, btw. I’ve wanted to purchase some additional firepower but don’t want to have to register my weapons. It’s better if they don’t think I have any at all so they can’t come round ‘em up when the time comes. Call me a conspiracy theorist but I’ve seen Feinstain holding up a giant plastic AK-47 and pretending that’s all she’s trying to get rid of. Meanwhile occasionally a story will leak out about containers of untraceable AK-47s from China being found in shipments to the port of Long Beach and straight into the ghetto.

NTWR on February 14, 2007 at 2:07 PM


I exercise my second amendment rights enough for several people. I’ll soon add to that a Springfield M1A1.

csdeven on February 14, 2007 at 9:56 AM

You are an inspiration to all Americans!

TugboatPhil on February 14, 2007 at 2:53 PM

I loved my time in the National Guard and I would do it again. NG helped pay for my school and student loans.

VikingGoneWild on February 14, 2007 at 10:26 AM

Same. Same. I had the opportunity to pursue my service through retirement. How far were you able to go with it?

Lawrence on February 14, 2007 at 2:58 PM

Remove all firearms from your home and place a sign outside that clearly states “This is a gun-free home”.

Lone Star on February 14, 2007 at 11:37 AM

This is tatamount to placing a sign that says:
“Come steal me blind, I won’t defend myself or my property”.

Lawrence on February 14, 2007 at 3:00 PM

As someone who lives in an urban area, I would like to see some type of gun control (such as background checks, etc.). I know that is blasphemous to many of the people on this site, but that’s how I feel.

asc85 on February 14, 2007 at 10:39 AM

This already exists. Background checks are required for a variety of fire-arms, and one can not even own automatic weapons without a special permit. For those firearms that do not require specific background checks, registration of purchase is still required.

Thing is, the gummint already knows who all the legal gun owners are. They just don’t know who the illegal owners are. We can certainly take away all the legal guns, but what about all the illegal ones?

Let’s ask Australia and see how it’s working out for them. I believe their violet crime rate went up. Like the saying goes- When gun ownership becomes criminal, only criminals will have guns.

Unless the left can completely stop the manufacture, open borders smuggling, and homemade/garage-made weapons, criminals will still have guns. And if we stop the manufacture of fire-arms, can we stop the manufacture of other weapons?

Historically speaking the simple answer, is No.

Lawrence on February 14, 2007 at 3:16 PM

The LIBS CAN FIND PRIVACY rights that are CLEARLY NOT EMNUMERATED in the 14th Amendment…but CAN’T READ WHAT IS ALREADY CLEARLY WRITTEN??
seejanemom on February 14, 2007 at 10:26 AM

AMEN MAMA.

My dad gave me my first weapon at seven (7) years old. Yes, seven.
It was/is an Ithaca .22 single shot long rifle. My pride and joy for many years.
It came with hours of safety training and lessons. The kids who hurt themselves and others thru accidents do so from curiosity. I was able to go to the mountains and shoot with adults frequently, thus loosing the curiosity factor and gaining huge respect for all guns.
I have since accumulated a few more weapons and , well whats the saying? From my cold dead fingers?

I still need an AS50 semi-automatic sniper rifle ( .50 cal w/ 2 mile range), or the H&K MP7 A1

But I’m probably ok for now.

shooter on February 14, 2007 at 3:51 PM

heroyalwhyness on February 14, 2007 at 9:17 AM

That site bothers the crap out of me. Their focus:
Economy
* Welfare Reform
* Islamic Finance
* Tax Policy
Politics
* Elections
* Faith Based Initiative
* Social Security

* Immigration
Education
* Higher Education
* School Vouchers
* Public/Private Schools

This fits entirely with their infiltrate and convert or kill ideology. The first steps.
the ISPU
Has anyone looked at them deeper? Hamas, hizbollah? the usual?

shooter on February 14, 2007 at 4:01 PM

What amazes me most about the arguments insisting that the second amendment applies to States rights, and not to the people in general, is that there is an article (Article IV – The States) in the Constitution that addresses the laws that apply to the states directly and that Article does not include anything about the right of the States to keep and bear arms. If the Constitution implied that it is the right for the States, and not the people in general, to keep and bear arms that would have been indicated in the wording of any pertinent Article, Section, or Amendment, would it not?

There is an amendment that apples to the States (Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People) so there is ample evidence that the Constitution is clear on which laws, as outlined in the Amendments, apply to States and which laws apply to people in general. The Constitution clearly established the difference between the States and the People yet the courts seem to confuse that distinction when ever it’s convenient.

The second amendment states clearly that “the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” so how can the courts say that it apples only to the states. Especially since that same Amendment includes the States in the passage “being necessary to the security of a free State.” That shows that the Amendment makes a clear distinction between States and people.

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.

Look at it in total. This Amendment makes a clear distinction between Militias, States, and people yet the courts have ruled that the “people” in question are the States. That’s BS.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst.html

RedinBlueCounty on February 14, 2007 at 4:14 PM

That documentary trailer could’ve benefited from some voice over work.

Either give that minority of conservative actors a chance or see if well-known talk radio personalities are willing to do some charity work.

ScottMcC on February 14, 2007 at 4:24 PM

Thing is, the gummint already knows who all the legal gun owners are. They just don’t know who the illegal owners are. We can certainly take away all the legal guns, but what about all the illegal ones?

Let’s ask Australia and see how it’s working out for them. I believe their violet crime rate went up. Like the saying goes- When gun ownership becomes criminal, only criminals will have guns.
-Lawrence

They also don’t know who the legal gun owners are that have had guns passed down through generations without registration- that’s still legal, right?

I read about an Australian who was losing sheep to wild dogs but couldn’t have a gun. The dogs lived in a little forest on his property so he started cutting it all down and they freaked out on him for that, too. Australia would be a good place to flee should our country get overrun by socialists, except for the gun laws.

NTWR on February 14, 2007 at 6:30 PM

shooter said

That site bothers the crap out of me.

Me too. The groups identity was the tip off. . . “Institute for Social Policy and Understanding”

How many groups need ‘understanding‘ when dealing with ‘social policy’? And which social policy makers list their contributors as ‘scholars‘?

Want to bet the Saudi’s are funding this elephant as well?

This muhammedan hostile takeover is overwhelming . . .
Harvard in biggest curriculum overhaul in 30 years… after buying $40M of influence at Harvard and Georgetown Universities

Did you take a peek at the multimedia offerings? Here are a couple to ponder . . .

Susan Douglass
Council on Islamic Education
Topic: “Islam and Curriculum Reform”

Maha ElGenaidi
Islamic Networks Group
Topic: “Teaching Islam to Hospital and Law Enforcement Officials”

Patricia Hanson-Qureshi, Ph.D. candidate
University of Wisconsin
Topic: “School Headwear Policies: Legal Landscape, Policy Implications and Parent’s Role in Collaborating with Public School Districts”

heroyalwhyness on February 14, 2007 at 6:32 PM

First and foremost let me say this Vent is exactly why I’m with HA.com. Michelle could have been like most other American women on Valantines Day and probably had an easy semi-quasi holiday at work or were preocupied with tonights dinner engagment or whether or not they received a dozen Roses ect.. Instead she is diligent and ever watchful of our glorious God given and hard fought rights and freedoms. I don’t know what nation of origin her ancestors came from or how many generations removed she is, but there has to be something within her recent memory whether a family history or story, mabey just an outstanding elementary education, that speaks to her. I myself am the product of a first generation sicilian father and a WWII war bride from England. I was raised to respect and be grateful for the rights and freedoms we have. I am grateful to have people like Michelle Malkin and her staff as a beacon of truth in this ever darkening world. So on Valentines Day, as usual Michelle gets right to the heart of the matter. We may very well be entering into a new dark age of propaganda, cause the stage is sure set. I’ll just look and listen for Michelle and others as the guiding light.

sonnyspats1 on February 14, 2007 at 7:32 PM

I hate to break it to those who disagree with me, but after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were accepted, states had laws regulating speech, religion, assembly, guns, and so forth. This is basic history. You don’t have to take my word for it. Go ahead and check. You see, they already had state governments. Their concern was that this new federal government would grow just as tyranical as Britian did. Again, feel free to do all the research on this you want.

The simple truth is that states’ rights protect human rights better than the federal government does.

JohnJ on February 14, 2007 at 8:01 PM

To those who would argue that the 2nd amendment does not apply to individuals, I disagree. The Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States uses the phrase “…the right of the people…” in the 1st, 2nd and the 4th amendments. So, if “the people” referred to in the 2nd amendment means the states or militias, then it would have to follow that rights described in the 1st and 4th amendments apply only to the states or militias as well. I rest my case.

“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”.

Zorro on February 14, 2007 at 8:52 PM

By the way, Great Vent (again and as always).

I too have “several” firearms and began shooting at around age 7. My favorite handgun is my H&K Mk23, rifle would have to be my late fathers’ pre 64 Win. Model 70 Featherweight…

And Happy St. Valentine’s Day.

Zorro on February 14, 2007 at 8:58 PM

Guns don’t kill people….
drivers with cell-phones kill people.
‘Nuff said.

CyberCipher on February 14, 2007 at 11:12 PM

The First Amendment may be the mouth.

But the Second Amendment is the teeth.

Freedom becomes hard to swallow without both.

profitsbeard on February 15, 2007 at 12:02 AM

I hate to break it to those who disagree with me, but after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were accepted, states had laws regulating speech, religion, assembly, guns, and so forth.

Yes, and if those state wanted to join the Union, they had to change those laws to in accordance with the Constitution.

RedinBlueCounty on February 15, 2007 at 6:21 AM

So long as guns remain available to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians.

The Second Amendment is not worth such risks.

Two points to ponder on just how stupid this is:

1) Think of the terrorist attacks in or against the US. My guess is that 9/11, the first WTC bombing, the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut, Khobar Towers, USS Cole and the Oklahoma City bombing come to mind. How many guns were used in these? Zero! If you want to stop terrorism, according to this logic, we have to get rid of trucks, small boats, jet fuel, diesel fuel, fertilizer, airplanes, box cutters and duct tape. These were the weapons used in these terrorist attacks. And while we’re at it, let’s ban vests, cell phones, dead animals, ball bearings and small rocks to prevent suicide bombings and IEDs.

2) Let’s say that the Second Amendment is not worth the risks it imposes. The Constitution has a built-in process to repeal and approve amendments. In this way it is living. The problem that liberals have is that there is no way the US will repeal the Second Amendment. But they’ll rely on our excessive deference to the judiciary to attain what is impossible otherwise. It’s time we start removing judges from the bench who cannot understand the clear and intended meaning of the text and who also divine formerly hidden “rights” from the “penumbras, formed by emanations” of Constitution.

cmay on February 15, 2007 at 8:43 AM

There is a subdivision of homes about 25 miles from where I live (NC). Each has a couple of acres, corn fields, and every lot (it seems) has a tree stand to take a deer now and then. Went out to purchase something from the area, asked about the tree stands and crime (they had a neighborhood watch sign which I found funny). Haven’t had a break-in on over 35 years, and the one was a guy so drunk he broke into what he thought was his own house locked door.
Point being, no one in their right mind would steal from a house with a tree stand.
Give me a neighbor with a gun, and I have a good neighbor.
Let a hoodlum have a gun and you have a bad judge.

right2bright on February 15, 2007 at 8:46 AM

Zorro is right. The Constitution is very clear regarding which powers and rights are reserved for the States or the people. For example, the First amendment forbids the Federal government (Congress) from restricting speech, but not the States.

The second amendment clearly states that ‘the right of the people…’, thus it refers to individuals, not the States.

Another example is the tenth amendment, which reserves any rights not specified in the constitution to the States, ‘or to the people.’ Why make that distinction in one place but not the other?

Jezla on February 15, 2007 at 9:04 AM

Media Black Out! Muslim Kills 5 in American Shopping Mall

http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/1544/Jan_Markell

NRA4Freedom on February 15, 2007 at 9:28 AM

“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”.

Zorro on February 14, 2007 at 8:52 PM

This is a very important quote. At the time when written the people who made up the militia where expected to bring their own weapons. The state or feds didn’t provide them weapons.

Even in today’s National Guard. The state doesn’t provide or own the military weapons, the Federal Government does.

The States and units are responsible for them when issued, but if the federal military wants them back the State has to give them back. Usually when the Army needs them, they also need the people to operate them, and the Guard Units are activated to federal service accordingly.

Lawrence on February 15, 2007 at 9:36 AM

This is tatamount to placing a sign that says:
“Come steal me blind, I won’t defend myself or my property”.

Lawrence

Yes, it is. Which is the same ultimate result that would pervade if gun ownership were to be outlawed.

Lone Star on February 15, 2007 at 9:00 PM