Comments on: Second Amendment: Unlocked And Loaded

Andrew Cohen: High Court Ruling On D.C. Gun Ban Marks Just A Beginning To Litigation

[patriot12436]

ubrew12
It only seems vague to those who are illeterate.

[patriot12436]

detroiter81
Are you a gang banger or convicted felon ?

[rowdywicca]

Oops...edit...without a search warrant!

[rowdywicca]

Neither federal, county or city government should have the right to take away a Constitutional right! Period!

If you let them take away one right using their political correctness bull *****, and their fear mongering, the next thing you know...we won''t be able to post opinions here! Or travel from state to state without a permit. They''ll be waltzing in your house with a search warrant and seizing it to quarter troops. Or your right to assemble, and petition.

Get real people! Don''t let the politcally correct, or socialist correct, or progressives feed you the bull krap about what they think your rights should be!

[freeman212]

The founding fathers had just fought a revolution. Of course the right to bear arms was intended for the individual, that''s why it was the 2nd amendment, bested only by the right of free speech our 1st amendment.The first ten amendments are called the bill of rights. What is the obsession with trying to give away or take the freedoms only we Americans have? Wasn''t it Ben Franklin that said "those that sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither" There are many nations that are run by brutal regimes, dictators, theocracy etc. If you don''t like it here, we let you leave, that too is another freedom you enjoy. Or as my mother a LEGAL immigrant once said "they don''t shoot you in the back trying to get out of America. Apparently we don''t even have a fence" Anyone remember the Berlin wall? This isn''t about crime or gun control its about people control. Thank you Supreme Court for having the courage to say what we the people have known all along.

[detroiter81]

AND I agree with the other guy who says the right to bear arms "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" that seems to me to be pretty clear. I dont believe the government has the right to even take the right away from criminals.

The constitution doesn''t say the right shall be infringed if you ever did anything wrong or illegal in your entire life.

[detroiter81]

AND I agree with the other guy who says the right to bear arms "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" that seems to me to be pretty clear. I dont believe the government has the right to even take the right away from criminals.

The constitution doesn''t say the right shall not be infringed unless you ever did anything wrong or illegal in your life.

[detroiter81]

gun control laws are strictly un-american. And the Intellectual moron who wrote this article obviously doesn''t know *** about legal writing or they would not have critiqued the grammar of the Founding fathers who wrote them most genius legal documents the world has ever known.

here are some quotes from jefferson on the matter of gun control..oh yeah and freeman means NOT A SLAVE..

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1500.htm

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353
"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." -Thomas Jefferson to , 1803. ME 10:365

[detroiter81]

gun control laws are strictly un-american. And the Intellectual moron who wrote this article obviously doesn''t know *** about legal writing or they would not have critiqued the grammar of the Founding fathers who wrote them most genius legal documents the world has ever known.

here are some quotes from jefferson on the matter of gun control..oh yeah and freeman means NOT A SLAVE..

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1500.htm

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353
"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." -Thomas Jefferson to , 1803. ME 10:365

[ferrotus]

The definition of "militia" at the time of the formation of our Constitution was: All able bodied-men. The "militia" specifically excludes anyone on active duty in military service and the National Guard. Also, all state, county and local police are excluded. The military services, N.G. and the various police services are armed at the direction of the governmental agency for whom they work.

[detroiter81]

gun control laws are strictly un-american. And the Intellectual moron who wrote this article obviously doesn''t know *** about legal writing or they would not have critiqued the grammar of the Founding fathers who wrote them most genius legal documents the world has ever known.

here are some quotes from jefferson on the matter of gun control..oh yeah and freeman means NOT A SLAVE..

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1500.htm

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341

"I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm-house." --Thomas Jefferson to Jacob J. Brown, 1808. ME 11:432

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365

[detroiter81]

gun control laws are strictly un-american. And the Intellectual moron who wrote this article obviously doesn''t know *** about legal writing or they would not have critiqued the grammar of the Founding fathers who wrote them most genius legal documents the world has ever known.

here are some quotes from jefferson on the matter of gun control..oh yeah and freeman means NOT A SLAVE..

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1500.htm

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341

"I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm-house." --Thomas Jefferson to Jacob J. Brown, 1808. ME 11:432

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365

[jmagarotz]

And just what part of "Right of the People" and "Shall Not be Infringed" don''t you understand. Do you want some cheese to go with that whine? Honestly, I don''t know how some of you libs can still spew your BS "all over that issue", it''s no wonder most people refuse to listen to your sniveling. Crawl back into your hole and gripe to the bats. Sheesh!!

***? Thanks for throwing BS all over THAT issue. The 2nd Amen is vague, and YOU are the vacuum.

Posted by ubrew12 at 06:34 PM : Jun 26, 2008

[sti_edge40]

Justice John Paul Stevens is wrong. The Second Amendment was written to protect THE PEOPLE from a tyrannical government. There was no National Guard or organized militia when the amendment was written. All able-bodied men made up the militia. Judge Souter was a not too surprising disappointment and Ruth Bader Ginsburg voted predictably. Automatic weapons will not flood the streets. They are expensive and relatively hard to purchase. Destructive devices will still be illegal. Anyone who was ineligible to buy a gun because of a criminal or mental health record is still ineligible. The surprise is that four of the justices don%u2019t understand the Federalist papers where the intent of the Second Amendment is clearly stated well enough to make a proper ruling. These are the kind of justice we can expect it Obama becomes President. The constitutions of many states which were written in the same era as the Constitution clearly say that the respective states may not infringe on the right of the individual to possess firearms. This is not a ruling about hunting or collecting or fetishes. It is a ruling about the individual%u2019s right of protection from tyranny and the right to self defense. The Constitution protects this right. It does not grant it. The Founders presumed that the right was one from the creator.
I can%u2019t wait for the liberals to try to explain away the drop in violent crime where THE PEOPLE will now be allowed to exercise their right.

[fredcs25]

Well yes the framers of our constitution did know that firearm ownership was a right for each citizen.All any fool has to do is read their other writings and personal letters to see what they thought about the right to own firearms.Only in modern times have a few liberal democrats questioned the rights of the people.The reason the Supreme Court has not said anything about the second amendment in 200 years is not because they did not understand or did not know the meaning of the 2nd amendment it is because they DID know the meaning and assumed everyone else did also.The people of the United States possess the right to own firearms for personal protection and defense.Now the Supreme Court has made that clear to all.

[seafang]

" The Constitution''''s too vague to be applied in a vacuum . "

There''s nothing vague at all about the Constitution and the second amendment least of all.

What if the second amendment said this: " The sun rising in the east being necessary for a warm day at the beach in a free State; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The meaning is EXACTLY THE SAME as what the framers wrote. I just offered a different reason for why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And noticed it says "infringed" whereas the first amendment says "abridged". They''re trying to tell you to keep your damned hands off people''s rights to defend themselves. The reason the framers cited doesn''t in any way restrict the right to keep and bear arms, for the very same people who are guaranteed the rights of the first amendment.

[seafang]

"
Pro-gunners ignore everything to the left of the second comma; anti-gunners hate what is to the right of it. Since there are NO state militias (unless you count the National Guard, and they issue weapons), this law is obsolete. These so-called "originalist judges" who claim to want to be true to the intent and letter of the Constitution can''''t argue honsetly with the language of the 2nd Amendment.
If we want individual rights to own guns for personal protection, hunting, hobby or even fetishistic reasons (which the 2nd Amendment does not address in any way) then pass a law clearly stating those rights. To hell with this bickering, and with the NRA.
Posted by bobgee_1999 at 05:27 PM : Jun 26, 2008"
Well bobgee_1999, I suggest you buy an english grammar book.
The sum total complete meaning of the second amendment using the usual rules of English grammar is: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That other stuff you whine about is simply one of the possible reasons the framers offered for their belief that THE PEOPLE (not the states or feds) have a right to keep and bear arms.

[samthetvcat]

Big picture is still essentially the same - everybody''s always read into 2A an individual right to bear arms, and everybody recognizes that 10A gives States the right/obligation to police to ensure public welfare/safety. So the Court is always trying to maximize gun freedom for responsible individuals and minimize gun harm from criminals on society.

My take is that the big referendum of this holding is on whether gun control is actually working to curb gun violence. Like despite having one of the toughest laws in the country, doesn''t DC also have one of the highest crime rates? Is there consensus and definitive proof that gun control works? Based on Justice Kennedy''s record of being thorough in his role of swing voter, I''m assuming there isn''t.

So this is probably the way this ruling will go down - people are going to watch how not having a ban on handguns affects crime, and if nothing changes this holding will start pushing the envelope. If it''s shown that violent crime skyrockets as a direct result of this repeal, this holding''s going to get chipped away really fast to just the edge of being overruled.

Like I think the ''wait-and-see'' that really matters will be urban crime casualties, not how courts in the short-term interpret the holding. The Constitution''s too vague to be applied in a vacuum . . .