[ethical]

As if "departing from a (bad legal)precedent" is an evil thing. The "thinking" on the second amendment was never "unified" once Judges started trashing it.

[B.O. Plenty]

........."We disagree".......

Well, as they say in Russia...toughski shitski.

[Hunble]

Do you have an e-mail address or a website that we can reply to?

I would love to send this person an altered copy of our Constitution where "people" is replaced with "National Guard."

Reading that altered Constitution does express the basic point of "WE THE PEOPLE..."

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Settled thinking in the liberal mind, perhaps.

[chesty_puller]

that the Constitution guarantees only a collective right to guns through state and federal militias, not an individual's absolute right. Otherwise, the door will open wide to weakening the responsible gun laws that protect us all.

Do you think they want to weaken the First Admendment too???

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

The time is indeed ripe for the SCOTUS to render a decision and clearly state what any competent second grader could tell you, "the right of the individual citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!"

I'm worried that this move by the administration is designed to prevent a clear and final ruling, placating the conservatives temporaily, yet allowing the gbmnt to change "policy" again at its pleasure.

We need a ruling!

[Jack Black]

Idiot liberals. I really don't know what else to say.

[Pern]

The time is ripe, as is said in legal parlance, for the high court to weigh in again on the Second Amendment and, it can be hoped, reaffirm the position that the Constitution guarantees only a collective right to guns through state and federal militias, not an individual's absolute right.

My rebuttle to this asinine statement:

Amendment II

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.

What part of this is so hard to understand?

[Mr. Bungle]

Sigh.

No, dear witless sheep of the Seattle Post Intelligencer Editorial Board, the Second Amendment is not being "reinterpreted."

It is being un-interpreted.

[rellimpank]

--obviously, they have never even read Miller in its entirety--(although I will grant that it looks like the intern who wrote it was paid by the column-inch)

[steve-b]

Trotting out that old lie about Miller again?

The "some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well regulated militia" qualifier referred to the parameters of which weapons were protected by the Second Amendment. The protection itself was clearly understood to pertain to individual possession and ownership.

The court was simply addressing what is now known as the "nukes and nerve gas" straw man.

[mondonico]

This editorial is a pack of Leftist lies. The "collectivist" view of the Second Amendment has NEVER been "settled thinking" in the courts. Nor is it "settled thinking" in academia. Laurence Tribe, noted liberal constitutional lawyer, among many others, agrees that the Second Amendment guarantees INDIVIDUAL rights.

[pabianice]

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

Changing Dred Scott

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

Wednesday, September 20, 1863 --

It is disturbing, though not surprising, that the federal government has decided after numerous decades of settled thinking on the propriety of slavery to reinterpret its position...

[MileHi]

It is disturbing, though not surprising, that the federal government has decided after numerous decades of settled thinking on the Second Amendment to reinterpret its position.

Starts with a lie and then adds several others throughout this piece of trash.

[keithtoo]

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Since the right to "keep and bear arms" was well understood from 1789-1939, 150 years, why is the emphasis place on the "numerous decades" from 1939-present, 43 years? Since it is historical fact that crime is greatly reduced where the right to carry is affirmed, why do liberals demand that that right be eliminated? Could it be because our founders said that if the government became oppressive the people had a right to overthrough it? Could it be for the same reason they emphasis "the state shall not establish a religion" and then ignore the rest of the sentence, "nor prevent the free exercise thereof"? Could it be that the Constitution restricts their plans to change our form of government? That is my bet.

[newgeezer]

"Otherwise, the door will open wide to weakening the responsible gun laws that protect us all."

Wrong. "Gun laws" mainly protect gun-toting criminals from any fear of resistance.

[Ohioan]

The time is ripe, as is said in legal parlance, for the high court to weigh in again on the Second Amendment and, it can be hoped, reaffirm the position that the Constitution guarantees only a collective right to guns through state and federal militias, not an individual's absolute right. Otherwise, the door will open wide to weakening the responsible gun laws that protect us all.

The paper is either edited by dysrons or is engaging in the typical dishonest argument that has become the identifying characteristic of the Fabian Socialist claiming to be a "Liberal."

Anyone remotely familiar with the thinking of the Founding Fathers on this issue (see The Right To Keep & Bear Arms), knows that the decisions to which this writer refers were the contrived manipulations of the Constitution by activist Judges, who accepted the situational ethics that all Fabian Socialists and their allies embrace. There is absolutely no evidence that the 2nd Amendment was not intended to do what every patriot at the time wanted done, a clear enunciation of the sacred right of the individual American to arm himself for his own and his people's protection.

This is not debatable among people with intellectual integrity. It is debated by those who think that verbal gamesmanship is more important--or at least more useful to those who seek power--than sacred oaths.

What pathetic verbage!

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[wattsmag2]

What haven't activist judges trashed?

[Senator_Blutarski]

To paraphase: "The first victim of the liberal press is the truth".

[alaskanfan]

The time is ripe, as is said in legal parlance, for the high court to weigh in again on the First Amendment and, it can be hoped, reaffirm the position that the Constitution guarantees only a collective right to free speech through state and federal media, not an individual's absolute right. Otherwise, the door will open wide to weakening the responsible free speech laws that protect us all.

Just wondering how The Seattle Post-Intelligencer Editorial Board would feel if the last paragraph of their article read like the preceeding?