Posted on 11/27/2007 2:16:58 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Who’s going to duck and cover on the Second Amendment debate that’s really getting wound up since the Supreme Court of the United States decided to rule on District of Columbia vs. Heller, or more commonly known as the D.C. Gun Ban? It seems that the republican candidates are getting involved and are at least letting voters know how they interpret the Second Amendment. The democrats seems mum on the issue, maybe because they know that gun rights can be politically deadly.
The debate hitting all the media outlets still seems to be on the interpretation of “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.” Last week in an article I wrote about one man blaming the lousy writers and their writing ability causing so many problems over the course of history. In that article I said that it wasn’t the poor writing of the penners of the Second Amendment that was the problem. It was more a desire of people to twist the writings in order to promote their progressive agendas.
For it’s time, I believe the Second Amendment was written such that every American clearly understood what it meant. So clearly understood what it meant that it wasn’t challenged until the newness of being a free American began wearing off and people began wanting to gain control over the people and satisfying personal agendas by manipulating the laws.
I dropped over the the New England Outdoor Voice, a forum for New England outdoor sportsmen that seems to have an energy to discuss and deal with political issues that affect sportsmen. The administrator of that forum, Butch Moore, had posted a link to the same article I spoke of above. One respondent, a member of those forums, had this to say about Mark Knoller, a White House correspondent for CBS news. Knoller was the writer of an article I referenced in which he stated that James Madison and friends were lousy writers.
If Knoller were to take the time to read the Federalist Papers, a goodly portion written by Madison, or the Collected Works of Thomas Jefferson (he can borrow my copy), he would soon find they knew very much how to write. It’s precisely because they wrote so well that what they wrote has stood the test of time and the assaults of idiots who try unsuccessfully to twist it into something from agenda-driven never-never land.
If Knoller spoke less and read more, he would find the American language has gone through the very sorts of changes any language experiences over two or more centuries.
Will the Supreme Court ever tell us the exact interpretation of the Second Amendment? Many hope that it will but judging by past history I don’t hold out that much hope. Included in this debate, there now seems to be those calling on the politicians, in particular the presidential candidates, to spell out clearly to voters their view and exactly how they interpret the Second Amendment. I’m not sure I hold out any more hope of that taking place either.
Kenneth Blackwell, former mayor of Cincinnati and a member of the NRA’s Public Affairs Committee, has an opinion piece in the New York Sun this morning asking much the same of the candidates.
The president is sworn to uphold “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” The duty to protect the Constitution and uphold the law requires a firm, clear belief one way or the other on the rights of Americans to buy and own a gun.
Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Mike Huckabee are staunch Second Amendment advocates and all oppose most restrictions on gun rights including D.C.’s. Rudy Giuliani favors some restrictions but opposes the D.C. gun ban. He thinks the Supreme Court should strike it down permanently.
Now let’s hear what Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards have to say. What do they believe the framers meant by the “people”? The answers will speak volumes about their views on a wide range of issues.
Over the past few years, a heated national debate has raged over what the Constitution says about presidential power, war, the environment, education, health care, the reach of federal power, affirmative action, abortion, and immigration.
The American people have the right to know how a presidential candidate would interpret the Constitution’s most basic tenet — the rights of individuals over government.
Jeff Soyer, at his blog Alphecca, alludes to the same. While Jeff is more specific with the voiced stances of certain candidates on gun rights, he does believe a debate could rage between presidential candidates depending on the ruling of SCOTUS.
If the Supreme Court rules favorably for an individual right to keep and bear arms, that could force the nominee of both parties to debate the issue.
I believe that gun rights and the SCOTUS ruling, which should come in June sometime, will be a major topic of discussion in this election beginning immediately. Once a republican and a democrat have been chosen to represent each party in the presidential election, the scope and depth of that debate will then be determined by the High Court’s ruling.
The potential fallout from a Supreme Court ruling, decisively in either direction, is no small matter. This could overshadow the war on terror, the falling dollar, the rising price of crude oil, our finicky economy and a host of other issues important to voters. Will it? Time will tell and of course, we will have to see how the directors of each candidate’s campaign determines what kind of positive mileage they can get out of such a debate.
Mitt is a staunch Second Amendment advocate? My ass he is!
I cant speak for anyone else, but my English translation is pretty clear 200 plus years after the fact. 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed'.
Maybe translated into arabic it means something else ???
My optom-pesstic bet is that the supremes go full bore 9-0 individual right. This makes them look like heroes, and effectively puts future bullseyes on all the congresscritters backs at every level of government for years to come, thus re-inforcing their own power.
Everyone 'respects' an 'honest' judge, and even though these black robes can be very political, they certainly arent that ignorant of history or that suicidal.
or they could be that arrogant and declare war on the citizenry... my .02...
No way dude.
Not that it shouldn't turn out that way, but you're dreaming IMO.
If it was just a dream it wont matter because I BLOATed anyways. Ball is in their court for a couple more months...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.