Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dc. V Heller, And The Second Ammendment. Help Me Fight Liberal Bias Plauging My Term Paper!!!!
(Vanity) | Rachel T.

Posted on 05/26/2008 7:41:56 AM PDT by TheatricalOne

Hello members of the free republic community. I am currently working on a project for my government 101 class and I am in the dark. I am to write an opinion on D.C V Heller, (in which I side with Heller) but I am inundated with a lack of materials that are not infringed by liberal gun phobia. I am the only one supporting Heller in my class and I am being debated left and right, any idea would be much appreciated so that I am better equipped to fight back. I strongly believe that every American should own a gun if he or she wants to. I also firmly believe that it is not the governments place to infringe on such matters, only merely to have its hand in maintaining safety and proper registration protocols. So far my platform is such... the right to bear arms is a protected right under the penumbra of the 2nd and 9th amendment. (This idea stemming from the right to privacy penumbra as founded in Griswold V Connecticut) also is trying to figure out how to properly re-interpret the second amendment to try to understand the framers intentions. The flow of information and ideas has been tedious and daunting for me so far and most of what I find I can’t use. So this is why I am turning to the reasonably minded people of free republic. If anyone here has a link or an idea pleas post it below and help me fight back against my entirely liberal class.


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Government
KEYWORDS: armedcitizen; banglist; ccw; gunrights; rkba; secondammendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

1 posted on 05/26/2008 7:41:56 AM PDT by TheatricalOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TheatricalOne
I don't know if this helps.

Top Five Baseless and Subversive Arguments Against the Second Amendment by Michael Chapdelaine (01/07/08)

I have a few other links I can try to dig up if this is the kind of stuff you had in mind.

2 posted on 05/26/2008 7:50:36 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (No government can compete with the black market for drugs in financial compensation for LEOs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheatricalOne
The strange case of United States v. Miller
3 posted on 05/26/2008 7:54:14 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (No government can compete with the black market for drugs in financial compensation for LEOs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheatricalOne
Your best source on the specific case would be the Amicus briefs filed in support of the respondent.

The one commonly referred to as Vice President Cheney's is very authoritative and the official title is something like 55 Members of the US Senate and the Senate President in support of the Respondent.

Links here:

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=DC_v._Heller

Another excellent overall summary of the history of the 2nd Amendment is the Texas Appeals Court Decision in Emerson.

Keep us apprised of your progress!

Good luck!

4 posted on 05/26/2008 7:58:15 AM PDT by Copernicus (California Grandmother view on Gun Control http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7CCB40F421ED4819)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheatricalOne

The words “penumbra,” “registration,” and “safety protocols” do not appear in the Constitution.

The People simply did not allow govenment the power to infringe the right to keep and bear Arms.


5 posted on 05/26/2008 7:58:42 AM PDT by Unknowing (Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheatricalOne

See the Second Amendment Law Library

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ll.htm


6 posted on 05/26/2008 8:00:55 AM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheatricalOne
Laurence Tribe

The Second Amendment as Teaching Tool in Constitutional Law Classes

The Embarrassing Second Amendment

Laurence Tribe's Big Surprise

7 posted on 05/26/2008 8:03:11 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (No government can compete with the black market for drugs in financial compensation for LEOs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheatricalOne
but I am inundated with a lack of materials that are not infringed by liberal gun phobia.

"Indunated" with a "lack" of materials?

I'm pro 2nd Amendment as well, but how does that make sense?

8 posted on 05/26/2008 8:04:06 AM PDT by ihatemyalarmclock (')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheatricalOne
What's your timeline? I have a couple of suggestions for you, based on the tendency of FReepers to expect folks to do their own work!

Look for an NRA member in your area who takes the NRA publication America's First Freedom. In it, you'll find an excellent article written by a lawyer who sat through DC v. Heller's oral arguments in the Supreme Court.

Next, visit amazon.com and search for "The 2nd Amendment Primer" or anything written by Stephen Halbrook or David Kopel. Kopel is the lawyer who sat through oral arguments.

These resources should help you.

As a tidbit - the DC ban is a de facto ban on the natural right of self defense. The DC attorney argued for reasonable restrictions, and was asked by one justice if the total ban were a reasonable restriction of the right.

9 posted on 05/26/2008 8:06:43 AM PDT by HiJinx (~ Support our Troops ~ www.americasupportsyou.mil ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheatricalOne
The Unabridged Second Amendment — Grammatical analysis by an expert on English grammar and usage.

The 2nd Amendment Law Library at Contisitution.org

10 posted on 05/26/2008 8:07:20 AM PDT by BufordP (Had Mexicans flown planes into the World Trade Center, Jorge Bush would have surrendered.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheatricalOne
Google is your friend. Please post your paper when done so we can evaluate your work, newbie.
11 posted on 05/26/2008 8:11:23 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (Will this thread be jacked by a Mormon?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiJinx
"As a tidbit - the DC ban is a de facto ban on the natural right of self defense."

I believe the right to self defense with a handgun is not protected.

The right to self defense with a rifle, shotgun, knife, baseball bat, nunchuck, rock, or bare fists, however, is protected in DC.

12 posted on 05/26/2008 8:19:46 AM PDT by vincentfreeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TheatricalOne

You don’t need a “penumbra” argument. The right to bear arms is *explicit* in the text.

The only question, as put forward by the opposition, is that this is not an individual right but a collective right of the militia itself under regulation by the state. That is, a right of the state.

If so, it’s the ONLY one of the Bill of Rights that is not an individual right. The Bill of Rights wasn’t written to recognize “rights” of the government. Quite the reverse. It was written to recognize rights of each citizen that government cannot take away. The 2nd amendment explicitly leaves the power of arms in the individual hands of the people.


13 posted on 05/26/2008 8:20:12 AM PDT by Ramius (Personally, I give us... one chance in three. More tea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vincentfreeman
The right to self defense with a rifle, shotgun, knife, baseball bat, nunchuck, rock, or bare fists, however, is protected in DC.

Ever carried a rifle around town in D.C.?

14 posted on 05/26/2008 8:22:07 AM PDT by Ramius (Personally, I give us... one chance in three. More tea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ramius
"is that this is not an individual right but a collective right of the militia itself under regulation by the state. That is, a right of the state."

Not a collective right. I believe the argument was that the right was individual but it was exercised collectively as part of a well regulated Militia.

We do have other rights like this -- the right to vote or the right to assemble.

15 posted on 05/26/2008 8:28:02 AM PDT by vincentfreeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TheatricalOne
Here is the link from United States v. Emerson:

http://www.guncite.com/emerson.html

And an example of the material you may find:

3. Historical Analysis

. . . . . "[T]here is a long tradition of widespread lawful gun ownership by private individuals in this country." Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 610 (1994). A historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right.

a. English History

. . . . . A review of English history explains the founders' intent in drafting the Second Amendment. As long ago as 690 A.D., Englishmen were required to possess arms and to serve in the military. David T. Hardy, Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies: Toward a Jurisprudence of the Second Amendment, 9 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 559, 562 (1986) (citing 1 JOHN J. BAGLEY & PETER B. ROWLEY, A DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF ENGLAND 1066-1540, at 152 (1965)). This obligation continued for centuries, requiring nobility, and later commoners, to keep arms and participate in the militia. Id. at 563-65. The obligation to keep arms was not simply to provide military service in the king's army; English citizens were also required to provide local police services, such as pursuing criminals and guarding their villages. CLAYTON E. CRAMER, FOR THE DEFENSE OF THEMSELVES AND THE STATE: THE ORIGINAL INTENT AND JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS 24-25 (1994); JOYCE LEE MALCOLM, TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS: THE ORIGINS OF AN ANGLO-AMERICAN RIGHT 2 (1994).

. . . . . By the middle of the seventeenth century, however, the sovereign jeopardized the individual right to bear arms. Charles II, and later James II, began to disarm many of their Protestant subjects. Hardy, supra, at 574-79. James II was an unpopular king whose policies stirred great resentment among both the political and religious communities of England.

David E. Murley, Private Enforcement of the Social Contract: Deshaney and the Second Amendment Right to Own Firearms, 36 DUQ. L. REV. 15, 19 (1997). Eventually, James II fled England during what was later termed the Glorious Revolution. Hardy, supra, at 579. In the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution, Parliament passed the English Bill of Rights in 1689, codifying the individual right to bear arms. Id. at 580. The Bill of Rights provided that "the subjects which are Protestant may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." Id. at 581.

b.

The Colonial Right To Bear Arms

. . . . . The American colonists exercised their right to bear arms under the English Bill of Rights. Indeed, the English government's success in luring Englishmen to America was due in part to pledges that the immigrants and their children would continue to possess "all the rights of natural subjects, as if born and abiding in England." MALCOLM, supra, at 138. As in England, the colonial militia played primarily a defensive role, with armies of volunteers organized whenever a campaign was necessary. Id. at 139. Statutes in effect bore evidence of an individual right to bear arms during colonial times. For example, a 1640 Virginia statute required "all masters of families" to furnish themselves and "all those of their families which shall be capable of arms . . . with arms both offensive and defensive." Id. (citing THE OLD DOMINION IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY: A DOCUMENTARY

16 posted on 05/26/2008 8:33:06 AM PDT by Copernicus (California Grandmother view on Gun Control http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7CCB40F421ED4819)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheatricalOne

First,let’s work on your “spelling”.P l a u g E i n g”!


17 posted on 05/26/2008 8:33:06 AM PDT by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ramius
"Ever carried a rifle around town in D.C.?"

Is DC v Heller about carry? I thought it was about self defense in the home.

18 posted on 05/26/2008 8:33:58 AM PDT by vincentfreeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TheatricalOne
Okay, listen. I don't mean to be a b*tch, but I would really advise you to cut back on the eloquent lingo. You sound like Jesse Jackson trying to intimidate people with dazzling rhetoric.

As has been pointed out, "penumbra" is like a semi-shadow. It's been defined by Webster as a right that exists by implication. (They mean abortion rights are implied by privacy rights.) Gun rights are spelled out in the simplest possible language. There's nothing shadowy about it.

Listen, speak simply. Write clearly. Wafting about on an pseudo-intellectual cloud takes more energy than it's worth and you'll end up not making sense. You can't be inundated by a lack of material. Just say "I can't find the material I need."

19 posted on 05/26/2008 8:41:24 AM PDT by A_perfect_lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vincentfreeman

So individuals to not have the right to vote? Nonsense.

And sorry, but aside from the logical artifact that an assembly is by definition a group, the right belongs to the individuals to participate, not the group as an entity. Without the former, the latter cannot exist.

I understand your argument, but it’s a logical fallacy. Without the power of arms in the hands of the people there is no militia. The militia is the people. It is NOT a government agency. That is a standing army, and that is exactly what the founders thought to avoid. The militia does not exist in times when it is not needed. But the power of arms still remains in the hands of the people, to enable the reforming of the militia when they deemed necessary.


20 posted on 05/26/2008 8:42:41 AM PDT by Ramius (Personally, I give us... one chance in three. More tea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: vincentfreeman
We do have other rights like this -- the right to vote or the right to assemble.

I half-agree. It's hard to assemble alone. But you vote alone, so I'd say voting is still an individual right.

21 posted on 05/26/2008 8:43:37 AM PDT by A_perfect_lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: vincentfreeman
Is DC v Heller about carry? I thought it was about self defense in the home.

Do people only have a right to defend themselves at home?

22 posted on 05/26/2008 8:44:40 AM PDT by Ramius (Personally, I give us... one chance in three. More tea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: vincentfreeman
The right to self defense with a rifle, shotgun, knife, baseball bat, nunchuck, rock, or bare fists, however, is protected in DC.

In what way? By what statute? Under what circumstances?

"Protected" or uninfringed?

23 posted on 05/26/2008 8:47:52 AM PDT by Copernicus (California Grandmother view on Gun Control http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7CCB40F421ED4819)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TheatricalOne

You have Freep mail


24 posted on 05/26/2008 8:50:45 AM PDT by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org | Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ramius
"So individuals to not have the right to vote? Nonsense."

They do have the individual right. But that right is only exercised collectively (you can't vote when and where you please.)

All I was saying is that it's misleading (and confusing) to call something a collective right when it's really an individual right exercised collectively.

25 posted on 05/26/2008 8:58:25 AM PDT by vincentfreeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Ramius
"So individuals to not have the right to vote? Nonsense."

They do have the individual right. But that right is only exercised collectively (you can't vote when and where you please.)

All I was saying is that it's misleading (and confusing) to call something a collective right when it's really an individual right exercised collectively.

26 posted on 05/26/2008 8:58:49 AM PDT by vincentfreeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Ramius
"Do people only have a right to defend themselves at home?"

Nope. But that's all the Heller case covers.

27 posted on 05/26/2008 9:01:37 AM PDT by vincentfreeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Copernicus
"Protected" or uninfringed?"

There is nothing in the DC statutes making it illegal to defend yourself at home with a rifle, shotgun, knife, baseball bat, nunchuck, rock, or bare fists. If you wish to call that uninfringed instead of protected, I have no problem with that.

My point to the poster was that the DC ban was not a "de facto ban on the natural right of self defense".

28 posted on 05/26/2008 9:12:10 AM PDT by vincentfreeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: vincentfreeman
What part of F-R-E-E-D-O-M scares you so much ?

Nam Vet

29 posted on 05/26/2008 9:13:03 AM PDT by Nam Vet ("Erin Go Bragh", declares Democrat hopeful Barry Finnegan O'Bama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TheatricalOne
TheatricalOne, TheatricalOne ... much reading doth make thee mad.

English is not so very hard to understand and needs no umbra's, penumbra's, pencils nor especially erasers.

Here's a tip.

Stet

30 posted on 05/26/2008 9:17:46 AM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nam Vet
I clarified the fact that the Heller case was about handguns and you interpret that as an assault on freedom?

If anything "scares" me, that would certainly qualify.

31 posted on 05/26/2008 9:18:14 AM PDT by vincentfreeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Nam Vet
I clarified the fact that the Heller case was about handguns and you interpret that as an assault on freedom?

If anything "scares" me, that would certainly qualify.

32 posted on 05/26/2008 9:18:50 AM PDT by vincentfreeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: vincentfreeman

Nonsense. Sorry.

And DC is about more than self defense in the home. Those were the facts of the case, but the issues are necessarily wider. Should they rule (as I hope they do, and they seem disposed to) that once and for all, yes, it is an individual right... then it gives us a chance to recover some ground lost to the infringements of the past.


33 posted on 05/26/2008 9:21:29 AM PDT by Ramius (Personally, I give us... one chance in three. More tea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: vincentfreeman
They do have the individual right. But that right is only exercised collectively (you can't vote when and where you please.)

Actually, yes you can. The government cannot prevent you from drawing up a ballot, putting names on it, and checking off one of those names. Now, no one will collect that vote, tally that vote, or enact anything in response to that vote. But you can't be prevented from doing it. Remember, our rights are not about what the government can do FOR you (set up booths, provide ballots, etc) but what it cannot PREVENT you from doing.

It's like free speech. Free speech is not nullified if no one provides you a microphone. Does that make sense? But being PREVENTED from carrying a gun is definitely an act different from failing to provide a ballot box.

34 posted on 05/26/2008 9:29:16 AM PDT by A_perfect_lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: TheatricalOne

Okay; First, as several others have pointed out, use simple language. Too many big words confue event the smartest folks, and sionce you are in a 100 level class, there ain’t too many really smart folks in attendence.

Second, simply quote the amendment as written, then ask what it means; examine its words in context, in historical meaning and examine the structure of the words/sentence.

There is no “penumbra” etc concerning the 2A; just simple straight forward text that means exactly what is says. In other words, there is no contrived, vague, theatrical meaning involved (like Roe v Wade).

Kinda like the sentence: “John ran to get the ball, it went under the porch”.

Avoid the “intellectual” aspect of this discussion like a plague-it just does not require such BS. “Intellectual” today means stupidly cumbersome and without understanding.

God Bless;

Molon Labe


35 posted on 05/26/2008 9:30:34 AM PDT by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret) "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vincentfreeman
There is nothing in the DC statutes making it illegal to defend yourself at home with a rifle, shotgun, knife, baseball bat, nunchuck, rock, or bare fists.

A completely unsubstantiated declarative sentence that is meaningless.

To which DC Statutes do you refer?

36 posted on 05/26/2008 9:35:41 AM PDT by Copernicus (California Grandmother view on Gun Control http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7CCB40F421ED4819)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: A_perfect_lady
The government cannot prevent you from drawing up a ballot, putting names on it, and checking off one of those names.

You refer of course, to opinion polls and their use in the legislative process.

"Senator, today's Gallup Poll reveals the vast overwhelming majority of mindless myrmidons who we contacted believe the threat of global warming requires us to ratify the Kyoto protocols."

Best regards,

37 posted on 05/26/2008 9:42:04 AM PDT by Copernicus (California Grandmother view on Gun Control http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7CCB40F421ED4819)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: vincentfreeman

>I believe the right to self defense with a handgun is not protected.<

Saying there was no handguns when the Constitution was written? Vitelli won’t like that.


38 posted on 05/26/2008 9:49:52 AM PDT by B4Ranch ("Winston Churchill said, "Americans always do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TheatricalOne

If you’re being debated already, then there is the grist for your mill. Listen and record every point that they are throwing at you. Do not concern yourself with an immediate response because that doesn’t sound like the crucial time for battle.

Take your notes of your enemies armaments and study to dissect them. use the links provided here and elsewhere. Remember not to waste your time refuting feelings - concentrate only on facts.

Build your case based on logic and law and not on emotion. You’ll do fine.


39 posted on 05/26/2008 9:50:03 AM PDT by rockrr (Global warming is to science what Islam is to religion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Copernicus
Make that, "There is nothing in the DC statutes Codes and Regulations making it illegal to defend yourself at home with a rifle, shotgun, knife, baseball bat, nunchuck, rock, or bare fists."

Better?

40 posted on 05/26/2008 9:59:17 AM PDT by vincentfreeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TheatricalOne

Oh, and one more thing...Only by understanding your opponents arguments can you crystallize your own. Try composing an argument in the offense. Make your best case for banning guns.

If you approach it sincerely you’ll assemble the best points against and give yourself a comprehensive understanding not only of the issue, but of your opponents likely strategies.

Good luck...


41 posted on 05/26/2008 10:02:29 AM PDT by rockrr (Global warming is to science what Islam is to religion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
"Saying there was no handguns when the Constitution was written?"

Nope. Just saying that DC does not protect them.

42 posted on 05/26/2008 10:03:01 AM PDT by vincentfreeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: vincentfreeman

Look up the definition of “infringed”.


43 posted on 05/26/2008 11:40:39 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (NRA - Vote against the dem party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TheatricalOne

First, PLEASE don’t use Griswald. It was a bad ruling, and the right to privacy is not needed to uphold the right to keep and bear arms.

Second, there are dozens of resources I can recommend. First, there are sites from people like Clayton Cramer, Dave Kopel and John Lott with a lot of information in support of guns. Google those people and read their websites.

If you want a good look at the pro-gun side for DC vs. Heller, you can hear/read the summary oral arguments on CSPAN’s website, or here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1987832/posts

Also go to DCguncase.com and read Alan Gura’s materials.

The NRA will have plenty of arguments on the matter also.

If you’re arguing the constitutionality of the thing, then you should probably start with the Tenth Amendment, which states that rights not specifically prohibited are recognized as belonging to the people, or to the states. In other words, the burden of proof is on the lawmaker to show why the right should be abridged or infringed (which is technically not allowed because of the Second Amendment anyway) and the default is that the people have the right. This is as important, if not more so, than the legal concept of innocent until proven guilty.

One of the other essential points should be the right of the people. Look at how “the people” is used in the 1st, 4th, 9th, 10th and 17th amendments. (The phrase itself appears in the preamble, “We the people”.) Why should “the people” be different in the 2nd Amendment?

I recently wrapped up a paper for a political science class about guns that I will try to post on my blog, there are some good resources there too.

Will you be arguing merely from a constitutional perspective, or will you be arguing costs and benefits of firearms ownership overall?

Other resources you should check out include constitution.org, usconstitution.net including a good reading of the document itself: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html


44 posted on 05/26/2008 3:21:09 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Gun-free zones aren't. Visit ConcealedCampus.com for more)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheatricalOne
Couple of more notes. First, welcome to Free Republic. There are few people your age around here, but I've been here for three or four years now, which means I joined when I was just a few years older than you.

You'll probably enjoy and benefit from Free Republic - don't let some of the grouchier people rankle!

Second, I posted my final paper on my blog, if you want to take a look: Gun Control, Ownership & Crime
45 posted on 05/26/2008 4:07:29 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Gun-free zones aren't. Visit ConcealedCampus.com for more)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vincentfreeman
We do have other rights like this -- the right to vote or the right to assemble.

I'm confused. Are you saying that the Second Amendment means that if any two people wish to get together in bearing arms, they're allowed to do so, or are you saying that the right of peaceable assembly only applies to government-approved groups.

46 posted on 05/26/2008 9:30:35 PM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rockrr; TheatricalOne
Build your case based on logic and law and not on emotion. You’ll do fine.

Great advice from rockrr!

Think! Think! Think!

Let them wallow in "feelings." Bury their arguments with Truth.

47 posted on 05/26/2008 9:35:32 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: TheatricalOne

“...only merely to have its hand in maintaining safety and proper registration protocols.”

Careful. This is a Conservative web site. And good luck on the paper. There is a lot of wisdom in these posts and on this site.


48 posted on 05/26/2008 9:39:02 PM PDT by 21twelve (Don't wish for peace. Pray for Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supercat
I was simply making a generalized statement that we have other rights that are individual yet only exercised collectively.

"Are you saying that the Second Amendment means that if any two people wish to get together in bearing arms, they're allowed to do so"

If any two people wish to get together to vote does their vote count? (Maybe we should ask the electors in Michigan and Florida that question.)

49 posted on 05/27/2008 6:00:58 AM PDT by vincentfreeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Thank You so much I am basing half my arguments off the material on that site. tank you again


50 posted on 05/27/2008 8:11:24 AM PDT by TheatricalOne (I don't Dislike liberals I just think their wrong)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson