Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gun-control ruling affirms the Confederacy
tcpalm.com ^ | March 28, 2007 | JOSH HORWITZ

Posted on 03/30/2007 5:09:20 PM PDT by neverdem

Earlier this month, in the case of Parker v. District of Columbia, a three-judge panel of the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia broke with all other federal circuits by holding that a gun-control statute violated the Second Amendment.

In a split decision, the court found that the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and a companion law that requires that legally owned firearms be stored disassembled could not be reconciled with the text of the amendment.

The amendment reads, "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." The only modern Supreme Court case to look at the issue, United States v. Miller, found that the Second Amendment was designed to preserve the effectiveness of the organized militia.

The Parker case breaks from this precedent by finding that the militia purpose is but one among a laundry list of other individual uses of arms protected by the Second Amendment, including hunting, self-defense, and protection from the "depredations of a tyrannical government."

This last claim, that individuals have a right to take up arms against representative government, was last tried out by the Confederate States of America.

When Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860, many Southerners, fearing that Lincoln would abolish slavery, felt they had no obligation to accept the results of the election. Southern attempts to withdraw from the union quickly led to individuals taking up arms to fight what they perceived as federal tyranny.

As president, Lincoln acted on his belief that violence against the government was illegal and unconstitutional. In his first inaugural address he stated, "It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination."

As he asked the nation to go to war to protect its sovereignty, Lincoln added, "And this issue embraces more than the fate of these United States ... It presents the question, whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration ... can always ... break up their government, and thus practically put an end to free government upon the Earth."

Lincoln made it clear that individuals or even states did not have the authority to determine what was "just cause" to wage a war against the union. As much as it pained him to send young men off to die, he did so to vindicate the idea that the Constitution and its amendments did not create some kind of national suicide pact.

Following the Civil War, the Supreme Court, in the case of Texas v. White, adopted this view and held that the Constitution did not countenance armed rebellion against the federal government.

The Parker court, by implicitly reviving Confederate constitutional theory and wrapping it in the authority of the federal courts, takes the ideals of conservative judicial activism in a lunatic direction.

The case is likely to be appealed. Let's hope that the rest of the D.C. Circuit knows enough history to recog´ nize that Lincoln, not Jefferson Davis, is the guiding spirit behind our system of constitutional government.

Horwitz is the executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and a visiting scholar at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist; judiciary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-335 next last
Overdue ruling crushed years of 2nd Amendment abuse

The tcpalm.com does show some editorial balance.

1 posted on 03/30/2007 5:09:21 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

LOL squared.


2 posted on 03/30/2007 5:12:20 PM PDT by Condor 63
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Lincoln, not Jefferson Davis, is the guiding spirit behind our system of constitutional government.

Huh, somehow I forgot how Lincoln was at the Constitutional Convention.
3 posted on 03/30/2007 5:12:26 PM PDT by The Pack Knight (A fine is a tax on doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well. Gingrich/Bolton '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Never believe anyone's opinion on the 2nd amendment who thinks you can explain United States vs. Miller in a single simple sentence.


4 posted on 03/30/2007 5:16:15 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight

Abe Lincoln used the Guardian of Forever. ;-)


5 posted on 03/30/2007 5:17:44 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Cheney X -- Destroying the Liberal Democrat Traitors By Any Means Necessary -- Ya Dig ? Sho 'Nuff.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Southern attempts to withdraw from the union quickly led to individuals taking up arms to fight what they perceived as federal tyranny.

I'm no fan of the Confederacy, but this is just stupid. The southern states, not individuals, took up arms to fight against "federal tyranny."

the Constitution did not countenance armed rebellion against the federal government.

Of course it didn't. Confederates never claimed it did. They withdrew from the Constitution, basing their "right" to do so on the theory that the states retained their full sovereignty even after joining the US under the Constitution.

As a backup justification they had the right of all men to revolution, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

This is merely a very lame attempt to associate the recent DC ruling with the Confederacy, guilt by association and all that. Won't work.

6 posted on 03/30/2007 5:20:28 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (I didn't claw my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

>The Parker case breaks from this precedent

Piss on precedent, Parker broke from history and principle.


7 posted on 03/30/2007 5:23:29 PM PDT by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
As president, Lincoln acted on his belief that violence against the government was illegal and unconstitutional.

Unless you win.

In his first inaugural address he stated, "It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination."

Yes, they all do. It's called the people.

8 posted on 03/30/2007 5:26:52 PM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight
What on earth is he talking about? This ruling doesn't give the right of revolution. We have the right, no the duty to revolt against tyranny. Under Honest Abe there was plenty of tyranny to go round. But if you are going to try armed revolt, be sure you win.
barbra ann
9 posted on 03/30/2007 5:27:00 PM PDT by barb-tex (Why replace the IRS with anything?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Good grief - he's (1) wrong about the ruling, (2) wrong about the Second Amendment, (3) wrong about the Confederacy, (4) wrong about the Civil War, and (5) wrong about the Constitution in general. I'd call it a clean sweep.


10 posted on 03/30/2007 5:29:40 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Lincoln was clintonizing before we were wetting our diapers. This is classic:

""It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination." "

The Declaration of Independence, written 4 score and 7 years before Gettysburg, says that the people can abolish their government when they deem it no longer SERVES THEM!

4 score and seven years before Gettysburg, our fathers brought forth a new Confederacy!!!


11 posted on 03/30/2007 5:29:58 PM PDT by H.Akston (Jihad - my struggle - mien kampf.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The attempted connection is nonsense. The whole idea of the population being armed is to prevent the gov't from even considering abusing the rights of the citizens. The Civil War was just that, a civil war, and supposedly over states rights, not individual rights.


12 posted on 03/30/2007 5:31:05 PM PDT by TheDon (The DemocRAT party is the party of TREASON! Overthrow the terrorist's congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
This last claim, that individuals have a right to take up arms against representative government, was last tried out by the Confederate States of America.

And the point of this is, exactly, what? Forget about the Civil War, this person would be writing on behalf of the Crown in 1776, of course. Exactly the same things.

13 posted on 03/30/2007 5:43:39 PM PDT by WingBolt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Josh, you need to take your paper home and work on it some more to correct your factual inaccuracies and faulty logic or I will be forced to give you the first FFF grade I have ever given.
Signed
Your first grade teacher
14 posted on 03/30/2007 5:50:27 PM PDT by crazyhorse691 (The faithful will keep their heads down, their powder dry and hammer at the enemies flanks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The South shall rise!


15 posted on 03/30/2007 5:50:35 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Horwitz is the executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence...

Pretzel logic from committed socialist.

16 posted on 03/30/2007 5:52:10 PM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush

And do what? Give us more Wal Marts and race car drivers? ;-)


17 posted on 03/30/2007 5:52:47 PM PDT by Clemenza (NO to Rudy in 2008! New York's Values are NOT America's Values! RUN FRED RUN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
I wholeheartedly agree.

If ol' Abe was trying to say that it was impossible to peacefully break away from a representative government, then I would ask which type of government can one peacefully leave, and exactly how does one do that?

Most folks from Northern states would argue that it requires permission from the Federal government, but we did not have George III's permission in 1776. The only difference between 1776 and 1861 is that the revolting party LOST the war.

Having said that, I also recognize that IF the CSA had won, slavery would still have been abolished --just like in England, France, Mexico, and other countries, but this country would not be the global power that it is today.

I guess it was God's will that we fill our own destiny.

18 posted on 03/30/2007 5:53:02 PM PDT by beancounter13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: beancounter13
I also recognize that IF the CSA had won, slavery would still have been abolished --just like in England, France, Mexico, and other countries, but this country would not be the global power that it is today.

I would surmise that had the CSA successfully and peacefully seceded from the Union that slavery would have died out due to the economic pressures from industrialization. Automation (the cotton gin, tractors and the like) would have made slaves uneconomical to keep in any large numbers.

It is also likely that eventually the CSA or at the very least some of the boarder states would have rejoined the Union. The economic wealth of the North would have made it desirable to rejoin after Lincoln left office and the differences dealing with slavery had rendered themselves moot.

It is also possible that war would have arisen on the issue of Western territories. Namely which nation would have the right to which territories.

However it happened I believe the two would have reunited eventually.

19 posted on 03/30/2007 6:31:10 PM PDT by Pontiac (Patriotism is the natural consequence of having a free mind in a free society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th
Never believe anyone's opinion on the 2nd amendment who thinks you can explain United States vs. Miller in a single simple sentence.

Good point. Most of them have no clue about the background of that case or, more importantly, the context provided by its author - James Clarke McReynolds. Justice McReynolds' opinions are famous for their intentionally sparing use of words. He was an ultra-strict constructionist and basically believed that a court ruling shouldn't try to say much of anything beyond answering the questions of the case. So Miller means exactly what McReynolds said in it - that the trial court erred about the constitutionality of the NFA tax and the case is remanded to them for further proceedings. Anybody claiming that Miller established some sort of broad-based rule allowing only state militia members to bear arms is reading something into the ruling that its author never intended to be put there.

20 posted on 03/30/2007 6:33:41 PM PDT by lqclamar ("That's it, Seth, you can't blame them. It's want of education. That's all it is.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican

"Piss on precedent, Parker broke from history and principle."

It didn't, of course. Unless you count the recent history of gun control.


21 posted on 03/30/2007 6:34:59 PM PDT by FredHunter08 (Guiliani! Come and Take Them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
22 posted on 03/30/2007 6:35:17 PM PDT by 1COUNTER-MORTER-68 (THROWING ANOTHER BULLET-RIDDLED TV IN THE PILE OUT BACK~~~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

ping


23 posted on 03/30/2007 6:35:45 PM PDT by kalee (The offenses we give, we write in the dust; Those we take, we write in marble. JHuett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
"It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination."

The government of Czechoslovakia did when they separated into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Even Great Britain had (and presumably still has) a provision to terminate its existing government and supplant it with a new parliament and monarch under certain circumstances. It was last used in 1688 when they ousted James II and replaced him with William III.

24 posted on 03/30/2007 6:37:50 PM PDT by lqclamar ("That's it, Seth, you can't blame them. It's want of education. That's all it is.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: beancounter13
Most folks from Northern states would argue that it requires permission from the Federal government, but we did not have George III's permission in 1776. The only difference between 1776 and 1861 is that the revolting party LOST the war.

No the major difference is that unlike the confederate supporters around here, the Founding Fathers in 1776 were under no illusions that their actions were legal and didn't moan and cry when the British tried to prevent their rebellion.

25 posted on 03/30/2007 6:40:07 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; stainlessbanner; 4CJ; stand watie
As he asked the nation to go to war to protect its sovereignty,

First time I've heard collection of taxes described as 'protection of sovereignty'...

The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.

abe needed the cash. To continue the failed system of 'internal improvements'. Give him money he thinks is his due and he promises not to destroy your homeland. Some people would call that extortion. Course the Jaffaites will continue the claim abe was sent from Heaven itself to save the glorious union to eventually propogate 'democracy' around the world and he needed to protect Southerners from themselves....

26 posted on 03/30/2007 6:42:21 PM PDT by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
Automation (the cotton gin, tractors and the like) would have made slaves uneconomical to keep in any large numbers.

The first successful mechanical cotton harvester wasn't introduced until the late 1930's. Seventy more years of slavery was OK with you?

However it happened I believe the two would have reunited eventually.

Using that criteria is makes no sense that the colonies didn't eventually reunite with Britain.

27 posted on 03/30/2007 6:42:47 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: billbears
The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.

Then he went on to say, The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union

See, it was all about delivering the mail. Through rain or sleet or snow or gloom of night...or armed rebellion.

28 posted on 03/30/2007 6:46:43 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Using that criteria is makes no sense that the colonies didn't eventually reunite with Britain

Essex Junto? War of 1812? Hartford? Bueller? Bueller? We should have just let them go and they (and those that thought like them from Illinois) wouldn't have caused the problems they did...

29 posted on 03/30/2007 6:46:58 PM PDT by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Essex Junto? War of 1812? Hartford? Bueller? Bueller? We should have just let them go and they (and those that thought like them from Illinois) wouldn't have caused the problems they did..

Off your meds again?

30 posted on 03/30/2007 6:48:04 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
"...the Founding Fathers in 1776 were under no illusions that their actions were legal and didn't moan and cry when the British tried to prevent their rebellion."

There may be some truth to that, but Southerners also helped fight those same British for the same freedom enjoyed by all. The colonists did not subjugate their newfound freedom when they ratified the Constitution. On the contrary, they insisted on the Bill of Rights to protect those freedoms forevermore.

Considering the wording of the Declaration of Independence and that of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution, I still maintain that any given state does have the fundamental right to withdraw from the union at its own discretion --such a move is the only way to guarantee individual freedom.

I think the Founding Fathers would agree with me for we should always remember the opening line of the declaration, "We the people of the united States of America". "States" is capitalized while "united" is not. This was not originally meant to be one distinct country like England or France, but it was meant to be a common union of distinct countries like the EU.

31 posted on 03/30/2007 7:05:15 PM PDT by beancounter13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac

Eventually? How many centuries later are we talking here? Canada hasn't reunited with its sister colony to the south yet. The thirteen original colonies havn't reunited with the crown yet. I'd say that there would be at least two separate nations still remaining today in what we call the USA. And if the secession was peacefull, then there never would have been the military buildup, the advances in military machinery, and the later war with spain that made america a world superpower. The annexation of hawaii, alaska, panama canal zone, and puerto rico would never have occurred. A pacific fleet would never been created because the phillipines would never have meant a thing to us and the panama canal, the link between the atlantic and the pacific, would not have been ours. In fact, the panama canal might not have even been built untill 50 or so years later, after europe asia and africa were united by the germans.


32 posted on 03/30/2007 7:07:58 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Seventy more years of slavery was OK with you?

Considering that the world has a recorded history of slavery of at least 7000 years it doesn’t seem that much to have avoided over 400,000 deaths. And a peaceful end to slavery might have left country much less divided today on the issues of race.

Using that criteria is makes no sense that the colonies didn't eventually reunite with Britain.

You seem to argue that I make simplistic arguments yet you retort with simplistic arguments.

The CSA are much closer geographically and had a resent Revolutionary war in common. The USA and CSA had common ancestors and relatives across their borders. The US and CSA at the time were culturally opposed to Monarchy.

As for the US and Britain I do not easily discount the possibility of a closer union with Britain. I do not foresee an circumstances where a reunification would occur but who knows what may come.

33 posted on 03/30/2007 7:08:49 PM PDT by Pontiac (Patriotism is the natural consequence of having a free mind in a free society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
Also (6) wrong about US vs Miller
The only modern Supreme Court case to look at the issue, United States v. Miller, found that the Second Amendment was designed to preserve the effectiveness of the organized militia.
As the Supreme Court rejected the US government argument that the case shouldn't even be heard, as Miller, not being a member of the organized militia, didn't have standing to bring it to the Court.
34 posted on 03/30/2007 7:11:17 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Freedom is just a word for nothing left to lose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
...it doesn’t seem that much to have avoided over 400,000 deaths. And a peaceful end to slavery might have left [our] country much less divided today on the issues of race.

I certainly agree; we foolishly and needlessly sacrificed many American lives in that struggle. Again, we need only look at England or France, each with their own history of slavery, and race relations in both countries are far better than our own.

I will admit that I had not thought much about the economic justification for the South rejoining the North, but that alone would have been a compelling reason once immediate political discourse was eliminated.

35 posted on 03/30/2007 7:26:38 PM PDT by beancounter13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
Eventually? How many centuries later are we talking here?

Considering that this is all supposition and conjecture does it matter?

Canada hasn't reunited with its sister colony to the south yet. The thirteen original colonies havn't reunited with the crown yet.

Canada decided to stay loyal to the crown the USA had a passionate dislike for all things British up to the First World War. The CSA was established as a near copy of the USA constitutionally. Culturally the countries would have been nearly identical. The South had little industrial capacity and would therefore have generated little wealth and in the coming century would have increased its trading with the North.

Culture and economics would have driven the two back together or perhaps war over the Western territories.

Is it a certainty that it would happen hardly but it is a definite possibility.

36 posted on 03/30/2007 7:30:19 PM PDT by Pontiac (Patriotism is the natural consequence of having a free mind in a free society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th
Never believe anyone's opinion on the 2nd amendment who thinks you can explain United States vs. Miller in a single simple sentence.

The government is forbidden from infringing upon a free person's right to possess and carry weapons suitable for use in a well-functioning citizen army; to claim an artifact is protected, one must demonstrate some degree of military utility.

37 posted on 03/30/2007 7:48:14 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

up yours you socialist myrmidon!

(directed to the author, not the poster)

This is a Republic. Get over it.


38 posted on 03/30/2007 7:50:44 PM PDT by Phsstpok (Often wrong, but never in doubt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
The first successful mechanical cotton harvester wasn't introduced until the late 1930's. Seventy more years of slavery was OK with you?

How do the economics of slavery compare with immigrant labor? If you buy a slave, you have a substantial up front cost in addition to the costs of keeping the slave well-enough fed, clothed, and sheltered to be an effective worker for a long time. Hire an immigrant off the boat and you'll avoid the up-front cost; in addition, if the pay is inadequate to keep the worker healthy and he becomes sick, no problem--just hire another worker off the boat.

The tougher issue with slavery, I expect, would be what to do with generations of people who had deliberately not been taught to exercise their own initiative. The Civil War didn't solve that problem; its effects persist 140 years later.

39 posted on 03/30/2007 7:54:04 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: beancounter13
"States" is capitalized while "united" is not.

"States" was a noun, while "united" was an adjective. Most nouns in the Constitution are capitalized, a usage perhaps inherited from German.

40 posted on 03/30/2007 7:56:49 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Horwitz is the executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and a visiting scholar at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Horiwitz is also a complete ignoramus when it come to the Constitution (or perhaps he needs to brush up on his math and most defiantly his history.)

When Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860, many Southerners, fearing that Lincoln would abolish slavery, felt they had no obligation to accept the results of the election.

Lincoln, nor any President, had no power whatsoever to end slavery. All agreed then and now, that to end slavery required a constitutional amendment.

Amendments have been very few over the last 230 years for a simple reason. They have to be approved by 3/4 of the states only after a 2/3 majority vote in each house of congress.

Even today, if slavery still existed, with 50 states instead of the 35 that existed in 1860, an amendment to ban slavery could not pass if if it were rejected by only 13 states. In 1860, it would have only taken six states to block an amendment yet their were 15 slave states who obviously oppose such and amendment.

The issue in 1860 was expansion of slavery, not the abolition of slavery. Lincoln only promised to stop expansion of slavery --- which had been a bone of contention between the north and south for the previous 40 years. No sane person, North or South, thought he could abolish slavery with some stroke of the pen. And no one even considered gun control back then --- except in the Confederacy where blacks could not own firearms.

41 posted on 03/30/2007 8:12:14 PM PDT by Ditto (Global Warming: The 21st Century's Snake Oil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Liberals like Josh Horwitz view gun owners as rednecks and anti-black racists. The truth is far different. The first "gun control" laws in America were enacted in Southern States after the Civil War in a bid by Democratic Party racists to disarm blacks and leave them defenseless before Ku Klux Klan lynch mobs. That's the dark side and racist pedigree of gun control laws Horwitz doesn't want his readers to know about - the same Confederate racism that has kept DC's blacks powerless and totally disarmed for the last quarter century. Never mind his ignorance of the history of the Second Amendment; as y'all can see here, the fruit does not fall far from the poisoned tree.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

42 posted on 03/30/2007 8:19:47 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
The Parker case reinstated the correct reading of the Second Amendment - but it helps to keep in mind liberalism's ideal is not freedom; it is servitude to the state.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

43 posted on 03/30/2007 8:22:45 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
No sane person, North or South, thought he could abolish slavery with some stroke of the pen.

Probably because Wickard v. Filburn had yet to have been decided.

44 posted on 03/30/2007 8:50:18 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: supercat
"Probably because Wickard v. Filburn had yet to have been decided."

I'm not sure what that has to do with Article V of the Constitution, but I suppose you're going to explain it to us.

45 posted on 03/30/2007 8:56:00 PM PDT by Ditto (Global Warming: The 21st Century's Snake Oil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
I'm not sure what that has to do with Article V of the Constitution, but I suppose you're going to explain it to us.

Sure. Per Wickard v. Filburn, the federal government is free to impose any sort or restriction it sees fit on anything vaguely resembling interstate commerce. If no amendment was required to authorize things like the minimum wage, or OSHA, or any of its other meddling, I see no reason why one would be required to make slavery uneconomical.

46 posted on 03/30/2007 9:04:31 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: catfish1957; afnamvet; StoneWall Brigade; L98Fiero; RFEngineer; DarthDilbert; ...

Dixie Ping [><]


47 posted on 03/30/2007 9:05:23 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lqclamar
So evidently Mr. Lincoln was wrong on facts and wrong on principle.

48 posted on 03/30/2007 9:42:42 PM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell

Amen! :)


49 posted on 03/30/2007 9:50:01 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861 (Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: barb-tex

Maa'm, you are SO right! :)
What part of East Texas are you from.
(I'm a native of Rusk & Palestine originally...:)


50 posted on 03/30/2007 9:51:54 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861 (Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-335 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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