Posted on 04/01/2008 7:40:16 PM PDT by marktwain
CARVER — Regarding the Scripps Howard column of March 24, 2008: “Is gun ownership really an individual right?”
Ben Boychuck got it right in the column. The Second Amendment protects an individual right.
Mind you, it does not give one a right. It protects a pre-existing, inherent right of self-defense. It is impossible to view it as anything else, given all other individual rights protection guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
To say the Second Amendment is some sort of group right is preposterous. Joel Mathis, on the other hand, made an interesting point bringing up O.W. Holmes’ observation that the First Amendment doesn’t give one the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater.
This is true, but no one is allowed to stuff a rag into your mouth upon entering that theater to prevent you from doing just that. That would amount to prior constraint – a la a handgun ban preventing you from defending yourself.
In fact, one would be obligated to yell if there was a fire. I don’t think Holmes was suggesting you quietly remove yourself from a burning theater leaving there the rest to die without warning anybody.
The D.C. ban on handguns in the home only prevents self-preservation, and it was enacted because of a horrific crime (read: murder) rate. It punished the innocent to get at the guilty, but did nothing but foist a huge increase in homicides on the street.
So this is how the politicos have fixed the problem. To them it would seem that winking and nodding at a blind horse really works.
Few cases decided by the “Supremes” are unanimous. In some sort of “woe is me” prediction, Mathis is resigned to a five-to-four vote. I believe the vote will weigh more heavily toward striking down the Washington, D.C., ban.
LAURESS BEAN
Carver
Who cares what anyone thinks about individual or group right. That is not important. The amendment, at least the action part of the sentence,”the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The only way you can read that statement is that NO LAWMAKER can infringe on the “right of the people.
WHAT PART OF “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” DON’T THEY UNDERSTAND?
“How is it that no one seems to understand that the “Bill of Rights” including, the Second Ammendment, was put in place for one purpose, to restrict the Government. “
Because anti’s are a group of people who believe in enabling and expanding the government. It’s like pushing a rope .....
“WHAT PART OF “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” DON’T THEY UNDERSTAND?”
The SHALL and INFRINGED parts.
"But what if there is a fire in a crowded theater?"
As you and I both know, the language was rather specific and easy to understand.
The government is not allowed to infringe upon this basic human right in any way.
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.