Skip to comments.Michael Reagan: Liberty Wins a Big One
Posted on 06/26/2008 11:51:58 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Liberals, who hate guns almost as much as they hate cars, got a well-deserved lesson in Second Amendment rights when the Supreme Court spit in their face by ruling that the Constitution really does guarantee the right of Americans to own guns.
The ruling, which struck down the District of Columbias laws almost totally restricting handgun ownership, affirmed the traditional view that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says when it guarantees "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
The avid gun-grabbers have long insisted that the accompanying clause, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" restricts the right to bear arms to members of said militia -- a sophistry in view of the fact that at the time the amendment was adopted, the militia included all able-bodied adult white males.
As Thomas B. McAffee & Michael J. Quinlan, writing in the North Carolina Law Review, March 1997, Page 781, stated "... Madison did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment -- the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions."
Obviously, the Founders were not gun grabbers, as the gun-grabbing community would have us believe. Actually, unlike todays liberals, they had faith in their fellow citizens and in their ability to avail themselves of their rights in a safe and reasonable manner.
The District of Columbia law was based on the fallacious idea that by banning hand gun ownership by citizens except under the most onerous conditions, criminals -- a not un-sizeable part of the districts population even with the exclusion of members of Congress as a criminal class -- wouldnt be able to buy and own guns and thus continue their murderous ways.
Cmon now. Do they really believe that criminals buy their guns in legitimate gun shops? Or do they understand that their anti-handgun laws havent made even the slightest dent to the citys incredible murder rate? Dont they realize that their Draconian gun laws punish honest citizens unable to protect themselves and their homes, and not the thugs who are on a killing rampage on the streets of the nations capital?
They share the fantasies of the nations elitist gun-grabber fanatics who simply refuse to believe that the majority of their fellow citizens are mature enough to be trusted to own handguns, or for that matter, to conduct their affairs without Big Brothers guidance and control.
The liberals who want to ban gun ownership are the same liberals whod like to drive family-sized automobiles off the nations streets and highways, prohibit the use of fossil fuels because they allegedly harm the environment and contribute to non-existent global warming -- a fantasy they are inflicting on the American people -- and demonizing carbon dioxide, a natural gas without which life on earth cannot survive.
The Supreme Court ruling has been greeted by the American people as a welcome sign that many of their rights long threatened by out-of-control judges who make or misinterpret laws, rather than enforcing them, are now at last being safeguarded by the High Court.
Thats a dangerous misconception. The new decision was a 5-4 ruling. That tiny majority, often reversed in other rulings that defy the meaning of the Constitution, will vanish if the liberals manage to elect Barack Obama and give his party sufficient control of Congress to guarantee that future Court vacancies will be filled with activist liberal justices who will turn the Constitution upside down.
We won a big one this time but the battle is far from won.
Liberty squeeked by.
So my rights come from the Supreme Court?
What would ANY of us done had it been 4-5?
Ahh, from my cold dead hand?
No; the Ronald Reagan we elect in 2012 will restore the Court to its rightful balance, roll back taxes to their 2008 levels, close the National Health Service, and bring the military back to where it was before Obama took office.
“The avid gun-grabbers have long insisted that the accompanying clause, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” restricts the right to bear arms to members of said militia — a sophistry in view of the fact that at the time the amendment was adopted, the militia included all able-bodied adult white males.”
That’s certainly true, but its a bad argument. Presumably you wouldn’t want to restrict gun use to JUST able-bodied adult white males...
“...Or do they understand that their anti-handgun laws havent made even the slightest dent to the citys incredible murder rate?”
Unfortunately, hanging onto guns hasn’t changed it very much either.
Wow, did you end up on the wrong forum! People on this FreeRepublic actually fervently believe that the right to keep and bear arms is the one right that guarantees that we keep all the rest of our rights.
To get back to your DU site, make at left at Huffington Post, then another left for George Soros and continue on the Kark Marx Strasse.
I think that’s what Kennedy was afraid of. He didn’t want poke the last stick in the eye of armed citizens. And again, perhaps he read “The Pelican Brief”.
“Wow, did you end up on the wrong forum!”
I certainly hope I did not. I was under the impression that this forum existed to discuss important issues, and was not just an exercise in repeating the “approved” responses in a mindless way.
“People on this FreeRepublic actually fervently believe that the right to keep and bear arms is the one right that guarantees that we keep all the rest of our rights.”
I know a lot of people on this forum believe that. I don’t happen to be one of them. Amazingly enough, not everyone on the “right” does. Anyway, what you fervently believe is neccesary for your “rights” is immaterial to this particular argument. If you believe you have a “right to bear arms” then that stands on its own merits. It doesn’t have to be justified, or defended, or made excuses for.
The point that is being made by the article is that restricting gun ownership has done nothing to allay crime (which it hasn’t). The point I was making is that owning guns seems to be equally ineffective in restricting crime. Therefore, logically, there must be other reason/s for the crime rampant in Washington DC, and presumably other way/s to counter it.
I would suggest it would be more profitable for us to discuss those reason/s and way/s rather than knee-jerk statements about “inalienable rights”, presuming of course, that solving the crime problem is what you want to do.
“We won a big one this time but the battle is far from won.”
We (constitutionalists) should consider ourselves fortunate that this case came up on Bush’s watch.
You're wrong. I can't tell you how many times some mutt has come in to my store off the street and taken one look at the the Glock on my side and left without saying a word.
And upon what, exactly are you basing this supposition. In all states that have implemented CCW laws, crime has either gone down, or the rate of increase has decreased.
“No; the Ronald Reagan we elect in 2012....”
In 1976, I knew where Ronald Reagan was and what he’d been doing for the preceding 15 years. Where is he and what has he been doing now?
Is such measure the determining factor in what rights we have?
Read John Lott’s book “More Guns Less Crime”. It will blow your theories out of the water with cold hard facts about the relationship between gun ownership and crime. But if you don’t believe that’s true, feel free to post a large sign in front of your house or place of business that says this house/business does not believe in private firearms ownership and the owner does not have any firearms on the premises.
Our rights come from God,not nine fools in a courtroom .Molon Labe.
Including the thousands of documented cases where crimes were thwarted by someone armed? Would the crime rate be higher or lower if the right to own guns was removed?
Hint: Check out England.
Except I don't see God arguing before the SC or making our laws or enforcing restrictions. The rights may come from God but we still have to fight for them.
I want EVERYBODY to have the COMPLETE and UNFETTERED RIGHT to get one, because it was the govenment that our Founders wanted constrained, not the citizens. And if, sometime in the future there ARE Muzzies on my doorstep, I want the access that is guaranteed me by the Constitution. I am amazed that the Libs can hold the First Amendment so holy that Nazi's can march, the libraries can offer unfiltered porno, and potentially I can be silenced if I say "the Bible says that xxx is wrong", and yet they can pretend that the Second Amenedment "doesn't really mean that."
This kind of thing is the very reason that, despite amnasty and a few other issues, I praise George Bush for the past seven years. Two Supremes at least pushed us in the right direction, and I am so glad that this time, we narrowly won what is right.
In the Post story of today, is this statement, “But the majority declined to set a level of scrutiny by which judges should evaluate the constitutionality of gun restrictions that governments may set.” This shows that the battle is still not over and if the liberals win the election they will nominate more liberal justices and gut this ruling of today, because the main battle is going to be in the court’s opinion of the level of scruting the courts (federal and state) must take of any law or bureaucratic ruling that seeks to restrict the individual right to keep and bear arms.
In other words, will a future Supreme Court case decide that 2nd Amendment cases should be decided based on the basis of (1) a “strict scrutiny,” meaning any government attempt to restrict individual rights in this area is automatically to be held inherently suspect annd unconstitutional unless something like grave national security is at stake or laws and regulations that discriminate on the basis of race or spoken free speech; (2) or an “intermediate scrutiny” meaning any government attempt to restrict individual rights to keep and bear arms is to be held mostly suspect by the courts, with the government having to pass a high hurdle in order to restrict arms —like laws that discriminate on the basis of gender or symbolic free speech; (3) or an enhanced scrutiny meaning that governments have to face much less scrutiny and suspicion from the courts as they pass laws and regulations that restrict the right to keep and bear arms —like laws that discriminate on the basis of age or commercial free speech.
“We the People” won half a loaf—recognition of the individual right to keep and bear arms, but not the other half, which is the level of scrutiny by the courts over any attempt to restrict that individual right. Obviously, it should be a “strict scrutiny.” but if the liberals prevail in the presidency, Congress and eventually in the courts, they may set an individual level of scrutiny or even an enhanced level of scrutiny, thus allowing more and more restrictions by federal, state and local governments on the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Now you know why conservatives cling to their guns and Bible, because liberals works so hard to take them away.
Wow, what a statement! I think you may benefit from peeking around just a bit.
I offer some anecdotal rebuttal. Years ago, living in a dangerous part of Washington D.C. I was well armed and the police knew it. One time I cornered a house breaker at a neighbor's house while he was away and pinned the burglar down with my shotgun while calling the police. Nobody in that dangerous neighborhood would break into our house. The word was out. These days, I would be ripe for the plucking and it would happen.
Now, here in the wilds of Maine, hot burglaries are almost unheard of and house invasions are nearly unthinkable. Yes, in this liberal state we have a sizable share of dim wits who would love to burglarize, car jack and wreak mayhem. Problem is they don't because we and our neighbors are armed to the teeth, even including some otherwise liberal ones. It penetrates the dullest of wits that a break in may end their lives in a gory scene. Look at Maine crime statistics.
I pack concealed carry regularly, no big deal, and no threat, no danger, but wouldn't walk our old neighborhood in D.C. these days unarmed.
I am really curious what inspired your opinion, or are you just joking and pulling our leg? I am always up for a joke, so you are funning us, huh huh?
Eight years of Obama, and it will be.
I agree.We need to fight for our God given rights.It is our duty.
The Founders had no reason to be gun grabbers. They were not afraid of the people because the people and they were one and neither was afraid of the other.
That is not the case today. Today, the government and people are not one. The people fear the government and the government fears the people!
Interesting that so many liberals DO support gun rights (a little DUmpster diving will prove it), yet it’s doubtful any of them will see the irony of their 4 reliable lefties dissenting on the Court’s view of Second Amendment rights.
I would have loaded up the Jeep with all my guns and ammo, driven over to the local PD and turned them in to be destroyed.
CWII. It would have started this weekend...
Dumbest post of the week.
Best bud from high school is a FBI agent in Alabama. I love that guy so much I went out on a range with him three years ago, and at least fired. But yah, we need better education about both the law and about handling. I agree with those who say gun control means hitting your target.
Mere ownership does not protect anyone, agreed. However, the concomitant provision of "bearing" arms also comes into play which means actually having them on you and using them for lawful purposes.
The Riddle of Steel. It isn't the quality of the sword, it's the willingness to use it. Give a man an M1 Abrams, but if he doesn't have the guts to use it, a 12 year old girl with a pocket knife could kill him.
The malaise of DC's criminal underground can be easily cured as it has elsewhere. By the LAW ABIDING taking serious steps to ensure their own safety. Like procuring a firearm, learning to use it, and to actually defend themselves from criminal actors.
Do that, and crime WILL drop. Like it has everywhere else it's been put into practice.
The fact that the decision was 5 to 4 is clear evidence that the battle is far from won. The decision indicates that four of the nine Justices do not support the clear concise proper English grammar of our supreme law of the land.
Murders went up.
I remember several years ago in New Orleans there was a rash of robberies and killings of taxicab drivers. The police couldn’t catch the killer for some reason. Finally, the killer came upon an armed cab driver, and when he tried to pull a gun on this particular driver, the driver pulled out his own weapon and killed the killer before he was killed. (Knocking on wood) There hasn’t been a murdered cab driver in N.O. since.
Firearms ownership is part and parcel of the original concept of citizenship - hence the second amendment. As Justice Scalia described, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right - just as free speech, the right to assembly, freedom of religion, etc. form the core of the orginal American culture.
As an armed citizen, I am able to defend my home and my family and can also form part of the defense of my neighborhood. It is my responsibility to know the safe and responsible handling of all my firearms and as part of that, I practice regularly and keep my firearms serviceable, maintained, and available.
There has been no crime of any significance in our neighborhood and I will do my best to ensure that this remains this way.
You do not have to have a firearm - it's your choice. In my view, you are neglecting your responsibilities, but there should be more than enough of your fellow citizens that are willing to take up your slack.
There are many respected studies that show that where citizens are armed, crime is reduced because criminals are cowards and only prefer unarmed and helpless victims.
Antigun types are a strange group - they want their felolow citizens to be armed and only the uniformed police and soldiers to be armed. Lots of other countries have that policy but they really aren't democracies, are they? In this country we are all members of our own government, that's the difference.
I wish I shared your optimism for what's left of the American Spirit.
Your doorstep or somebody else's?
If you have a kitchen fire break out, be sure to run down to your local Home Depot to buy a fire extinquisher. If you're willing to wait long enough you might be able to get one on sale.
They burn out quickly too.
That doesn’t prove anything. For a start off, how do you know said “mutt” was going to try and rob you? He might have been an honest customer, but took one look at you and your cannon and fled in terror!
In the second place, even if he was planning a robbery or whatever, how have you managed to deter him? He might not rob YOU, but his reason to commit a crime, and his capability to do it, are still there. You haven’t stopped a crime, you’ve simply relocated it.
“Is such measure the determining factor in what rights we have?”
No, it isnt. As I said earlier.
What makes you think I dont believe in private gun owhership?
“Would the crime rate be higher or lower if the right to own guns was removed?”
I dont think it would make much difference one way or another.
Hint. I live in England. With respect, I know more about what goes on here than you do.
Well look, Im not denying your experiences, but they are, as you say, anecdotal. Im not saying that doesnt make them true and real to you, but think about what you are actually saying. You lived in a very dangerous city where crime was rampant, and then you moved to a very rural place where it wasn’t, and yet you assume that you haven’t suffered crime because you are armed! I live in a rural area and I dont carry firearms, and I sleep safe in my bed too. Surely the more obvious conclusion is that some places are more crime-ridden than others?
The one time I have suffered a break-in I wasn’t present in the house (as is usual). The police who came and checked it out filled me in on what was happening with perfect candour, far better than all these statistics that people play around with to prove whatever point they want to. In my rural small town, 90-95% or all crime is drink or drug related. And thats ALL crime..from murder to assault (because people are stoned), from house break-ins to shoplifting (because they need money for their “fix”). So why are we getting so hung up about owning guns, or not owning them, when the real problem is “the dragon” roaming the streets here and now?
I dont want to disrespect your very neighbourly action in the past. Someone came to rob, and you used your gun to stop them. That’s good. The point I am trying to make (in the face of the knee-jerk reactions of most of this forum) is that you haven’t stopped the reason WHY they are coming to rob. If you just thinking packing a concealed weapon is going to keep you and yours safe you have another think my friend, because those criminals will keep on coming, unless we, as a society, tackle the root causes of why people in a very affluent society still feel the need to commit crime.
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.