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.
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 Columbia’s 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 today’s 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 district’s population even with the exclusion of members of Congress as a criminal class -- wouldn’t be able to buy and own guns and thus continue their murderous ways.
C’mon now. Do they really believe that criminals buy their guns in legitimate gun shops? Or do they understand that their anti-handgun laws haven’t made even the slightest dent to the city’s incredible murder rate? Don’t 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 nation’s capital?
They share the fantasies of the nation’s 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 Brother’s guidance and control.
The liberals who want to ban gun ownership are the same liberals who’d like to drive family-sized automobiles off the nation’s 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.
That’s 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.
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.
Jay Madham
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?
8mm
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...
You WIN!!!
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.
+1
Good grief.
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.
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.