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

Skip to comments.

Second Amendment: Obama 'Highly Conservative' in NYT's Eyes?
NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

Posted on 07/03/2008 4:52:53 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest

"I have said consistently that I believe the Second Amendment is an individual right." -- Barack Obama, June 26, 2008

"In some ways, the Supreme Court term that just ended seems muddled: disturbing, highly conservative rulings on subjects like voting rights and gun control . . . In another sharp break with its traditions, the court struck down parts of the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. After seven decades of holding that the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms is tied to raising a militia, the court reversed itself and ruled that it confers on individuals the right to keep guns in their homes for personal use. The decision will no doubt add significantly to the number of Americans killed by gun violence." -- NYT editorial, A Supreme Court on the Brink, July 3, 2008 [emphasis added]

How far left is the editorial board of the New York Times? Far enough that, when it comes to the Second Amendment, Barack Obama would seemingly qualify as "highly conservative" in its eyes.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: alandershowitz; banglist; barackobama; newyorktimes; obama; secondamendment

1 posted on 07/03/2008 4:52:54 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines; Miss Marple; an amused spectator; netmilsmom; Diogenesis; YaYa123; MEG33; ...

To the NY Times, even Obama’s a conservative ping to Today show list.


2 posted on 07/03/2008 4:53:51 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest (Keeping track of the MSM so you don't have to!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
“After seven decades of holding that the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms is tied to raising a militia”...

Is that statement true? My understanding was that previous rulings had been ambiguous on that specific right and that Heller has now clarified it (for the moment anyway).

3 posted on 07/03/2008 5:00:03 AM PDT by RedEyeJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

4 posted on 07/03/2008 5:00:40 AM PDT by RangerM (Barack Obama: CHANCE.....We Can't Afford To Take!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedEyeJack

That struck me too, Jack. I don’t think that is a correct statement of Supreme Court jurisprudence. The question of anindividual’s right to bear arms separate from a militia had specifically NOT been settled.


5 posted on 07/03/2008 5:06:50 AM PDT by Bahbah (Typical white person)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RedEyeJack

That struck me too, Jack. I don’t think that is a correct statement of Supreme Court jurisprudence. The question of anindividual’s right to bear arms separate from a militia had specifically NOT been settled.


6 posted on 07/03/2008 5:06:50 AM PDT by Bahbah (Typical white person)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
I just got back from Europe and the fawning of the media - especially CNN International - over Obama is unbelievable. Even in stories where the contrast was blatant such as Obama's trip to Europe and Iraq, CNN saw equivalence with John McCain traveling to South America in that they "both need to shore up their foreign policy credentials". They had a short quote from one of their analysts saying Obama maybe needed it a little more, but then the rest of the entire news clip was about equating the two and therefore propping up Obama.

Made me sick.

7 posted on 07/03/2008 5:09:29 AM PDT by SW6906 (6 things you can't have too much of: sex, money, firewood, horsepower, guns and ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedEyeJack

Seven decades in the eyes of the NYT and liberal legal scholars like Jonathan Turley and even authors (and former lawyers) such as Scott Thurow. For years, these folks have obfuscated the meaning of the Second Amendment to such an extent that many moderates have tilted in their favor.

In the eyes of members of the NRA, there was never any doubt.

Maybe some folks need to learn the King’s English (of the 18th Century) again.


8 posted on 07/03/2008 5:12:53 AM PDT by 12Gauge687 (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RedEyeJack
This is one of those general, sweeping lies that the NYTs is well known for delivering. Its a set up line for what follows, which is also false.
9 posted on 07/03/2008 5:21:44 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

It most definitely WILL add to the number of Americans killed by gun violence. Americans who invade homes to rob, kill, rape... And, I say, GOOD RIDDANCE!


10 posted on 07/03/2008 6:31:00 AM PDT by Arkansas Toothpick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RedEyeJack
Is that statement true? My understanding was that previous rulings had been ambiguous on that specific right and that Heller has now clarified it (for the moment anyway).

Nope, not true. In fact lower courts had already ruled the right to be individual. Liberals are the only ones who ever tied it to the military in an effort to ensure they could make whatever laws they wanted in their quest to disarm the American public. They are trying to pretend that the ruling doesn't really mean anything. As far as Obama's statement about always upholding the RTKBA, he is lying. He stated earlier this year that he thought the DC ban constitutional. He is rated F by the NRA and is a rabid anti-gun politician. The NYT is merely trying to fool voters into thinking he is all for the second amendment when in reality he wants us all disarmed.

11 posted on 07/03/2008 6:41:53 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

If Obama is conservative (even slightly so), then Karl Marx is a middle-of-the-roader.

Which is, I suppose, the position that the NY Slimes has held for several decades.


12 posted on 07/03/2008 6:55:27 AM PDT by Ancesthntr (An ex-citizen of the Frederation dedicated to stopping the Obomination from becoming President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
"I have said consistently that I believe the Second Amendment is an individual right." -- Barack Obama, June 26, 2008

You believe? You don't KNOW?

I have said consistently that I KNOW the 2nd amendment is MY right to defend MY life by bearing arms.

13 posted on 07/03/2008 7:12:00 AM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
NYT editorial:
After seven decades of holding that the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms is tied to raising a militia, the court reversed itself...

&%$# @#$& &%#@ NY slime IDIOTS!!
SCOTUS did NOT 'reverse' anything. They're referring to Miller and Miller only pertained to the &%$# #*&*ing Weapon and its use in 'the Militia' (sawed off shotgun). NOT that only the 'Militia' could bear arms.

Dammit to hell Justice Scalia even addressed that in the Majority Opinion. The darn thing is only 64 pages. Is that too much for the NY Slimes to read? Would reading that give them a brain freeze. Sheesh!!

Furthermore, SCOTUS never should have heard Miller then. He was dead, and his attorney didn't even appear before SCOTUS to argue on his behalf. The way it went the fix was basically in for the gubmint. So if anything did need overturning it WAS Miller.

14 posted on 07/03/2008 7:15:48 AM PDT by Condor51 (I have guns in my nightstand because a Cop won't fit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
After seven decades of holding that the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms is tied to raising a militia, the court reversed itself and ruled that it confers on individuals the right to keep guns in their homes for personal use.

As usual, the Slimes is dead wrong. Here's the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment:

The Second Amendment does not confer upon the people the right to keep and bear arms; it is one of the provisions of the Constitution which, recognizing the prior existence of a certain right, declares that it shall not be infringed by Congress. Thus the right to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution and therefore is not dependant upon that instrument for its source. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 543; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265; Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281. [Emphasis added] Note that the majority opinion in Heller quoted this paragraph, this reiterating for the 2nd time in 69 years that this is settled law.

The Miller decision ruled only that:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

In other words, the Court did NOT even address whether Miller was a member of the militia - the assumption was that he had an inherent RKBA. Had the members of the 1939 Court believed as the Slimes erroneously thinks they did, the matter would have easily been disposed of because the Court's opinion would simply have said that Miller lacked standing to assert any 2nd Amendment rights because he wasn't acting in the capacity of a militia member (as the 9th Circus has repeatedly ruled - and I can't wait for that "court" to get bitchslapped on that issue) and, in fact, was too old to be a part of the militia. End of case, end of the RKBA - if the Slimes view is correct, which it isn't.

No, Miller dealt only with the suitability of a sawed-off shotgun for militia duty. Period. End of Report. Oh, by the way, ONLY the government filed a brief and had an attorney (Robert Jackson, US Solicitor General and future Supreme Court Justice) present at oral arguments. Miller, you see, was DEAD, and no one was paid to represent him because it served no purpose (to him, but not to us - thanks a LOT, Fuddite NRA of 1939).

The Heller decision straightened out, once and for all in our judicial system, what Miller stands for. Of course, expecting that the Idioter of the Slimes would actually read and honestly interpret Miller is asking way too much. BTW, the full slate of filings, plus background and some editorial comments, can be found at

http://www.rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html

The decision will no doubt add significantly to the number of Americans killed by gun violence."

Maybe initially, and then only among those not inclined to obey laws of any kind (especially gun laws) - and that's going to be followed by a drop in crime rates in those cities and states that up to now have infringed the crap out of their citizens' RKBA. Oh, and the increase in deaths among the criminal class (Street Division - not directly related to either the Political Division or the Suit-and-Tie Division) will not be a bad thing.

15 posted on 07/03/2008 7:21:32 AM PDT by Ancesthntr (An ex-citizen of the Frederation dedicated to stopping the Obomination from becoming President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Condor51

Clearly, great minds (yours, mine, Scalia’s) think alike. I was busy composing while you beat me to the punch.


16 posted on 07/03/2008 7:23:19 AM PDT by Ancesthntr (An ex-citizen of the Frederation dedicated to stopping the Obomination from becoming President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
"How far left is the editorial board of the New York Times?"
Darn, I hate trick questions in the morning, but I'll give it a shot....
If Leon Trotsky was still alive he'd be working there.
An aside, Trotsky's real name was Lev Davidovich Bronstein. Which begs the question, Why do these Commies change their names? Lenin's was Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov and Stalin's, Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili.
17 posted on 07/03/2008 7:35:06 AM PDT by Condor51 (I have guns in my nightstand because a Cop won't fit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
*** Clearly, great minds (yours, mine, Scalia’s) think alike. I was busy composing while you beat me to the punch. ***

:-) I'm surprised I beat you. My typing stinks.

As to 'Miller', Thanks to Al Gore's Internet thingy the first time I was able to read it on-line, I went 'Whoa, 'Miller' was only about the shotgun, not Militia vs Individual rights'. But try explaining that to a lib - its like banging your head on the wall or arguing with a six year old.

18 posted on 07/03/2008 7:45:05 AM PDT by Condor51 (I have guns in my nightstand because a Cop won't fit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
"No, Miller dealt only with the suitability of a sawed-off shotgun for militia duty. Period. End of Report. Oh, by the way, ONLY the government filed a brief and had an attorney (Robert Jackson, US Solicitor General and future Supreme Court Justice) present at oral arguments."

And if Miller's case had been argued before the court, the lawyer could have simply pointed out that shotguns had been used in the military less than 20 years before as a trench clearing weapon during the Great War. Therefore, it is a suitable weapon for the militia. If the court had that argued, they would have most likely ruled in favor of Miller.
19 posted on 07/03/2008 8:17:58 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Maybe in Bizarro World.


20 posted on 07/03/2008 9:06:48 AM PDT by wastedyears (Obama is a Texas Post Turtle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedEyeJack

They said that Miller’s short, saw-ed off shotgun had no legitimate militia/hunting purpose, I forgot what BS they used. So since he didn’t show up, they ruled in favor of US.


21 posted on 07/03/2008 9:12:34 AM PDT by wastedyears (Obama is a Texas Post Turtle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Condor51

How did Miller die? I figured he was dead when he didn’t show up in court, when I was reading Unintended Consequences by John Ross.


22 posted on 07/03/2008 9:15:41 AM PDT by wastedyears (Obama is a Texas Post Turtle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Well, the dying NY Times is simply doing its job of promoting its party’s candidate. As we have seen for decades, that task involves plenty of lying, spinning, distorting, and complete fabrication. In other words, nothing new under the sun.

FRegards,
LH


23 posted on 07/03/2008 9:27:22 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears
*** How did Miller die? ***

From what I can find, he was shot do death *gang land style* in 1939 before his case hit SCOTUS.

24 posted on 07/03/2008 9:59:06 AM PDT by Condor51 (I have guns in my nightstand because a Cop won't fit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
And if Miller's case had been argued before the court, the lawyer could have simply pointed out that shotguns had been used in the military less than 20 years before as a trench clearing weapon during the Great War. Therefore, it is a suitable weapon for the militia. If the court had that argued, they would have most likely ruled in favor of Miller.

Absolutely. Same with a machine gun - and Scalia specifically stated so in the Heller opinion. As it is, we've had 69 years of a thoroughly misunderstood and purposely misrepresented right. We'll likely have to endure a few more until the Court corrects all of Miller's inadequacies. Which is, IMHO, a good reason (one of many) to ensure that Obama never becomes the tenant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

25 posted on 07/03/2008 10:36:10 AM PDT by Ancesthntr (An ex-citizen of the Frederation dedicated to stopping the Obomination from becoming President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Condor51

Well now, I wonder how that happened...


26 posted on 07/03/2008 4:41:52 PM PDT by wastedyears (Obama is a Texas Post Turtle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
“An aside, Trotsky's real name was Lev Davidovich Bronstein. Which begs the question, Why do these Commies change their names? Lenin's was Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov and Stalin's, Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili.”

Simple. For political advantage. To a communist, there is no truth, no right, no wrong, except what advances their political power at any particular time. Most can see an advantage in having a simple strong name that helps ignorant people have a better opinion of them.
27 posted on 07/03/2008 7:44:30 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Condor51; Ancesthntr; Old Teufel Hunden; wastedyears
The story on Miller is even worse than you think. The trial judge was an anti-gun zealot in collusion with the Roosevelt administration. He set up the case deliberately so that there would be no evidence presented supporting the 2nd amendment. He was expected to be rewarded with an appointment to the Supreme Court for his partisan judicial activism, but died before the appointment was made.

Read the article at the link below. Even though it tries to slant things to the left, what actually happened is clear. It is far worse than even John Ross supposed. It is in PDF, which may be why it is not more widely circulated.

It needs to be.

THE PECULIAR STORY OF UNITED STATES V. MILLER

http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/incoming/PDF/0801/Law%20Review%20US%20v%20Miller.pdf

28 posted on 07/03/2008 7:56:10 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Thanks for the link. Saved to my Flash Drive for future ref.


29 posted on 07/04/2008 5:34:10 AM PDT by Condor51 (I have guns in my nightstand because a Cop won't fit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

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