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

Skip to comments.

Some Constitutional Amendments Are More Equal Than Others(uber barf alert)
theatlantic.com ^ | 26 July, 2012 | Andrew Cohen

Posted on 07/27/2012 4:13:51 AM PDT by marktwain

As the political debate about gun violence finally sounds out across the country in the wake of last week's Colorado theater massacre, as President Barack Obama and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney begin to stake out their positions, I keep coming back in my mind to the ways in which America has treated gun rights differently from other rights since September 11, 2001. On paper, all constitutional amendments may be equal. But in practice, some amendments are more equal than others. And no amendment has been more equal in the past 11 years than the Second Amendment.

There is a financial component to this, expressed in the vast difference we spend to counter the threat of terrorism as opposed to the threat of gun violence. There is a practical component to it: in the wake of last week's shooting, the Denver Post reported that local gun sales were up 41 percent and that firearms instructors were seeing more requests for training for concealed-carry permits. And then there is the legal component -- the constitutional contrast, you could say -- expressed in how our Bill of Rights has been molded since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; billofrights; constitution; democrats; guncontrol; liberalfascism; secondamendment; socialistdemocrats; youwillnotdisarmus
By only looking at the period since 9/11, Mr. Cohen lies about reality. If the Second Amendment were treated anything like the First, everyone would be free to carry submachine guns everywhere but in prison. The infringements on our right to bear arms are too numerous to list.

Similarily, the 9th and 10th amendments have been rendered all but toothless by "progressive" courts.

1 posted on 07/27/2012 4:14:00 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Yet another example of allowing the progressives, socialists, and liberals to dictate the language of the debate. As long as we allow them to set the parameters of the discussion, we will continue to be on the defensive on this (and other issues).
The simple fact (that the pubbies can’t seem to mention) is that the Second Amendment is plain on its face, and simple in its content. It guarantees our right to individual right to keep and bear arms. No other tweaking is needed. No caveats are necessary.
The disturbing fact is that the progressives have never postulated a ‘problem’ that didn’t require government intervention to resolve, either by restricting the actions of free people, or by requiring free people to surrender (to the government) increasing portions of the fruits of their own labors to support others who choose not to gather those same fruits for themselves.

It’s time to take back the country. And the time is growing late.


2 posted on 07/27/2012 4:23:15 AM PDT by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2013: Change we can look forward to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
“and approximately 334,000 Americans were killed domestically by gun violence -”

No, not one single American died at the hands of a violent gun.
As typical of liberal gun grabber propaganda, these figures are “approximate” and include all deaths where a firearm was present. How many were deaths by suicide?
Lastly, the firearm related deaths since 9/11 are much, much lower than in the preceding 11 year period. Strange but inconvenient fact considering gun sales and ownership has soared in the latter period.

3 posted on 07/27/2012 4:33:31 AM PDT by bitterohiogunclinger (Proudly casting a heavy carbon footprint as I clean my guns ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

>>f the Second Amendment were treated anything like the First, everyone would be free to carry submachine guns everywhere but in prison.<<

Maybe it is just as well. If the 2nd was treated like the 1st, only liberals could carry guns.

>>Similarily, the 9th and 10th amendments have been rendered all but toothless by “progressive” courts.<<

Don’t forget the 4th and 5th amendments — all but gone.


4 posted on 07/27/2012 4:35:07 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (obozo could bring back literal slavery with chains and still he will get 85+% of the black vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Meanwhile, America is destroyed by the freedom of the press.


5 posted on 07/27/2012 4:38:01 AM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... Present failure and impending death yield irrational action))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Often the debate about the Second Amendment revolves around the right for self defense or to hunt, when in fact it was really about neither. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect the right of the citizens to violently overthrow the government if it became trannical, just as they had just done.

If firearm technolgy had been advanced as far as it has now the founding fathers would most certainly have felt that the citizens had the right to keep and bear assault weapons for that purpose, and even more powerful weapons.


6 posted on 07/27/2012 4:42:18 AM PDT by Okieshooter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bitterohiogunclinger
How many were deaths by suicide?

A little over half. I believe the number also includes suspects shot by LEO's in the line of duty.

7 posted on 07/27/2012 5:10:30 AM PDT by Campion ("Social justice" begins in the womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

The Democrats hate all the amendments except the third.

1. Freedom of speech? -citizens united. Freedom of religion? contraception mandate.

2. (the list is too long)

4.Secure in our person, papers etc? except for the mound of personal data I have to send to the IRS every year.

5. Eminent domain? Property rights? Kelo or Rapanos, EPA

9. Disparage other rights? Justice Kagan at her hearing: What other rights?

10. RIghts retained by the states? RIIIIIGTH


8 posted on 07/27/2012 5:15:18 AM PDT by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

>expressed in how our Bill of Rights has been molded since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

The Bill of Rights can not be “molded.”
It either is, or it is not.


9 posted on 07/27/2012 5:16:35 AM PDT by bill1952 (Choice is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain; Joe Brower; MestaMachine; Lazamataz; CodeToad
Cohen's point: "Since we are already ignoring so much of the Bill of Rights, let's ignore the 2nd Amd too, and just do what needs to be done about those gun nuts."

Good luck with that. We are not going to take our cue from China.

Not in this lifetime.


10 posted on 07/27/2012 5:48:28 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Gee, maybe the writer has something there...Now, which ones did the Founding Fathers front-load into the Bill of Rights...Freedom of speech/religion, the Right to Bear Arms...I wonder if the Founders did this for a reason...(and I wonder how the Left reconciles those reasons with all this talk of gun control and quashing Chick-Fil-A for its stance on biblical-based marriage...


11 posted on 07/27/2012 5:53:44 AM PDT by MarDav
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
no amendment has been more equal in the past 11 years than the Second Amendment.

Really? Do you suppose the First Amendment's protection of "free speech" has been considerably expanded since it was written? Expanded to protect people like Daniel Ellsberg, who filched and published government secrets. Or to protect "artists" like Robert Mapplethorpe, whose contribution to esthetics was to cram a broom handle up some guy's butt and take a picture? Or to protect queers who want to parade on public streets wearing nuns' habits and fishnet pantyhose? Or to protect media who stoop lower and lower in the crud they publish, with nudity, vulgarity, and violence all commonplace today?

But oddly enough, even the expanded First Amendment doesn't protect Chick-Fil-A's right to insist that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. Not only has the First Amendment been modified from its original intent, it is now being applied selectively, in violation of another favorite constitutional provision: equality under the law.

Spare me the selective outrage, buffoon.

12 posted on 07/27/2012 5:56:48 AM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Yo, Andy.

Show us your license to publicly spout whatever you call your blather.

What, you don’t need a license, it’s your First Ammendment right?

Try applying that logic the the Second Ammendment...


13 posted on 07/27/2012 6:10:49 AM PDT by CPOSharky (zero slogan: Expect less, pay more. (apologies to Target))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain; Travis McGee
WOW.

Although this guy details how the various other Amendments in the Bill of Rights have been violated, he does not urge for a return to these rights.

He urges more violations on other ones.

A true facist bastard, this one.

14 posted on 07/27/2012 6:24:58 AM PDT by Lazamataz (I hate the Universe, and it hates me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
It never ceases to amaze me that so many people are so willing, even anxious, to sacrifice not only their own liberties, but those of the rest of us, for just a little perceived security.

I believe that a Mr. Franklin commented on this very thing a few years ago.

15 posted on 07/27/2012 6:35:47 AM PDT by aragorn (We do indeed live in interesting times. FUBO.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

A perfect “comrade journalist” in the new emerging USSA.

“Comrades, since we are ignoring most of the Constitution anyway, let’s go ahead and ignore that pesky 2nd Amd too. Then we can finally force the socialist utopia down the throats of those bitter clingers.”


16 posted on 07/27/2012 6:42:59 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: aragorn

17 posted on 07/27/2012 6:45:07 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Today, despite statistics that tell us that approximately 33,000 Americans are killed each year by gun violence, and despite statistics that reveal that states with tougher gun restrictions have lower body counts from such violence

Writer loses all credibility with this statement.

18 posted on 07/27/2012 7:49:26 AM PDT by CanadianYankee (Obamacare, Taxation through misrepresentation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

The 1st Amendment gives us all kind of rights to peaceably make change. Fair enough.

The 2nd Amendment gives us the ability to enforce our right when the 1st, and talking peaceably, fails.


19 posted on 07/27/2012 10:32:05 AM PDT by CodeToad (History says our end is near.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
By only looking at the period since 9/11, Mr. Cohen lies about reality. If the Second Amendment were treated anything like the First, everyone would be free to carry submachine guns everywhere but in prison. The infringements on our right to bear arms are too numerous to list.

Similarily, the 9th and 10th amendments have been rendered all but toothless by "progressive" courts.

Similarly the 14th is particularly insidious; forget for a moment the statutory citizenship of persons born on States's soil and take a look at the whole doctrine of "incorporation." Through some undefined magic the restrictions of the first amendment magically change from "Congress" to "legislative body" when this occurs -- Obviously such changes as-applied-to-states opens the doors for the federal government to say that any particular amendment means something totally different than what it says.

20 posted on 07/27/2012 7:37:13 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
>>Similarily, the 9th and 10th amendments have been rendered all but toothless by “progressive” courts.<<

Don’t forget the 4th and 5th amendments — all but gone.

And with NDAA, the 6th and Habeus Corpus.

21 posted on 07/27/2012 7:38:26 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | 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