Skip to comments.Some Constitutional Amendments Are More Equal Than Others(uber barf alert)
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 ...
Similarily, the 9th and 10th amendments have been rendered all but toothless by "progressive" courts.
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.
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.
>>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.
Meanwhile, America is destroyed by the freedom of the press.
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.
A little over half. I believe the number also includes suspects shot by LEO's in the line of duty.
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
>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.
Good luck with that. We are not going to take our cue from China.
Not in this lifetime.
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...
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.
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...
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.
I believe that a Mr. Franklin commented on this very thing a few years ago.
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.”
Writer loses all credibility with this statement.
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.
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.
And with NDAA, the 6th and Habeus Corpus.