Skip to comments.The Second Amendment Is Not Negotiable
Posted on 12/17/2012 8:24:22 AM PST by Perseverando
Cries for more gun control have flooded opinion and editorial pages in the wake of the school shooting in Connecticut. The opinion that Americans do not have a right to own firearms, and the assertion that the Constitution does not protect the right of individuals to own firearms, is absolutely false and also incorrect in the context of law.
In 2008, the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individuals right to possess a firearm for private use within the home in federal enclaves. In 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. __ (2010), the Supreme Court held that the right of an individual to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. That American citizens have a right to own firearms is conclusive and irrefutable.
People who have an emotional revulsion to firearms in general and who respond to shooting tragedies with well-intentioned proposals to prohibit or restrict law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms must remember that possessing a firearm is not like possessing a boat or a golf club. The possession of boats and golf clubs are not enshrined in our Constitution as fundamental liberties.
The right to own a firearm was considered by both the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 and by the current Supreme Court to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion. These liberties are
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
All it would take is a for a couple more Obama left wing justices on the SCOTUS and the Heller case could be overturned and the Second Amendment trashed. Obama now has his Reichstag fire and like Hitler in 1933 will use this “crisis” to curtail liberties starting with the Second Amendment.
It might be one thing to pass a federal law banning any sort of firearm. It will be something else to enforce it. It will be a third thing to get to those millions of firearms.
On the Sunday shows the Dems been saying that the Second Amendment protects hunting (animals I assume).
Maybe they need bigger ‘Gun Free zone’ signs, and put a big fine on it like on handicapped parking fine signs.
I do not care what any of them have to say on the matter.
Good Morning Travis, I see you’re patrolling the electronic frontier in defense of the free world this morning. Thanks!
BTW, from here in VA. “Go Wahoos!”
“The Court did endorse the “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons,’” but did not state whether such weapons include assault weapons or semi-automatic weapons.”
By definition, a weapon is dangerous so the above is just tautology.
Congress failed to renew the Clinton AWB in 2004 because invidious discrimination between traditional semi-auto long arms and (evil) `black’ carbines was mere `form over substance’: political theater. The gun grabbers’ arguments don’t hold water.
Just between you, me and the fence-post though, the one feature we will have to be prepared to defend is the large capacity magazine.
I suspect `splitting the difference’ will result in a prohibition of transporting such magazines, e.g. to ranges, while allowing their possession at home. This would allow prosecution of `gangbangers’ and `Sandy Hook lunatics’.
The response to that is that gangbangers and lunatics will ignore such laws, so it has no prophylactic value. But the left doesn’t want to be confused with facts or logic. They just want “action”.
IMO, people who believe in gun rights [and the GOP] better be pointing out the mental health issue and knock back the Liberal PC idea that mental health is something that cannot be named.
On the 2nd row mug shots you left out Obozo.
He’s going to get at least three more injustices appointed. Senate confirms, not the House. I’m beginning to hear war drums in the distance. Hope not, but that’s how it sounds at this stage.
Obama intends to push right-winger Americans that to the point of having to start an insurrection or rebellion so that he can declare martial law and put us down (literally) ala Weather Underground style. What better way to instigate the civil disobedience that he needs than to now go after our guns?
It’s all part of the leftist plan. A necessary part in order for that full “transformation” to be accomplished.
The above quote from the article says that "mentally ill should not be allowed to buy firearms."
Then it apparently allows states to determine mental illness.
Mental illness could be, by a government that doesn't hesitate to sell military weapons to drug cartels, a means to foist gun control on a population.
Everyone and his brother will be "ptsd'd" or "adhd'd" out of gun ownership. Count on it.
The only way I can think of to legitimately take away another person's rights would be by jury trial with due process of law and then a finding of guilty by a jury of one's peers.
It is also not negotiable here in Newtown.
Americans have no rights. The train left the station last November.
Will the media give up their First Amendment rights?
The Second Amendment guarantees all the other amendments.
To me I guess the best thing to do if it ever comes to it is hide the guns first, then bring them out after the first wave of confiscation passes. We’d know better what to do then.
To strip firearms from MILLIONS of Americans because of the murder of 20 children is absolutely INSANE.
Not negotiable under any circumstances!!
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.