Posted on 09/08/2013 11:51:33 AM PDT by Innovative
There is an opinion abroad in the land that the right to bear arms is unlimited, an absolute right, like the right to vote or the right to a fair trial.
And yet, no matter how prevalent or fervently held, the opinion that the Bill of Rights supports and the high court acknowledges an absolute right to gun ownership is just plain wrong.
The language of the 2nd Amendment is quite clear: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" can't liberals comprehend?!
Obama recently issued two more executive orders:
Obama Orders Two New Gun Control Laws
http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2013/09/03/obama-orders-two-new-gun-control-laws.htm
President Obama has issued two new executive orders intended to make good on his promise to curb gun violence despite Congress’ rejection of his administration’s proposed comprehensive gun control law.
The first order would close a loophole in current gun control laws allowing criminals to buy and sell firearms like machine guns and short-barreled shotguns without undergoing background checks by registering the guns to trusts or corporations.
The other order, which might prove especially troublesome to firearm collectors, bans most private entities from importing military grade surplus weapons sold or donated by the U.S. to its allies back into the United States.
The two orders announced last week are in addition to the 23 executive orders on gun control issued by the White House during January 2013 in reaction to the failure of its gun control law.
Correct it’s inalienable actually.
Yawn...
"The two orders announced last week are in addition to the 23 executive orders on gun control issued by the White House during January 2013 in reaction to the failure of its gun control law."
I wonder how many gun control executive orders did Obama issue all together, since he's been president?
One word to describe this author, “Dip$hit”.
That is correct! One must keep one’s arms covered, especially when in direct sunlight and at places like in the desert or the beach to keep down the chance of eventually getting skin cancer.
To whom it may concern: the above is a sarcastic statement.
And I’m sure that it is covered somewhere in the Obamacare bill.
I almost bought "Revolutionary Summer" in Sam's Club not long ago. However, after reading to notes on the cover, I came to the conclusion that this clown was a leftist kook. I guess I was right.
Wrong point of view. Rather there is no unlimited government power to infringe on the right to bear arms.
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials. — George Mason
And George Mason, father of the Bill of Rights, defined militia as the People.
The key word is ‘infringe’ not ‘militia’.
I can ‘infringe’ upon your right to vote by placing a thug outside the door to the polling place, with instructions to beat the snot out of you if you try to vote.
Now, I haven’t prevented you from voting in this scenario. You could conceivably get past my heavy in some way and vote, but I have obviously ‘infringed’ upon your right to vote.
You are not just prohibited from suspending my right to bear arms, but you are also prohibited from infringing upon it in any way. Heller and any other court case be damned, the right to bear arms is irrevocable.
The US Supreme Court has found differently several times now. So go suck an egg idiot.
Quite right. However, it should be pointed out that the right to vote is not absolute. Can be lost, in most states, on conviction of a felony. Also limited by age.
The "right to a fair trial" is also not absolute in any realistic sense, because there is no universally accepted and obvious definition of what would constitute a "fair trial."
The right to keep and bear arms, similarly, is not absolute. As Scalia put it in the Heller decision, the greatest victory ever for 2A supporters.
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…. Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Obviously, such conditions could be used to in practice infringe on 2A rights, so they would need to be "reasonable," which is of course a matter of opinion.
Amazing.
The Constitution specifically and unequivocally enumerates a right to keep and bear arms.
Nowhere is the right to rule by executive fiat mentioned, even obliquely.
Yet the current “President” believes he has the right to infringe the enumerated right by such executive fiat?
And the courts are supposed to go along with that notion?
I thought he was going to say something new. Silly me!
The US Supreme Court has found differently several times now. So go suck an egg idiot.
The author is also a proven liar — just looked it up:
“False claims of combat service and anti-war leadership[edit source]
In June 2001 the Boston Globe revealed that Ellis had lied to his students in lectures and to the media about his role in American culture and the Vietnam War years.[11] He claimed to have been a combat platoon leader in Vietnam, to have been active in civil rights campaigns in the south, and to have been an anti-war leader at Yale.[11] His actual military record consisted of obtaining a graduate student deferral of service until 1969 and then teaching history at West Point until 1972.[11] Ellis issued a public apology in August 2001 after the truth was exposed.[12] In the ensuing controversy, Mount Holyoke suspended him without pay for a year,[11] indefinitely suspended his status as an endowed chair, and removed him from teaching during the 2001-2002 academic year.[13][dead link] In May 2005, Mount Holyoke restored his chair.[14]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Ellis
the constitution says that the right to bear arms ‘shall not be infringed’
and that is consistent with our founding history
too
the LATimes is a totally politicized paper (which is why it is going so far downhill .... it infuses its “news” coverage with its editorial bias. If it were to confine its opinions to the OpEd page, it could once again regain a respectable journalistic standing... and regain much of its lost circulation and advertising revenue.... but nowadays so many of these papers and magazines and TV programs just want to push their particular political biases no matter what... and to hell with journalism ... and, amazingly, to hell with profitability)
we truly live in “interesting times” but we do NOT read the LATimes, thanks anyway.
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.