Posted on 05/16/2016 10:09:54 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
It’s a tradition as old as yellow journalism, “Bash the Second Amendment” week, and it was off to a vigorous start with last night’s debut of “Under the Gun,” touted as a “documentary” hosted by Katie Couric and broadcast on Epix.
The press seems to relish in doing gun control stories in the week leading up to the annual convention of the National Rifle Association. The NRA gathers this coming weekend in Louisville, and in addition to the Couric program, there’s an anti-gun opinion piece in today’s Seattle Times from Jerry Large, and another column in today’s Daily Californian that will infuriate Second Amendment activists.
The last time this column discussed this tradition, we called it “Bash the NRA Week.” But it’s not just that single organization under attack these days. Gun prohibitionists have dropped all pretense, attacking the Second Amendment, itself, and the much broader “gun lobby” that includes the Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Gun Owners of America and all the state and local gun clubs, plus tens of millions of gun owners not affiliated with any group, but who cherish their right to own and use firearms.
In the Daily Californian, writer Jaskrit Bhalla Shifa, described as “a member of the greater Bay Area community,” wonders, “whether or not the ability for American citizens to obtain guns should be allowed because of safety, as well as various interpretations of the Second Amendment of the Constitution.” Second Amendment advocates would tell Shifa that there is only one interpretation that counts, the one handed down by the Supreme Court in June 2008.
Shifa further contends, “The Second Amendment does not say anywhere that each individual has the right to bear arms and exclusively states that this right pertains to militias.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
The First Amendment is much more dangerous than the Second.
Wonder if any of these dipsh!ts ever considered what it is that protects them from despotism?
Willful stupidity!
After WWI returning vets wanted Mauser action bolt actions for sport, shooting and hunting, like the Springfields they were issued.
After WWII, same thing. People wanted auto-loaders. No American in 1918 or 1946 was asking the stupid question, “Why do you need a high-powered rifle?”
Today we want AR-15s and other similar modern sporting rifles because it is our God given right to keep and carry them.
We want them now especially because the masks are dropping and we now know the idiots asking that question today aren’t really interested in gun control.
They’re just interested in control.
***Shifa further contends, “The Second Amendment does not say anywhere that each individual has the right to bear arms and exclusively states that this right pertains to militias.***
Dred Scott vs Sanford.
What the SCOTUS thought about gun control in the pre Civil War era.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO.html
It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished;
and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs,
and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.
Re: “The press seems to relish in doing gun control stories in the week leading up to the annual convention of the National Rifle Association.”
Ah, that explains it.
MSN.com, my homepage, has featured gun violence stories for the last two weeks.
the quoted assclown errs in his stupid misinterpretation of the Second Amendment, as well as in his implied claim that rights are revokable -- our rights don't come from the gov't.
His name indicates that he is with TROP. Do the math.
Big government Marxists hate the fact that The People may be empowered. To them, Government is all.
“Of the people, by the people, for the people” is an idea that simply doesn’t exist in their vocabulary.
Nope, most likely Hindu. You know, the people who own/operate most of the hotels across the fruited plain?
IN the Fourth Amendment it states; “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” . I wonder what group of people the Fourth Amendment it referring to.
The Fifth Amendment uses the word person twice but it is also referring to criminal prosecution and I don’t believe at the time trying a group of persons would have been thought of.
The Sixth Amendment uses personal pronouns; “to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” No doubt we’re talking individual rights here.
The Ninth Amendment short and sweet: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” But which group of people are they referring to?
The Tenth Amendment is also beautifully short; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” But again one has to guess what group of people the founders were referring to.
It should be obvious to any intelligent reader that in every other amendment in the Bill of Rights than the Second that the word People refers to any one of the many individuals that make up the People that constitute the citizens of the sovereign States that make up the United States.
The anti-gun nut cases cling to those two subordinate clauses “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” like a drowning man clings to stray bit of driftwood. But they are subordenate clauses that can be dropped from the sentence without altering the meaning of the sentence. Which when done leaves; “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Everywhere else in the Bill of Rights the word “People” obviously means individuals. I can’t imagine that the founders would be consistent in their mean everywhere else but the Second Amendment.
The anti-gun nut cases cling to those two subordinate clauses “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” like a drowning man clings to stray bit of driftwood. But they are subordenate clauses that can be dropped from the sentence without altering the meaning of the sentence. Which when done leaves; “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
A ‘Well regulated militia’ at the time of the signing of the Constitution meant one thing... One that was well practiced in the use of their firearms.At that time there was a training system called the ‘Regulations’ that detailed how to properly load aim and fire a muzzle loading rifle.
I believe that an Englishman came up with the Regulations. It was used by the British Army and was so well known that the professional members of the Army were known as the ‘Regulars’. That tradition carries on even to today where we have the ‘Regular Army’ and the Reserves.
So if you wanted to put the second amendment in modern perspective you might say that:
In order to preserve the peace and safety of of the United States the private citizens must practice regularly with their weapons so as to be competent with their usage and maintenance. The right to own and use their weapons may not be taken away from them or have undue or unjust regulations placed upon their rights to own, use and carry them where they desire.
==bflr==
Very interesting. TYVM for that.
Not let me see if I understand it......
So Negroes can “keep” (posess) and “carry” (have on their person) arms (guns) ANYWHERE they went (into stores, across state lines, and even in their homes!)
Right?
I didn’t see any mention of permits? I didn’t see where it excluded so-called assault weapons? I didn’t see that they had to belong to a militia?
If only Whites also had such a ruling, oh well, discrimination is everywhere /sarc
Kinda begs the question: Why do you use MSN.com as your homepage? I make mine a blank page so my browser isn't delayed by anything networky when it is starting.
Deep within the Dred Scott ruling....
“unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished;”
According to Judge Taney, you already have that right.
There is a Jaskrit Bhalla who wrote a gun control article for Affinity Magazine:
http://www.affinitymagazine.us/author/jaskritbhalla/
(Jaskrit Bhalla is a young girl from Orange County, California with aspirations to change the world., yada yada yada. Fresh off the boat immigrant gun grabber psychobunny alert! LOL)
LOL! Even the Ninth Circus knows better, they even recognized it means more than just carrying arms, but buying them as well. They said as much their decision yesterday....
And even quoted a Founder in the process:
The historical record indicates that Americans continued to believe that such right included the freedom to purchase and to sell weapons. In 1793, Thomas Jefferson noted that “[o]ur citizens have always been free to make, vend, and export arms. It is the constant occupation and livelihood of some of them.”
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.