U.S. Backs a Right to Bear Arms

Los Angeles Times ^ | May 8, 2002 | Eric Lichtblau

[an amused spectator]

Lichtblau shows how clueless he is about Constitutional issues with the first sentence off his word processor.

Man, I'm sure glad that the Constitution "gave" us all the rights we were born with. ;-)

[Semper Paratus]

U.S. Backs a Right to Bear Arms

This shouldn't be headline but these are strange times.

[Catholicguy]

Man, I'm sure glad that the Constitution "gave" us all the rights we were born with. ;-)

Excellent point. The fact is, most Americans think the Constitution DOES give them rights. Worse, they think that the Federal Government can do anything the Government is not forbidden to do.

[Huck]

Worse, they think that the Federal Government can do anything the Government is not forbidden to do.

Sure looks like it can.

[Lazamataz]

What an utterly and unabashedly biased anti-gun article this is. From the first sentence to the very last:

• The Justice Department has declared that the Constitution gives individuals the right to own a gun..

  The Constitution does no such thing. The Bill of Rights merely states that the inherent and existing right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the Federal government.

• In briefs filed late Monday with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Justice Department rejected the long-held interpretation that the 2nd Amendment guarantees gun rights only to militias, not to individuals.

  Long-held by who? Liberals. And even liberal scholars have come to the conclusion that the whackjob liberals who maintain this non-sequitur position are wrong. Laurence Tribe, among others, have come to the conclusion that the text in the second amendment means what it says. This author exhibits extreme bias.

• but scholars and gun-control advocates said they were alarmed because they believe the "radical" shift in position threatens to undermine a wide range of gun laws already on the books.

  Who do they cite as their 'scholar'? "Franklin Zimring, a preeminent scholar on gun law at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law, said in an interview." That's right, boys and girls -- they hold Frank Zimring, an unknown scholar at BERKLEY of all places, in higher esteem than Laurence Tribe, who is the NATIONS best known and most widely acknowledged authority on Constitutional Law.

  The LA Slimes does not even bother to hide their bias, unsupportable premises, and incongruent conclusions.

• This action is proof positive that the worst fears about Atty. Gen. Ashcroft have come true: His extreme ideology on guns has now become government policy," Barnes said.

  This is the last line in the article. As you might already known, in journalism, this is called the 'stinger'. It is intended that this is the message you take away from a given article. You can often tell how extremely biased an author is by examining the very last sentence.

So, what do we have? We have this LA Slimes creep citing an unknown Berkley professor and a bunch of gun-control freaks, using the terms "radical" and "deeply troubling" and so on in this article. It is absurd, and it is indicative of the reason that the LA Slimes and other papers are losing circulation by 5 to 7 percent in a single year. The sooner these Socialist, Statist propaganda rags fold, the better.

JOIN THE SECOND AMENDMENT SISTERS

[Lazamataz]

What an utterly and unabashedly biased anti-gun article this is. From the first sentence to the very last:

• The Justice Department has declared that the Constitution gives individuals the right to own a gun..

  The Constitution does no such thing. The Bill of Rights merely states that the inherent and existing right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the Federal government.

• In briefs filed late Monday with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Justice Department rejected the long-held interpretation that the 2nd Amendment guarantees gun rights only to militias, not to individuals.

  Long-held by who? Liberals. And even liberal scholars have come to the conclusion that the whackjob liberals who maintain this non-sequitur position are wrong. Laurence Tribe, among others, have come to the conclusion that the text in the second amendment means what it says. This author exhibits extreme bias.

• but scholars and gun-control advocates said they were alarmed because they believe the "radical" shift in position threatens to undermine a wide range of gun laws already on the books.

  Who do they cite as their 'scholar'? "Franklin Zimring, a preeminent scholar on gun law at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law, said in an interview." That's right, boys and girls -- they hold Frank Zimring, an unknown scholar at BERKLEY of all places, in higher esteem than Laurence Tribe, who is the NATIONS best known and most widely acknowledged authority on Constitutional Law.

  The LA Slimes does not even bother to hide their bias, unsupportable premises, and incongruent conclusions.

• This action is proof positive that the worst fears about Atty. Gen. Ashcroft have come true: His extreme ideology on guns has now become government policy," Barnes said.

  This is the last line in the article. As you might already known, in journalism, this is called the 'stinger'. It is intended that this is the message you take away from a given article. You can often tell how extremely biased an author is by examining the very last sentence.

So, what do we have? We have this LA Slimes creep citing an unknown Berkley professor and a bunch of gun-control freaks, using the terms "radical" and "deeply troubling" and so on in this article. It is absurd, and it is indicative of the reason that the LA Slimes and other papers are losing circulation by 5 to 7 percent in a single year. The sooner these Socialist, Statist propaganda rags fold, the better.

JOIN THE SECOND AMENDMENT SISTERS

[GalvestonBeachcomber]

If only the 'commerce clause' would be reviewed...

[Poohbah]

So, what do we have? We have this LA Slimes creep citing an unknown Berkley professor and a bunch of gun-control freaks, using the terms "radical" and "deeply troubling" and so on in this article. It is absurd, and it is indicative of the reason that the LA Slimes and other papers are losing circulation by 5 to 7 percent in a single year. The sooner these Socialist, Statist propaganda rags fold, the better.

This is what "free trade" brought the world. Terrorists and tyrants hiring ex-USSR nuclear warhead engineers, and the LA Slimes hiring editorial staff from the folks laid off by Pravda and Izvestia. Sheesh.

[Still Thinking]

Someone brings up the question of what the Constitution has to say about an issue, and this CLYMER is worried about what the effect might be on existing laws, like the laws have some divine right to exist!! If the people arguing the Constitutional point are correct, the only reason the laws are "at risk" is because they were always illegal in the first f&*%ing place, and he and his gun grabbing buddies got 60 years of a free ride. Why complain? These are the same people that are always skeptical of the concept that humans can have rights not granted to them by the government, but, oh, we have to make sure we don't tread on the rights of any LAW's. </forehead slap>

[alpowolf]

Right on about the anti-gun bias. But to me what's really insulting is that they will look you right in the eye and declare that it is a "balanced" story; which to me is a gross insult to my intelligence.

but scholars and gun-control advocates said they were alarmed because they believe the "radical" shift in position threatens to undermine a wide range of gun laws already on the books

Unfortunately I don't think they have that much to worry about. The GOP is too chicken to offer anything more than lip service. Note this statement quoted in today's Washington Times:

"I don't think anybody in the House is looking for an opportunity to fight about guns," said House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Texas Republican. "Were it at all possible to ignore it [the McCain-Lieberman gun show bill], we will. Otherwise we'll just have to fight it out in conference."

In other words, God forbid they should have to stand on principle.

[newgeezer]

So, the Justice Dept. (Solicitor General) has an opinion. Whoop-de-doo. When the Supreme Court sees it the same way, and it begins dismissing gun control laws as unconstitutional, I'll take notice.

[harpseal]

Abot the only truthful parts of the article is that this argument was contained in a footnote to the brief and that the courts enforcing the right as stated would perforce need to declare most of the gun control laws unconstitutional. Since people have a right to keep and bear arms suitable for militia service how on earth can any limitation on magazine size be appropriate when infantry units have belt fed weapons? How can a liscense be required to exercise a RIGHT? How can a liscense be required to buy and sell the means of exercise of a right? At minimum the people of the USA have a right to keep and bear the standard miliary arms of the Army of the USA.

Shall not be infringed is a much stronger restriction on the Federal and state governments than no law. An infringement does not need a law.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

[MadRobotArtist]

Well, it looks like government and the constitution are at odds. Which one do we acknowledge? The Document that guarantees our rights given to us by God, or the pack of jackals who live off of the rest of us like parasites, who continue to undermine our freedoms in the name of safety and security? Which would you choose? Constitution. Just like the bible, it should be enough for any person in our country.

[Squantos]

Well said Laz old boy !.....well said !!

Stay Safe !

[riverrunner]

The only part I do not like is they still want to maintain control of what they call guns used my crimals. Like any gun can be called a crime gun favored by crooks. That leaves them a way to big opening to control all guns.

[historian1944]

So, basically, the Justice Department is saying that they believe that the 2nd Ammendment protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, but they really don't intend to do anything about it? This is what we are getting excited about?

Wouldn't the better way be to demonstrate that they believe this by overturning laws?

Words are cheap. They need to follow them with actions.

[Frohickey]

All good points, that is why, that we, as gun owners, and people who wish to preserve the right to keep and bear arms must reach out and introduce people to the shooting sports. A right not exercised is a right lost.

Invite friends and their friends, especially if they work for the media, to go to the range with you. Explain and teach them safe gun handling, and gun marksmanship. Explain to them the beginnings of the Jim Crow/gun control laws. But give them enough time to digest it, and make it fun and enjoyable.

Then, when these journalists are tasked to write a gun-related article, they are not directly quoting the exaggerations that VPC/Brady puts out.

[Straight Vermonter]

If only the 'commerce clause' would be reviewed...

The court ruled several years ago that the Congress does not have unlimited power to declare anything to fall under the commerce clause. Its a start anyway. See here.

[Ranxerox]

Actually, I think this declaration by the Justice Department is more anti-second amendment than it is pro. While on its face it appears to support the right to keep and bear arms, in reality it seeks to maintain the status quo.

By requesting that the SCOTUS deny review of these cases, the government can maintain its grip on gun control by relying on existing case law, most of which is based on the "collective rights" theory. For a real eye opener, take a look at the 11th Circuit appeal in the case of Haney v. United States. If the SCOTUS were to rule in Haney's favor, the government would view this as having let the genie out of the proverbial bottle.

[The KG9 Kid]

Quite right, sir. I believe Freepers are once again being led astray by a deceptive headline.