Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gunning Down The 2nd Amendment (Major Hurl!) More Bias from CBS News
CBS News Website ^ | May 9, 2002 | Dick Meyer /CBS News

Posted on 11/13/2002 3:15:45 PM PST by Draakan

CBS) In his latest Against the Grain commentary, CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer draws a bead on the Second Amendment. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “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.”

Most Americans think that the Second Amendment of the Constitution provides individual citizens the right to have guns. (Which is not to say that most Americans believe that there should be a right to keep arms.)

Very, very few judges, prosecutors or government lawyers over the past 60 years (at least)have officially taken the position that an individual right to own guns exists. The normal, reigning judicial view, the one that is essentially settled law, is that the right to bear arms pertains only to the right of states form collective defenses or "well regulated militias." This is not a controversial area of the law. No gun control laws have been declared unconstitutional by courts because they violated an individual rights to bear arms.

But it is a controversial area of political and academic debate.

In politics, gun control advocates believe there is only a collective right to bear arms. Gun control opponents believe citizens have a right to keep arms every bit as profound as the rights of free speech, free assembly and free worship. These are matters of civic religion.

Modern scholars and constitutional lawyers are divided on the 200 year-old question of whether the Second Amendment provides an "individual" or "collective" right, and there is no shortage of vehemence on both sides.

The NRA has bankrolled the production warehouse full of individual right scholarship -- and propaganda. However, some very independent and liberal scholars have reexamined the debate, which has really been an academic non-issue for a century, and came out on the individual rights side. It's like the nature vs. nurture debate: there ain't gonna be a winner.

Attorney General John Ashcroft, entrusted with collective security for the world's most powerful country, wants to settle the question once and for all, in a way that would eventually make it easier for individuals to have guns. Alien scientists and foreign anthropologists would be fairly mystified by this anti-Darwinian state of affairs.

Ashcroft has always believed in the individual right to have guns. His Justice Department, in an extreme break from what judges and presidents have done for decades, is trying to establish that view of the Second Amendment as the law of the land in order to eventually rein in federal, state and local gun control laws.

In footnotes to court briefing filed this week, Ashcroft’s solicitor general flatly asserted that, "The current position of the United States, however, is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms, subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse." (Remember, attorneys general don’t make law; judges and Congress do.)

This was expected. Last May, the new attorney general declared his position not in a legal brief, not in congressional testimony, but in a letter to an interest group, the National Rifle Association. In November, Ashcroft reiterated his view in a memo to U.S. attorneys across the country.

Now another round has been fired. And there are a few federal judges shooting at the same target. Second Amendment law has moved like a glacier for more than a century. The Supreme Court last dealt with the issue directly in 1939 when it clearly backed they collective, no-individual right position. Now that glacier is under a sun lamp and it’s melting fast.

So the time for pussy footing around is over. It’s time to repeal the Second Amendment. Bag it.

What the founders intended is unknowable. Objective truth about the meaning of the Second Amendment does not exist. Practical consensus about its meaning will not endure. The concept of "well regulated militia" is an anachronism in the 21st century.

So let’s get rid of it and address the life and death issues of gun control directly, away from the shadows and phantoms of civic theology. We do just that with other extremely dangerous mechanical devices that individuals use -- cars, boats, airplanes.

At least one key player in this battle thinks tinkering with the Constitution is no big deal -- John Ashcroft. During his six years in the Senate, he sponsored seven constitutional amendments -- a ban on abortion, a ban of flag burning, for a line-item veto, mandated balanced-budgets, super-majorities for tax increases, term limits and an amendment to make it easier to amend the Constitution.

So, let’s take ten paces and draw.

Dick Meyer, a veteran political and investigative producer for CBS News, is Editorial Director of CBSNews.com based in Washington.

E-mail your questions and comments to Against the Grain


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; antiamericanism; banglist; communistpropaganda; constitution; liberalbias; newsbias; rkba
"So the time for pussy footing around is over. It’s time to repeal the Second Amendment. Bag it."

OVER MY COLD DEAD HANDS MR MEYER YOU COMMIE SON OF A*&^@#$#*(@)!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/12/eveningnews/main529068.shtml

Click on the above link to see 10, yes, I said 10! antigun articles from CBS News..........if you can stand it!

Even ANOTHER article about Columbine!

Tell me there is not an antigun bias from these commies at CBS News...............(Sarcasm)

1 posted on 11/13/2002 3:15:45 PM PST by Draakan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Draakan
"(Remember, attorneys general don’t make law; judges and Congress do.)"

JUDGES "MAKE" laws????!!!!

That statement alone skuttles their entire bull$_ _ t argument.

I see this for what it is, namely; a boo hoo crybaby reaction to the midterm elections. They see the Liberty Train coming down the tracks at them and they're stuck in the "tunnel of lies". All they can do is whine. There's no time to run.

2 posted on 11/13/2002 3:24:25 PM PST by You Gotta Be Kidding Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Draakan
At least he's going about it the right way.
3 posted on 11/13/2002 3:25:17 PM PST by cruiserman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Draakan
"The Supreme Court last dealt with the issue directly in 1939 when it clearly backed they collective, no-individual right position."

This, too, is an outright lie. The US Supreme Court did no such thing and the lying S of a B knows it.

4 posted on 11/13/2002 3:27:00 PM PST by You Gotta Be Kidding Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Draakan
(Remember, attorneys general don’t make law; judges and Congress do.)

Whoa Nelly!...this maroon just lost the arguement..

5 posted on 11/13/2002 3:27:59 PM PST by antaresequity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Draakan
"The normal, reigning judicial view, the one that is essentially settled law, is that the right to bear arms pertains only to the right of states form collective defenses or "well regulated militias.""

While the phrase "well regulated militias" might need a little more interpretation for morons that refuse to study history, the rest of the Amendment is pretty clear: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

It's like there was no history before the 1940s on this issue. It's all "according to judical review of the last 60 years" crap. Talk about cherry picking. sheesh.

6 posted on 11/13/2002 3:31:03 PM PST by rudypoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Draakan
Constitutional Amendments 1-10: The Bill of Rights Note: The following text is a transcription of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment II

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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; 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 defence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment X 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.

So, every instance in the Bill of Rights where it says the people means individuals, except in the 2nd Amendment it means the Militia.

Every other Amendment protects individual rights from government over reach, except the 2nd Amendment. Why would the founders feel the need to protect a branch of government in something called the Bill of Rights?

7 posted on 11/13/2002 3:32:32 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Draakan
who is "we the people" a "collective"? or each and every individual citizen?
8 posted on 11/13/2002 3:33:14 PM PST by joesnuffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Draakan
People like this guy have to know what they're spouting is intellectual dishonesty, The lie repeated often enought becomes the truth. They've also got to know its not going to work. Wonder what they've got in mine, that they don't want the American people to "keep and bear arms"? I wonder?

Molon labe
9 posted on 11/13/2002 3:34:20 PM PST by Knuckrider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
Bang
10 posted on 11/13/2002 3:35:42 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Draakan
Right after we see the right to bear arms repealed we'll also see the rights of free speech, free assembly and free worship repealed. But then this is the bolsheviks' real agenda, and they're aided by media bolsheviks like Dick Meyer. As I've said before, if our nation ever rises in righteous rebellion against government tyranny we would be wise to remember the role media bolsheviks played in establishing this tyranny.
11 posted on 11/13/2002 3:36:43 PM PST by waxhaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Draakan
"What the founders intended is unknowable."

..at least by those unable to read.
12 posted on 11/13/2002 3:37:03 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Amendment X 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.

So, every instance in the Bill of Rights where it says the people means individuals, except in the 2nd Amendment it means the Militia.


You and I understand, but we are not Commies
13 posted on 11/13/2002 3:39:03 PM PST by Draakan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Draakan
This is not a controversial area of the law. No gun control laws have been declared unconstitutional by courts because they violated an individual rights to bear arms.

Lopez - you ignorant b*stard

14 posted on 11/13/2002 3:40:39 PM PST by Timocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Draakan
what a dumba$$
15 posted on 11/13/2002 3:41:04 PM PST by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: waxhaw
.......we would be wise to remember the role media bolsheviks played in establishing this tyranny.

Yes, part of the reason for my posting.......

16 posted on 11/13/2002 3:43:26 PM PST by Draakan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Draakan
What the founders intended is unknowable.

Absolute bullsh*t!

What he means is what the founders intended is unacceptable.

17 posted on 11/13/2002 3:59:38 PM PST by Jagdgewehr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Draakan
What the founders intended is unknowable.

Only if you can't read. The recorded comments of the Founders make it quite clear that they intended to guarantee an individual right to bear arms for defense of self and community.

18 posted on 11/13/2002 4:01:57 PM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Draakan
These are extremely leftwing, poorly researched, biased pieces, even for CBS.

My question is, who is still buying their cBS?
19 posted on 11/13/2002 4:04:56 PM PST by spodefly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Draakan
Most Americans think that the Second Amendment of the Constitution provides individual citizens the right to have guns.

They are right - it is clearly spelled out in the constitution as an INDIVIDUAL right. The Bill Of Rights are all INDIVIDUAL rights, not the rights of states.

However, some very independent and liberal scholars have reexamined the debate, which has really been an academic non-issue for a century, and came out on the individual rights side.

See, I told you so. Even 'liberal scholars' have to agree when they are forced to think rationally instead of emotionally. Think INDIVIDUAL BILL OF RIGHTS Dickie. Think, its not that hard.

So the time for pussy footing around is over. It's time to repeal the Second Amendment. Bag it.

Thanks for the ruling, Mr. 'god' Myer, but why don't you stuff it.

What the founders intended is unknowable.

BS

Start by reading the Federalist Papers, writings of Thos. Jefferson, James Madison, et. al. It's pretty clear if you have any kind of reading comprehension.

So, let's take ten paces and draw.

No need for that. The constitution and declaration of independence clearly spells out my inalienable rights as a human and an American citizen. Your only recorse is a constitutional convention. Try it and see how far it gets. These liberal maroons just dont give up.

20 posted on 11/13/2002 4:25:29 PM PST by GaltMeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GaltMeister
The Second Amendment is the keystone of the Constitution. It is the most important right to us. It guarantees all of the others. It is to us what the First of the Fifth is to you. We have been backed into a corner by your side, and that is always dangerous to do. By never once considering, much less acknowledging, the validity of our views, you have waged a war on our liberty that has forced us to consider an option that none of us would have thought possible just 5 years ago.

Just as no Black man would ever go back to segregation, just as no American would give up freedom of speech, that just as none of us would stand by and let the government herd the Jews to another holocaust, so will we never, ever give in on the Second. We are at fault for never making this clear to you. While you may think this is something of little importance, it is the one issue that can, and will, lead to a revolution in this country. Not one other issue on the political scene has the power to do this.

I do not want war, I do not want to kill anyone; I simply want to be left alone to live my life as a free American. However, I know my duty to my ancestors, who fought at Bunker Hill, to my children, who are counting on me to preserve their liberty until it is their turn, and to every American who values our liberty today, and if you persist in attacking a basic human right, you can, and should, expect us to fight back.

You will inevitably respond that "You can't really expect to stand up to the army or the police." I will give you this example: Last year, about 20,000,000 Americans bought some type of hunting license. Toss out half of them as duplicates, kids, guys who enjoy the field but don't care if they shoot or not, and the like. That leaves 10,000,000. Assume just 10% are deadly serious about this. That leaves one million, well armed, skilled Americans who are not going to sit back while the you take our freedom. Imagine a guerrilla war with one million Americans doing nothing more than resisting an assault on their basic rights? It would be unwinnable without the imposition of a total police sate, and that is something even the anti gunners should fear.

Even one hundred thousand Americans, willing to pay the price and to fight back, would be enough to make this a reality. Selectively fighting back against those who take your liberty makes a lot more sense that blowing up innocent Americans. Targeting those who would enslave you makes them personally liable for their actions against us. Remember, they will paint us as terrorists, but in this case, we are doing nothing more than resisting the kind of tyranny that would have long ago prompted our ancestors to act. The issue here is whether we really have that resolve. I believe we do, but we have never made that clear to your side.

I have no problem with anyone exercising their First Amendment right to speak against gun ownership, to lobby for passive acquiescence to crime or tyranny just so long as they never, ever attempt to make their personal views into laws that affect the rest of us. So, as the first Texan said, until the other side begins to fear that their actions will bear serious personal consequences to them, they are unlikely to change. Until the other side really believes that we are serious, and capable of action to defend our liberties, don't count on any work we do within the system to have any real hope of changing the situation.
21 posted on 11/13/2002 4:49:19 PM PST by RipMeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RipMeyer
"They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin,


In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938.
From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935.
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970.
From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956.
From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, ask him or her: "Who do YOU want to round up and exterminate?"

With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects
22 posted on 11/13/2002 4:53:25 PM PST by RipMeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Draakan
The Second Amendment...
America's Original Homeland Security !!

Stop the attacks on our God given Rights by the extreme wacko left-wing anti-gun nazis' !!

The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed !!

An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen !!

Guns Save Lives !!

No Guns, No Rights !!

Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!

Molon Labe !!

FMCDH !!

23 posted on 11/13/2002 4:54:22 PM PST by blackie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RipMeyer
What our founding fathers and others, had to say about gun control and freedom...

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.



"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson.


"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison.


"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.



"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense..." -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).

"...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them." -Thomas Paine.



"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p322.



"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778).



"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.



"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.


"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.: -Patrick Henry.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" -Patrick Henry




"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." -Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788).


"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.



"...the people have a right to keep and bear arms." -Patrick Henry and George Mason, Elliot,



"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." -James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).


"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." -Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.




"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..." -Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code.
(see http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/)



"The people are nor to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." -Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646.



"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).


"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government..."-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28).



"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1989 at col. 1.


"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States...Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America." -gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.



"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." -Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).
24 posted on 11/13/2002 4:58:56 PM PST by RipMeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RipMeyer
The Parable of the Sheep
by Charles Riggs

Not so long ago and in a pasture too uncomfortably close to here, a flock of
sheep lived and grazed. They were protected by a dog, who answered to the
master, but despite his best efforts from time to time a nearby pack of
wolves would prey upon the flock.

One day a group of sheep, bolder than the rest, met to discuss their
dilemma. 'Our dog is good, and vigilant, but he is one and the wolves are
many. The wolves he catches are not always killed, and the master judges and
releases many to prey again upon us, for no reason we can understand.
What can we do? We are sheep, but we do not wish to be food, too!'

One sheep spoke up, saying 'It is his teeth and claws that make the wolf so
terrible to us. It is his nature to prey, and he would find any way to do it,
but it is the tools he wields that make it possible. If we had such teeth, we
could fight back, and stop this savagery.' The other sheep clamored in
agreement, and they went together to the old bones of the dead wolves heaped
in the corner of the pasture, and gathered fang and claw and made them
into weapons.

That night, when the wolves came, the newly armed sheep sprang up with their
weapons and struck at them, crying, "Be Gone!" We are not food!' and drove
off the wolves, who were astonished. When did sheep become so bold and so
dangerous to wolves? When did sheep grow teeth?

It was unthinkable!

The next day, flush with victory and waving their weapons, they approached
the flock to pronounce their discovery. But as they drew nigh, the flock
huddled together and cried out, 'Baaaaaaaadddd! Baaaaaddd things!

You have bad things! We are afraid! You are not sheep!'

The brave sheep stopped, amazed. 'But we are your brethren!' they cried. 'We
are still sheep, but we do not wish to be food. See, our new teeth and claws
protect us and have saved us from slaughter. They do not make us into wolves,
they make us equal to the wolves, and safe from their viciousness!'

'Baaaaaaad!' cried the flock, 'the things are bad and will pervert you, and
we fear them. You cannot bring them into the flock!' So the armed sheep
resolved to conceal their weapons, for although they had no desire to panic
the flock, they wished to remain in the fold. But they would not return to
those nights of terror, waiting for the wolves to come.

In time, the wolves attacked less often and sought easier prey, for they had
no stomach for fighting sheep who possessed tooth and claw even as they did.
Not knowing which sheep had fangs and which did not, they came to leave sheep
out of their diet almost completely except for the occasional raid, from
which more than one wolf did not return.

Then came the day when, as the flock grazed beside the stream, one sheep's
weapon slipped from the folds of her fleece, and the flock cried out in
terror again, 'Baaaaaad! You still possess these evil things! We must ban you
from our presence!'

And so they did. The great chief sheep and his council, encouraged by the
words of their advisors, placed signs and totems at the edges of the pasture
forbidding the presence of hidden weapons there. The armed sheep protested
before the council, saying, 'It is our pasture, too, and we have never harmed
you! When can you say we have caused you hurt? It is the wolves, not we, who
prey upon you. We are still sheep, but we are not food!'

But the flock drowned them out with cries of 'Baaaaaaddd! We will not hear
your clever words! You and your things are evil and will harm us!'

Saddened by this rejection, the armed sheep moved off and spent their days
on the edges of the flock, trying from time to time to speak with their
brethren to convince them of the wisdom of having such teeth, but meeting
with little success. They found it hard to talk to those who, upon hearing
their words, would roll back their eyes and flee, crying 'Baaaaddd! Bad
things!'

That night, the wolves happened upon the sheep's totems and signs, and
said, 'Truly, these sheep are fools! They have told us they have no teeth!
Brothers, let us feed!' And they set upon the flock, and horrible was the
carnage in the midst of the fold. The dog fought like a demon, and often
seemed to be in two places at once, but even he could not halt the
slaughter.

It was only when the other sheep arrived with their weapons that the wolves
fled, only to remain on the edge of the pasture and wait for the next time
they could prey, for if the sheep were so foolish once, they would be so
again. This they did, and do still.

In the morning, the armed sheep spoke to the flock, and said, 'See? If the
wolves know you have no teeth, they will fall upon you. Why be prey? To be a
sheep does not mean to be food for wolves!' But the flock cried out, more
feebly for their voices were fewer, though with no less terror, 'Baaaaaaaad!
These things are bad! If they were banished, the wolves would not harm us!
Baaaaaaad!'

So they resolved to retain their weapons, but to conceal them from the
flock; to endure their fear and loathing, and even to protect their brethren
if the need arose, until the day the flock learned to understand that as long
as there were wolves in the night, sheep would need teeth to repel them.

They would still be sheep, but they would not be food!
25 posted on 11/13/2002 5:02:51 PM PST by RipMeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RipMeyer
Your laws ignore our deepest needs Your words are empty air
You've stripped away our heritage You've outlawed simple prayer
Now gunshots fill our classrooms And precious children die
you seek for answers everywhere And ask the question "Why"?
You regulate restrictive laws Through legislative creed
And yet you fail to understand That God is what we need!
Men and women are 3 part beings. We all consist of body,
soul, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third
part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice,
and hatred to rush in and wreck havoc.Spiritual influences were
present within our educational systems for most of our nation'
history. Many of our major colleges began as
theological seminaries. This is a historic fact.
What has happened to us as a nation? We have
refused to honor God, and in doing so, we open
the doors to hatred and violence.
And when something as terrible as Columbine's
tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look
for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They
immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws
that continue to erode away our personal and
private liberties.We do not need more restrictive
laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal
detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop
someone who spends months planning this type
of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.
Political posturing and restrictive legislation are
not the answers.The young people of our nation hold the key.
There is a spiritual awakening taking place that
will not be squelched!We do not need more religion.
We do not need more gaudy television evangelists spewing out
verbal religious garbage. We do not need more
million dollar church buildings built while
people with basic needs are being ignored.
We do need a change of heart and a humble
acknowledgment that this nation was founded
on the principle of simple trust in God!
As my son Craig lay under that table in the
school library and saw his two friends murdered
before his very eyes -- He did not hesitate to
pray in school. I defy any law or politician to
deny him that right!
I challenge every young person in America and
around the world to realize that on April 20,
1999 at Columbine High School -- prayer was
brought back to our schools. Do not let the
many prayers offered by those students be in
vain.Dare to move into the new millennium with a
sacred disregard for legislation that violates your
conscience and denies your God-given right to
communicate with Him.
To those of you who would point your finger at
the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge.
Dare to examine your own heart before you cast
the first stone! My daughter's death will not be
in vain. The young people of this country will not
allow that to happen.

26 posted on 11/13/2002 5:03:56 PM PST by RipMeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Knuckrider
"They've also got to know its not going to work. Wonder what they've got in mind,"

All Dems are doing the same thing. They are dredging for an issue tying to position (set up) Republicans. If they throw enough mud they hope some will stick. They lost and now they are attacking. We should continue to hit them until they can't respond; like you were subduing a perp. Because they are.
27 posted on 11/13/2002 5:14:40 PM PST by Clean_Sweep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dd5339
PING.
28 posted on 11/13/2002 5:19:54 PM PST by cavtrooper21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Draakan
Wow, this article is a parade of debunked gun grabber talking points. I'll take two:

No gun control laws have been declared unconstitutional by courts because they violated an individual rights to bear arms.

Logical fallacy alert! No court has ruled that pigs cannot fly, therefore pigs can fly.

So the time for pussy footing around is over. It’s time to repeal the Second Amendment. Bag it.

But but but...I thought the 2nd Amendment didn't protect an individual's right to bear arms, so, why bother? <wink> Oh.
29 posted on 11/13/2002 5:43:18 PM PST by Djarum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
"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."

The actual Second Amendment contains a single (one) comma.

Please do not misquote it; it only provides more grist for the rabid anti-gunners to "parse" in ways favorable to them.

--Boris

30 posted on 11/13/2002 6:27:13 PM PST by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Draakan; Mercuria; HangFire; feinswinesuksass; nunya bidness; lowbridge; diotima
One might be a functional idiot and write this atrocity -- retarded, yet skilled at typing and basic grammar -- an idiot savant, if you will. Or one might simply be an unabashedly mendacious propagandist, unimpeded by conscience, abetted by an editor as stupid or as deceitful, or worse.
 
SeeBS.

31 posted on 11/13/2002 6:28:14 PM PST by AnnaZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Draakan
Come right ahead. Repeal it--or try. Try to get the states to ratify it.

Meyer's pals know they could not win an up-or-down constitutional amendment battle to repeal a piece of the bill of rights. They much prefer the incremental approach.

At least this traitorous jerk is honest about his intentions.

--Boris

32 posted on 11/13/2002 6:29:02 PM PST by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Draakan
"I'm outraged," he told Bowers. "I assumed after Columbine that would be the safest place. Everything for sale would be heavily scrutinized."

So he assumed it was legal to buy the tiny parts needed to make his semi-automatic rifle fully automatic.

And, even though he never installed the parts, just having them and the gun together, was enough to get him a federal firearms conviction. He now faces more than two years in prison.

"Gee officers, I didn't know it was illegal to have a fully automatic rifle without registering it. I always wondered why I couldn't just buy one over-the-counter at my local gun shop. I am outraged. The NRA has tricked me."

33 posted on 11/13/2002 6:47:54 PM PST by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Draakan
So the time for pussy footing around is over. It’s time to repeal the Second Amendment. Bag it.

Okay.

Just get the necessary votes, and you can amend the Constitution any way you like.

34 posted on 11/13/2002 6:50:21 PM PST by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnnaZ
Is this guy the father of the Acidophilis twins?
35 posted on 11/13/2002 8:10:29 PM PST by Feiny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: You Gotta Be Kidding Me
love the liberty train tunnel of lies analogy... and they are tied to the tracks by their own chains of oppression... but i digress...

it is a shame there is no link to share the thoughts of freedom with this illiterate newsman unable to read the founding fathers assertion that freedom is dependent on an individual's right to keep and bear arms.
36 posted on 11/13/2002 9:09:16 PM PST by teeman8r
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Actually, no he can't. The Bill of Rights amendments are to be forever unaltered as, for the most part, they recognize natural law that supercedes any government law or power.

So they COULD repeal it, but the very act would be illegal and akin to declaring war on the citizenry of the USA.
37 posted on 11/13/2002 9:17:20 PM PST by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: feinswinesuksass

Is this guy the father of the Acidophilis twins?

In a philosophical sense?.. (They're all of their father the devil!! ;^)

38 posted on 11/14/2002 7:08:38 AM PST by AnnaZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: cruiserman
Since the initial ratification of the Constitution was predicated upon an inviolable Bill of Rights being adopted. One can make the argument that any repeal of the first ten ammendments would null and void the entire Constitution.

These statists who seek to disarm the American populace have a reason for doing this that is in now way related to curtailing crime or violence. In fact they seek an increase of both. They seek their own agradizment as a new ruling elite.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

39 posted on 11/14/2002 9:37:33 AM PST by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
IMO it's fair to say that the 1rst 2 amendments will never be repealed, since the pro stalwarts outnumber the antis.
40 posted on 11/14/2002 9:44:10 AM PST by cruiserman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Draakan
It’s time to repeal the Second Amendment. Bag it.

When this is finally tried, then the country will find out EXACTLY what the 2nd Amendment means.

41 posted on 11/14/2002 9:48:33 AM PST by Pistolshot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Draakan
You and I understand, but we are not Commies

Or commie bastards!

42 posted on 11/14/2002 10:01:44 AM PST by eyes_only
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Draakan
This collective rights nonsense has been so thoroughly debunked that it's not worth the bandwidth to repeat all of the specifics. (Go to Clayton Cramer's page, Instapundit or The Volokh Conspiracy for no end of evidence against this stupid view.) It simply isn't true. The handful of courts that have voiced this opinion are an anomoly in American jurisprudence. The Individual Right view as expressed by the Ashcroft Justice Department is the prevailing view of modern legal scholarship.

The author contradicts himself when he claims that the collective rights view is the proper interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but then calls for its repeal. If that view were correct, then repealling the Amendment would be unnecessary as no gun control law on the books violates that interpretation. He obviously accepts the individual right argument himself if he feels that the Amendment must be repealed to further the cause of gun control.

43 posted on 11/14/2002 10:02:46 AM PST by Redcloak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnnaZ; feinswinesuksass
In a philosophical sense?.. (They're all of their father the devil!! ;^)

Bwhahaha!

44 posted on 11/14/2002 8:36:59 PM PST by HangFire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: feinswinesuksass
Acidophilis twins?

How old are those men and when will their mother quit dressing them alike?

45 posted on 11/14/2002 8:39:04 PM PST by HangFire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: You Gotta Be Kidding Me
"The Supreme Court last dealt with the issue directly in 1939 when it clearly backed they collective, no-individual right position."

This, too, is an outright lie. The US Supreme Court did no such thing and the lying S of a B knows it.

When a Supreme Court decision is published, it is accompanied by a syllabus which is written by court staff--not by the justices themselves and which is supposed to give the gist of a decision but carries no legal weight. Unfortunately, the published syllabus for U.S. v. Miller does not accurately reflect certain key aspects of the decision, and seems to have been cited in some cases where it disagrees with what the actual decision says.

Contrary to what many people have been led to believe, neither Miller nor his co-defendant Layton were ever convicted of carrying a short-barreled shotgun. The Supreme Court did not uphold their conviction because there was no conviction to uphold. All the Court did was allow the government to bring its case when the government claimed that it could show that a sawed-off shotgun is not a suitable militia weapon. Had the government not plea-bargained away the charges for Frank Layton it would have had to have proved the impossible. Instead, however, the government declared victory and went home.

It's interesting that the government 'won' its case against Miller and Layton while plea-bargaining for nothing beyond time served. Of course, most of us would think that an odd form of 'winning'.

46 posted on 11/15/2002 4:55:20 PM PST by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: supercat
bump it
47 posted on 11/15/2002 8:20:31 PM PST by flamingbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Draakan
Where does this right come from?

The Second Amendment does not "grant" the right to keep and bear arms, but rather protects it from unsurpation. The right has deep roots in English common law and is related to the common law of self-defense. The battles of Lexington and Concord in 1775 represented a firm stand taken by the colonists against confiscation of their arms by British soldiers. 49 colonists died in those battles, so this obviously was not a trivial matter to them.

Why is it part of the Bill of Rights?

When the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791, the infringement by a strong government upon their right to bear arms was fresh in the minds of our Founders, so they explicitly prohibited their new federal government from repeating this travesty. Or so they thought....
In recent decades, this right has been as much under attack as it was in 1775. Though no "redcoated" federal troops march through our towns (yet!), overzealous presidents and misguided members of Congress have sought to accomplish the same objective, step-by-step. And thanks to courts sympathetic to their crusade, the erosion of our rights is proceeding.

Why is gun ownership a key to freedom?

The freedom of the individual, the peace of the community, and the independence of the state all depend upon a substantial portion of the adult population having firearms. It is a hallmark of society in a constitutional republic that citizens have rights and responsibilities. Ownership of a well-maintained firearm is not only a right, it is a responsibility.

Responsibility? For what purpose?

Again, looking at the common law for guidance, the family, as a basic unit of society, has the "primary" responsibilty for certain functions, including its material support, the religious and practical education of its members, and "self protection". Since everyone must sleep or leave home on occasion, people have delegated others, primarily their local police, to supplement their own self-protection. But this does not relieve the head of the household from protecting his own family, nor does it excuse him from assisting his neighbors- when necessary- in the protection of the community at large.
But the Founders had more critical issues in mind when writing the Second Amendment. Richard Henry Lee said: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms." Lee knew that possession of arms by the people provides a roadblock to government officials intoxicated by power, a force to repel invaders, and protection from civil turmoil and anarchy.

Those who say that the 2nd Amendment pertains not to the people- but only to the National Guard- ignore the fact that the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights are not so limited. Besides, the Bill of Rights does not grant rights- it prohibits government from intruding upon them.
"Gun rights" and all other rights go hand in hand. One cannot defend just one right. A government powerful enough to curtail one right can deny all others!
48 posted on 11/15/2002 9:07:01 PM PST by AngryOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Draakan
I have only one thing to say to these communists: If you want my gun, send your troops to get it, and when they are dead, so will you be....slowly.
49 posted on 11/15/2002 9:17:19 PM PST by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrioticAmerican
"I have only one thing to say to these communists: If you want my gun, send your troops to get it, and when they are dead, so will you be....slowly."


Very slowly my friend!
50 posted on 11/15/2002 9:28:50 PM PST by Draakan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson