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

Skip to comments.

DC Asks Supreme Court To Back Gun Ban (Ignore That Dastardly 2nd Amendment Alert)
Washington Post ^ | 09/05/2007 | Robert Barnes And David Nakamura

Posted on 09/04/2007 11:38:59 PM PDT by goldstategop

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 next last
To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
A well regulated media, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear opinions, shall not be infringed

Seems pretty clear to me. You can't have or express an opinion unless you are part of the established media.

21 posted on 09/05/2007 2:49:40 AM PDT by NurdlyPeon (Thompson / Hunter in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

I liked this part “.. ambiguously worded Second Amendment ..”

The Second Amendment seems pretty straight forward to me.


22 posted on 09/05/2007 3:22:56 AM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

“Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the District to stand by while its citizens die.”

Oh, the irony.


23 posted on 09/05/2007 3:48:21 AM PDT by saganite (Billions and billions and billions----and that's just the NASA budget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A Navy Vet
The problem has always been the lack of the word, "and" between "state&the", which was the norm of writing in the period.

The comma following "the state" means "and"

24 posted on 09/05/2007 3:50:47 AM PDT by tiger-one (The night has a thousand eyes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

for later


25 posted on 09/05/2007 4:33:16 AM PDT by RayStacy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

One other thing that the libs fail to realize is what the word militia means. By reading the numerous writings of our founders, it was plain to everyone in that day that the militia was comprised of the people. There was never any government intrevention of the militia.

The militia is the reason why our country can never be invaded (from in or out of the country). If we were invaded, the militia (the people) are to rise up and put down the invasion.

The militia in the first clause and the people in the second clause can be used interchangeably.


26 posted on 09/05/2007 4:52:34 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Found this interesting tidbit in Wikipedia. It says that originally the bill of rights were not to be entered as individual amendments, but rather as part of the constitution itself.

“The sentence that later became the Second Amendment was to be inserted in the First Article, Section Nine, between clauses 3 and 4, following the prohibition on suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws, all individual civil rights asserted by individuals as a defense against government action”

this ought to give us even more insight (as if we did not already have enough) of the founding fathers intentions to gun ownership being an individual right.


27 posted on 09/05/2007 5:07:27 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rick_Michael
I can’t imagine a more important issue than the Right to defend your family, friends and life with whatever means possible.

If we lose this, the phrase, “WE, THE PEOPLE”, which is at the beginning of our Constitution, will forever be referred to as “WE, THE GOVERNMENT”.

28 posted on 09/05/2007 5:15:55 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (NRA - Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Basically what DC has said to the U.S Supreme Court is to ignore the Second Amendment. For the common good, of course.

Given some of the recent decisions by the SCOTUS, like Kelo and McCain/Feingold, this could go very badly...

Never mind what the Constitution actually says, here's what we think it should mean...

Mark

29 posted on 09/05/2007 5:20:10 AM PDT by MarkL (Listen, Strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf
Where is the ambiguity?

Silly you... "The People" actually refers to a collective right, not an individual right. People is plural for a person. So no individual person has any rights. Only groups! So for instance, a group of people have the right to not be searched, not individuals. And you can't assign excessive bail against groups of people, but it's OK to do so against an individual. See! "The People" actually means a bunch of people, not one person, otherwise they would have written "The Person!"

Silly you!

Mark

30 posted on 09/05/2007 5:24:30 AM PDT by MarkL (Listen, Strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MarkL
"Basically what DC has said to the U.S Supreme Court is to ignore the Second Amendment. For the common good, of course."

This is not about the Second Amendment. It is about crime and punishment, or lack thereof, in the nation's capital. It is about a police force that cannot enforce the laws they already have and it is about residents and their politicians who don't care and who are looking for a scapegoat.

31 posted on 09/05/2007 5:37:37 AM PDT by OldEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Well, if we lose this case, we will start a drive for a constitutional amendment!

... wait a minute....


32 posted on 09/05/2007 6:02:28 AM PDT by Fido969 ("The hardest thing in the world to understand is income tax." - Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

“which could lead to a historic decision next year on whether the ambiguously worded Second Amendment to the Constitution “

Yeah. Ambiguous. Like Patriotism, Honor, Duty, Courage, Piety - all the things libs seem to find so difficult to comprehend - except their own idiotic socialist, anti-American, anti-God agendas.


33 posted on 09/05/2007 6:07:20 AM PDT by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

“It is eminently reasonable to permit private ownership of other types of weapons, including shotguns and rifles, but ban the easily concealed and uniquely dangerous modern handgun,” states the petition, filed by District Attorney General Linda Singer.


As I have been recently reminded, you need to try to reconcile this lie with the fact that it is illegal for a DC resident to possess an assembled, operational, cased, locked (not even loaded) shotgun in her home.

But, yes, it is indeed legal to own a collection of disassembled shotgun parts that could be assembled to make a shotgun.


34 posted on 09/05/2007 6:21:36 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed ("We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them, I won't chip away at them" -Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

Correction: In DC, you are not committing a crime if you have a properly registered unloaded shotgun under the bed, and it is disassembled OR locked.

District of Columbia Official Code
>>§ 7-2507.02. Firearms required to be unloaded and disassembled or locked.
Except for law enforcement personnel described in § 7-2502.01(b)(1), each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.


35 posted on 09/05/2007 6:53:36 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed ("We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them, I won't chip away at them" -Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Washington Post: “ambiguously worded 2nd amendment”


36 posted on 09/05/2007 6:55:18 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldArmy52

Oh, seriously, the 9th and 10th amendment notwithstanding,

the “modern liberal” believes that the federal government has any and all powers to do anything under the “general welfare” and “interstate commerce” clauses, except for those things expressly prohibited by the bill of rights (with the exception of the 2nd amendment).

So, the 2nd, 9th, and 10th amendments do not exist,

the first amendment means we can’t pray at a football game or say Merry Christmas in the courthouse,

nor is the Constitution a contract between the sovereign states (which have many and undefined powers) and the subordinate “general government” (which has few and defined powers),

nor is there a problem with one side of the contract having the total ability to “interpret” and change the meaning of the contract.


37 posted on 09/05/2007 7:01:34 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf
Moreover, whatever the absolute right spelled out for the people to keep and bear arms, the natural right existed before the Constitution was written. The founders believed in a natural right to defense that only a tyrannous government would deny, and that a free man would exercise despite the law. What part of rights ‘endowed by their creator’ do they not get?

And ‘stand by and watch DC residents die’ is exactly what their position is if they think a handgun ban against law abiding citizens is HELPING. I believe murder in DC is down from when it was ‘murder-capitol’, but that is part of the nationwide trend. Concealed carry would be a policy designed to oppose ‘standing by and watching DC residents die’.

38 posted on 09/05/2007 7:10:44 AM PDT by allmendream (A Lyger is pretty much my favorite animal. (Hunter08))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pawdoggie
It's "ambiguous" to a Lefty who ignorance of English common law, and English grammar, leads him/her to conclude that the dependent clause, "a well -regulated...free state", somehow modifies or actually negates the independent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

Mere ignorance isn't so bad - we're all ignorant of a great many things.

There are 2 keys to negating ignorance: 1) a willingness to learn; and 2) a willingness to be honest - that is, to be willing to toss preconceived notions out the door when subsequent facts prove those notions to be wrong.

The Schumers, Feinsteins, McCarthys, Clintons, Bradys, Kennedys and Lautenbergs of the world aren't really that ignorant - they are lying SOBs with an agenda. They knowingly lie, distort and hide the truth from their "useful idiots" on the left and the media (/oxymoron). They are unwilling to learn, because that would require them to admit their errors and, much more importantly, to give up their agenda for forcing a "socialist utopia" down our throats.

39 posted on 09/05/2007 8:30:49 AM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com

Well, we’ll know for sure if, in the words of Claire Wolfe, “Is it Time to Shoot the Bastards yet?”


40 posted on 09/05/2007 8:35:38 AM PDT by skepsel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 next last

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