Second Amendment -- Say goodbye to your guns?

[KCFlyer]

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions

Samuel Adams

Old Sam should have added "President" to that statement, since our pres pretty much DID what I bolded there. And if we let a president violate one...what's to stop another president from violating another one??

 

[local 12 proud]

OH dear GOD, I must be losing my mind !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Having said that, .........lil' ol' LIBERAL ME, is CHANGING his stance on Gun Control

YES................what you've read is not a misprint .

All the GC in the world, is NOT going to stop some skin head, or homie, from "carrying", especially in the Cities !!

(I think local "12" proud is starting to rub off on me) :unsure:

Bears.....

‘‘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.’’

— Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

 

[delldude]

Old Sam should have added "President" to that statement, since our pres pretty much DID what I bolded there. And if we let a president violate one...what's to stop another president from violating another one??

First off....using the executive order a president can inact law pretty much at their own whim.If congress does nothing to object in 30 days,I believe it becomes law.(Hillary will abuse this)

Second.....your president didn't violate those bolded items without help from both sides of the aisle.Suddenly I see your boys backing off their stance against the patriot act as they're going into an election campaign and don't want to look soft on terror.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Bears.....

‘‘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.’’

— Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"12",
I hear ya'

 

[KCFlyer]

First off....using the executive order a president can inact law pretty much at their own whim.If congress does nothing to object in 30 days,I believe it becomes law.(Hillary will abuse this)

Second.....your president didn't violate those bolded items without help from both sides of the aisle.Suddenly I see your boys backing off their stance against the patriot act as they're going into an election campaign and don't want to look soft on terror.

Hmmm...seems to me that a court ruled the warrantless wiretaps (which were approved under the Patriot Act) to be unconstitutional, but...I guess executive order (royal dictate) trumps "activist judges", because once again, they've been approved by King George.

As far as who will abuse it...I guess because Bush has set the precedent for abuse of power, what would stop Hillary, or anyone else, from doing the same thing?

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Bears.....

‘‘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.’’

— Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

It was James Madison who proposed the second amendment. He wrote very insightful words in the federalist papers, words that add insight to this discussion as well. It has to deal with arms and the states' prevention of tyranny, which delldude correctly mentioned as being a catalyst behind the 2nd amendment.

"Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. . . . To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.. . .

On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them."

 

[Veritas]

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger... To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops...

It almost reads as if he is predicting the Civil War, except that he got the winner wrong.

 

[local 12 proud]

"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." - Edward Abbey

.....Fill your hand, you son-of-a-b!tch.....! - RC

 

[Gilding the Lily]

"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." - Edward Abbey

.....Fill your hand, you son-of-a-b!tch.....! - RC

Indirectly, that is a good point. Although I do not advocate a heavy legislation of guns, if guns were *heavily* restricted, I think you would most definitely see a rise in the prominence of state militias... almost to a point of which the founding fathers envisioned. You would see many people join state militias on a volunteer-when-needed basis, just so they can keep their weapons. This, in turn, would help the states maintain their rights instead of being ceded to the union.

BTW, gotta love Monkey Wrench.

 

[local 12 proud]

Indirectly, that is a good point. Although I do not advocate a heavy legislation of guns, if guns were *heavily* restricted, I think you would most definitely see a rise in the prominence of state militias... almost to a point of which the founding fathers envisioned. You would see many people join state militias on a volunteer-when-needed basis, just so they can keep their weapons. This, in turn, would help the states maintain their rights instead of being ceded to the union.

Yea and I would be the first to organize/join!!!!

BTW, gotta love Monkey Wrench.

 

[MMB]

...I guess executive order (royal dictate) trumps "activist judges", because once again, they've been approved by King George.

As far as who will abuse it...I guess because Bush has set the precedent for abuse of power, what would stop Hillary, or anyone else, from doing the same thing? ...

Bush set a precedent??

"Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kind of cool," was the statement made by White House communications counsel Paul Begala in July 1998. He was talking about the ease with which President Clinton was able to create law virtually unchallenged using executive orders and presidential directives.

Themes of many of President Clinton's executive orders were:
A relative shift in foreign policy and national security from concerns about national interests to international arrangements;
The promotion of federal government control over environmental policy, with a corresponding disrespect for the rights of private property owners;
The expansion of federal regulatory power over various aspects of private life;
The promotion of organized unions' political agenda at the expense of government and consumer efficiency;
The promotion of preferential treatment and quotas for certain racial and ethnic groups at the expense of equal treatment under law.

 

[KCFlyer]

Bush set a precedent??

"Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kind of cool," was the statement made by White House communications counsel Paul Begala in July 1998. He was talking about the ease with which President Clinton was able to create law virtually unchallenged using executive orders and presidential directives.

I still believe that Bush has that beat...Clinton "created law" virtually unchallenged, while Bush amended the constitution, despite a challenge of warrantless wiretaps being deemed by a judge to be unconstitutional.

 

[delldude]

"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans ...... And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities."
Bill Clinton, 3-22-94

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Although I disagree with his reasoning... I find it interesting:

The best way to make sense of the Second Amendment is to take away all the commas (which, I know, means that only outlaws will have commas). Without the distracting commas, one can focus on the grammar of the sentence. Professor Lund is correct that the clause about a well-regulated militia is “absolute,†but only in the sense that it is grammatically independent of the main clause, not that it is logically unrelated. To the contrary, absolute clauses typically provide a causal or temporal context for the main clause.

The founders — most of whom were classically educated — would have recognized this rhetorical device as the “ablative absolute†of Latin prose. To take an example from Horace likely to have been familiar to them: “Caesar, being in command of the earth, I fear neither civil war nor death by violence†(ego nec tumultum nec mori per vim metuam, tenente Caesare terras). The main clause flows logically from the absolute clause: “Because Caesar commands the earth, I fear neither civil war nor death by violence.â€

Likewise, when the justices finish diagramming the Second Amendment, they should end up with something that expresses a causal link, like: “Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.†In other words, the amendment is really about protecting militias, notwithstanding the originalist arguments to the contrary.

Advocates of both gun rights and gun control are making a tactical mistake by focusing on the commas of the Second Amendment. After all, couldn’t one just as easily obsess about the founders’ odd use of capitalization? Perhaps the next amicus brief will find the true intent of the amendment by pointing out that “militia†and “state†are capitalized in the original, whereas “people†is not.

Unabashedly Liberal Source (NY Times)

 

[local 12 proud]

Although I disagree with his reasoning... I find it interesting:

This is what I find Interesting!

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5378504.html