Right to bear arms in real jeopardy!
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Right to bear arms in real jeopardy!

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Posts
    1,084

    Right to bear arms in real jeopardy!

    See Here.

    (Filched from KeepandBearArms.com)

    Realizing gun laws are a timely topic, I wanted to weigh in on the recent ruling by our Supreme Court. First and foremost, I am disappointed in the recent 5-4 ruling by our Supreme Court. My concern is with the four who don't believe our Bill of Rights is worth supporting. The vote should have been unanimous.
    Furthermore, the ruling language causes grave concern as it is worded in such a way as to insinuate the Supreme Court has given us this basic right, rather than the long accepted notion that provides the Second Amendment as a God-given right. In addition, the wording is such that it is a qualified right versus simply confirming the basic right. Don't celebrate the decision yet; the wording of this decision suggests a very ominous future for the Second Amendment.

    Let me expound. The 5-4 decision effectively destroys the Second Amendment. I assume that sooner or later, somebody else is going to figure this out as well. First, the decision makes it clear the courts do not see laws against firearms ownership by felons and the mentally ill as violations of the Second Amendment. Nor do they oppose laws imposing conditions or qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. This can pose grave problems as the government can now determine who qualifies to own guns. An example might be returning fully functioning veterans being ruled mentally ill due to wartime exposure, trauma and so forth.

    Early in the decision, the ruling argues correctly the Second Amendment is NOT, as some detractors have argued, to be interpreted as only applying to weapons in existence at the time the Second Amendment was ratified. This is an important ruling inasmuch as it may be stated that if weapons that are most useful in military service may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the reasons for being inserted by the founders.

    It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require more sophisticated arms in today's world. Unfortunately for the founders, this ruling supports the elimination of these types of weapons. In other words, you still can't own the good stuff needed to operate an effective militia, only now, laws banning or limiting the right to own military firearms have the countenance of a Supreme Court decision.

    Another problem, early in the document, the majority correctly notes, the Second Amendment was held to protect a pre-existing right, not to bestow one.

    Yet a few pages later, in summarizing their view of the amendment, they affirm the Second Amendment "confers" an individual right to keep and bear arms. This is a critical point often overlooked.

    Another worry is what the decision didn't say; the entire thrust of the decision concerns whether the Second Amendment permits government to "prohibit" firearms ownership, when in fact, the Second Amendment uses the word "infringe."

    Infringement means legal interference or hindrance in any degree, up to and including, but by no means confined to, outright prohibition. The decision correctly agrees the Washington, D.C., handgun ban is a clear violation, but has no problem with other limitations to the right, as the document makes explicit.

    Bottom line -- don't break out the confetti and celebrate just yet, eventually we will awaken and realize what this decision really means. We have a Supreme Court decision defending not the Second Amendment in its plain and clear meaning; but the "right" of government to infringe on the Second Amendment pretty much at its pleasure. As for military firearms like fully-automatic weapons, high-capacity shotguns, rocket-propelled guns and the like, that are already prohibited, this ruling strengthens rather than weakens such laws.

    At the end of the day, this is a severe blow to the Second Amendment and the ability of citizens to do what the founders believed the Second Amendment was designed to accomplish.

    This important amendment was established not so we could hunt and enjoy target practice at the shooting range. It was written to assure citizens have the means and wherewithal to keep government in check and within certain bounds; now we have a court issuing rulings that open the floodgates for government to do as it will and the citizenry to have no way to keep it in check. Seems too far-fetched?

    History would tell us it is not matter of if, but when. It is a reality that has ALWAYS occurred when the citizens' weapons are eliminated.
    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32 & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

  2.   
  3. #2
    Good points made here ,All we can do is Pray and wait.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    I have been saying all along that even in the wake of the Heller decision, that Washington, D.C. would continue to have the worst gun laws in America. Was I not right?

    The ruling did not change anything for the vast majority of Americans, but it did leave intact infringements at the federal level (ie., NFA, the full auto ban, the ban on sawed off shotguns, etc) that would otherwise not exist at the state level in many states. Want someone who'll put an end to this madness? Cast a write-in vote for Congressman Ron Paul for President on Election Day.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    ... Cast a write-in vote for Congressman Ron Paul for President on Election Day.
    I've been preaching that R & D are the problems for over 30 years. Americans just can't understand that the lesser of 2 evils is still evil. They'd rather throw their vote away on the devil with their label than throw their vote away on someone who will not be elected.

    If enough people would abandon the so-called 2 party system and vote for 'fringe candidates' we might be able to change things. I don't mean to discourage you--continue to support candidates who support the Constitution (Paul was the lone Republican OR Democrat to do so), but don't burn yourself out because most people can't understand what you are saying.

    The disconnect between who people vote for and reality can be amazing.
    People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.--River Tam

  6. #5
    Furthermore, the ruling language causes grave concern as it is worded in such a way as to insinuate the Supreme Court has given us this basic right, rather than the long accepted notion that provides the Second Amendment as a God-given right.

    I agree and also the ruling means nothing if the constitution is suspended.

    "Today the path of total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government - a bureaucratic elite."
    Senator William Jenner, 1954

    "Since March 9, 1933, the United states has been in a state of national emergency. A majority of the people of the United States have their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (now 72 years) freedoms and governmental procedures, guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought forth by states of national emergency."
    Senate Report 93-549 (1973).

    "Nationalism is... First wave. The globalization of business and finance by advancing Third Wave economies routinely punctures the national "sovereignty" the nationalists hold so dear..." "The Third Wave... demassifies culture, values, and morality... There are more diverse religious belief systems." "The Consitution of the United States needs to be reconsidered and altered... to create a whole new structure of government..." The Tofflers say fundamentalist, biblical Christianity is "both dangerous and regressive." Beliefs in nationalism, patriotism, and an exclusive God, "give birth to violence or repression." Only when these "Dark Age" menaces are swept away can "advanced wealth creation" by the elite be achieved. Newt Gingrich Mason, member of both the World Future Society and the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote the forward to Alvin and Heidi Toffler's Creating a New Civilization

    "Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear - kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor - with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it..." General Douglas MacArthur, 1957
    Last edited by HK4U; 08-16-2008 at 04:42 PM. Reason: add
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  7. #6

    Pelosi agrees to vote on House Resolution re: D.C. ban

    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    I have been saying all along that even in the wake of the Heller decision, that Washington, D.C. would continue to have the worst gun laws in America. Was I not right?
    It is my understanding that Speaker Pelosi has agreed to have a vote sometime in mid-September on the House Resolution on the D.C. gun ban. That resolution goes a long way to give residents of the District access to firearms for self-defense, functional firearms this time, two states nearby to buy firearms because of no current FFL holder to sell guns in D.C. It also throws out the silly definition of a pistol being classified as a "machine gun". This resolution goes a long way to forcing D.C. to do what it should have done in the ruling and order of DC v Heller.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Vir Quisque Vir View Post
    It is my understanding that Speaker Pelosi has agreed to have a vote sometime in mid-September on the House Resolution on the D.C. gun ban. That resolution goes a long way to give residents of the District access to firearms for self-defense, functional firearms this time, two states nearby to buy firearms because of no current FFL holder to sell guns in D.C. It also throws out the silly definition of a pistol being classified as a "machine gun". This resolution goes a long way to forcing D.C. to do what it should have done in the ruling and order of DC v Heller.
    The problem with this resolution is that it is a resolution and not a bill, and therefore does not have the force of law. And if it does not have the force of law, D.C. can just ignore it. So no matter what the outcome of this resolution is, D.C. will continue to have the same Draconian gun laws it currently has.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast