From Our Cold, Dead Hands
June 26th, 2008 at 06:40pm Matt Margolis
A good decision from the Supreme Court today.
McCain called the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the D.C. gun ban a “landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom” and said Obama has reversed his positions on guns.
Speaking on his bus before making a stop at Skyline Chili, McCain acknowledged the amicus brief he filed in the case and said he was “pleased with the ruling.” But he said Obama has changed his positions on gun control.
“All I can say it’s one in a long, in a long series in reversals of positions,” McCain said. “In a few days he has gone from opposing nuclear power, to not a proponent, to willing to explore. I fully anticipate — whether it be on his pledge on public financing or his position on the Second Amendment, or any other issues — he is changing his positions. So it’s not surprising.”
UPDATE: The stupid comment of the day:
“I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it.” – Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).
70 years of precedent? How about the 216 years of precedent from the Constitution:
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.
Entry Filed under: Supreme Court
74 Comments
1. Magnum Serpentine | June 26th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Justice roberts and Justice alito, the words worse Judicial Activist. The worse decision of the day. Two Boneheads who do not know how to be judges.
the republic party controlled supreme court out of control. This is indeed the height of republic party judicial activism. A total setback for those wanting to be safe from harm, a black eye for the United States on law enforcement.
2. Eric T | June 26th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Guns bring alot of joy and happiness into my life. Some folks like bowling, golf, dancing. My friends and I get together and go shooting and that is what we like. Some of us have bought land to shoot on. We all have got quite a bit of money wrapped up into the hobby/sport.
So to think that one freedom hating leftist judge, is all that it would have taken to turn our hobby, our fun, what we have worked for all our lives, turned it upside down and ruled that we no longer have a 2nd Amendment.
That was too close, Freedom prevailed today, but will it under Obama??? The answer is no!! Obama has a record on guns that he should be ashamed of. And he will appoint like minded justices to the Supreme Court.
Could Obama have a change of heart? Yes, but he needs to go back to the Senate and prove it to us for a few more years, get some more experience, stay on the right side of this issue, than maybe I’d consider voting for him.
But as of now, John McCain has a very impressive record, I can look at his record and see that he is serious about freedom and the 2nd Amendment, by the way he voted on many gun related issues. In fact his record is so impressive I’m proud to recommend every gun owner I speak with, reasons why he is a Superior choice to Obama.
With Obama you’ll get Leftist judges like the 4 that felt the 2nd Amendment is obsolete, You’ll get terrible advice, and input from Ted Kennedy, Clinton, Feinstein, Schumer, and the other far left voices that believe that you don’t need freedom. And Obama will cave to the U.N and global anti-gun groups as well.
There is only one choice McCain!!!!
3. 42 | June 26th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
so now I can bring a gun into the Supreme Court right?
4. Eric T | June 26th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Guns bring alot of joy and happiness into my life. Some folks like bowling, golf, dancing. My friends and I get together and go shooting and that is what we like. Some of us have bought land to shoot on. We all have got quite a bit of money wrapped up into the hobby/sport.
So to think that one freedom hating leftist judge, is all that it would have taken to turn our hobby, our fun, what we have worked for all our lives, turned it upside down and ruled that we no longer have a 2nd Amendment.
That was too close, Freedom prevailed today, but will it under Obama??? The answer is no!! Obama has a record on guns that he should be ashamed of. And he will appoint like minded justices to the Supreme Court.
Could Obama have a change of heart? Yes, but he needs to go back to the Senate and prove it to us for a few more years, get some more experience, stay on the right side of this issue, than maybe I’d consider voting for him.
But as of now, John McCain has a very impressive record, I can look at his record and see that he is serious about freedom and the 2nd Amendment, by the way he voted on many gun related issues. In fact his record is so impressive I’m proud to recommend every gun owner I speak with, reasons why he is a Superior choice to Obama.
With Obama you’ll get Leftist judges like the 4 that felt the 2nd Amendment is obsolete, You’ll get terrible advice, and input from Ted Kennedy, Clinton, Feinstein, Schumer, and the other far left voices that believe that you don’t deserve freedom, and you’ll probably get Obama caving to pressure from the U.N and global anti-gun groups.
John McCain is the only choice for sportsmen!!!
5. Magnum Serpentine | June 26th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Vote for team McBush if you want the same old same old disaster of the last 7 1/2 years. Some lawyers are saying ALL gun laws are outlawed. I feel for those who are cops after this incompetent decision of roberts and alito. this incompetent decision has left the police with-out protection. Thank you again republic party for making us unsafe.
6. Gozer the Carpathian | June 26th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
How the hell is the Supreme Court doing their bloody job and stating the obvious judicial activism? They did exactly what they’re supposed to do, see if a law is constitutional or not, PERIOD.
It’s quite simple and I’m very annoyed that it came to this in the first place. The Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. The Bill of rights were a set of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS that limited THE GOVERNMENT not the people.
I may not like certain speech or religions but those are covered by the first amendment so any law that tries to remove that right is unconstitutional. The same should simply be said for gun rights under the second amendment.
You want to fix illegal use of guns? GO AFTER CRIMINALS! The only people who are affected by gun control laws are LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. Sheesh…
7. Chuckasaurus | June 26th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Magnum - How do you think that law abiding citizens owning guns are making anyone unsafe? isn’t it the criminals who own guns illegally that we really have to worry about?
How many criminals go out and buy a gun legally, then use it in a crime?
You seem pretty smart, so I can only guess that you are merely towing the party line here, because any intelligent person knows that when you take guns away from law abiding citizens, then the criminals have the advantage. Allowing law abiding citizens to legally purchase and own firearms does not endanger the police, or anyone else. The only people who need to fear law abiding citizens are criminals.
8. Gozer the Carpathian | June 26th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
I love how folks feel for our law enforcment but not for our normal citizens. I have a few simple questions for you folks who seem to think this was such a bad thing.
1. Did the “Assault Weapons Ban” ban Automatic Weapons?
2. Do criminals follow the law?
3. What is the average response time to your neighborhood by the police?
4. If you’re not given the option to defend yourself with equal firepower of a criminal what are you supposed to do?
5. If the 2nd amendment is “outdated” because guns “could only fire one bullete every 15 seconds” when it was written is the 1st amendment outdated and should be ignored as well since we could talk around the world in mere seconds?
9. Retired Spook | June 26th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
UPDATE: The stupid comment of the day:
Oh, I don’t know; I think this one “trumps” Feinstein’s idiocy:
10. Gozer the Carpathian | June 26th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Oh you heard that one too Spook? Yeah I agree that one is the stupid comment of the day for me.
Hello, the constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND moron!
11. Nate | June 26th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
where are all the well regulated militias that need to keep and bear all these guns?
guess 5 of the justices can’t read very well….
12. Gozer the Carpathian | June 26th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
What part of “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” did you not understand?
The “Militia” you mention is YOU and I. Those who wish to stand up and defend their neighborhoods, cities, and states.
13. The New Conservative | June 26th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Good to see Kennedy can still read the Constitution I was begining to wonder because of his recent rulings.
http://thenewconservatives.blogspot.com/
14. CanadianObserver | June 26th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
America’s love affair with firearms has produced one of the most violent societies in the free world.
The old West mentality of the good guys vs the bad guys is ingrained into the nation’s psyche and seems impossible to cure.
Every attempt at disarming its
citizens has failed. After each massacre, outrage is voiced but
quickly dies down and then it is back to business as usual.
Doesn’t matter how many innocent perish; as Eric T has said, the right to bear arms brings a lot of joy and happiness into a person’s life and I’m sure that packing heat creates a warm and fuzzy feeling for all upstanding gun owners.
15. Gozer the Carpathian | June 26th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Yes it does Canada, as it does to many of your own citizens. It sounds as if you think that just because someone owns a gun that it automatically makes them “violent.” Or heck that guns in and of themselves causes a violent society.
Do we have voilence here? Heck yeah, I’m not aruging that point. What I want to know, is what do all of you who want to take away our guns plan to do for all of us unarmed law abiding citizens when the criminals continue to break the law. Hmm?
Pull an England and try to ban more guns? (When they’re already banned?) Pull an Australia and ban crossbows and swords? Discuss removing KNIVES from all non-chefs in the country? (U.K.) Wonder why stabing sprees are on the rise? (Japan) Tell people to “turn on a light and let the criminal know you’re there so you won’t surprise them and have them attack you?” (U.K.)
Just because you take away guns doesn’t mean you’re safer. Just because everyone has guns doesn’t mean you’re less safe. I love pointing out Switzerland and how every household has a fully automatic weapon in the home! OMG! You’d think the way some put it (not you Canada BTW) that Switzerland would be the most violent and bloodthirsty country in the world with all those guns around!
16. Danish Artist | June 26th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Magnum stupidity is even more incoherent than ever. Can do nothing but repeat the same liberal talking points that are completely off topic.
42 is just as bad.
Nate research what a militia is/was and who were among their ranks. “the right of the people to bear arms” not “right of the people in militias to bear arms” or “right of the militias to bear arms”. You need to go back to Constitution 101.
CO, since you are from Canada, I cut you some slack. But, “massacres” occur, when either:
a) people use guns already banned or illegal.
b) the person have said gun is illegal.
c) criminals, who are not allow to have guns by law, use them.
adding more laws to already existing laws in effect only limit guns to law abiding citizens. These citizens are then preyed upon by criminals with illegal guns.
Liberals fear the average citizen with guns, so citizens can keep their states free from oppressive governments including the government here. Uh, which party constantly finds ways to abridge our liberties and freedoms in the name of “fairness” and the “good of society”. The same lefties who are screeching about how America is more unsafe.
Diane Feinstein is the biggest hypocrite of them all! She is the biggest advocate for gun control and SHE CARRIES!
17. neocon | June 26th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
CO,
The 2nd Amendment was written so the citizenry had protection against…..the government. It’s in an Americans DNA to own a gun.
Secondly, guns are inanimate objects, in case you were at all confused, incapable of intent. That would be the person holding the gun, and this time you’ll just have to actually hold someone responsible for their actions.
Not the gun. Just saying
18. Eric T | June 26th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
CO-
That is a pretty hefty load of crap your peddling, America is the cause of violence across the world, because we like guns. So in your socialist fairy tale world where all guns are only in the hands of government officials, there will be no more crime??? What are you guys banning up there this week, cooking knifes, free speech????
19. Ricorun | June 26th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Hey Danish, this is apropos of nothing I guess, but I just gotta ask… what do you do with your pencil when you’re not drawing cartoons? hehe.
20. Jeremiah | June 26th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
America’s love affair with firearms has produced one of the most violent societies in the free world.–CO.
CO,
Not by a long shot, CO. You see, we need a criminal justice system, now we officially have one.
HOORAY! For justice and peace.
21. bagni | June 26th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
dead hand matt:
us extraterrestial trigger squeezers believe everyone should be able to own a gun
it’s what astro america is all about
in reality
rifles make sense
too bad handguns are simply made to kill people
with that said
the cosmic crew believes americans have enough handguns….there’s 150mm in circulation
in a perfect world why not stop manufacturing handguns?
there’s plenty to go around
and think of the wonderful gray mkt that will ensue
there will be lots of revenue to spread around
that way the nra can have their way and put a cap in an ass when they feel like it
and the gun controllers can feel good knowing that in 200 years…..the handguns will finally go away
22. Cooldown | June 26th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
From Webster Militia1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b: a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
Roberts and Alito do not define “militia” as Webster does, but such activist simply make up their own definitions to fit their needs.
As stated it makes no difference what the Constitution says, the court has ruled and we must live with it. This is similar to the fact a woman’s right to chose is the law of the land.
23. Eric T | June 26th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
bagni
folks use handguns shooting on leagues, for hunting, and just for FUN.
Think of handicapped people with a gimp hand, or bad shoulder that can’t shoulder a rifle.
Bagni, what do you like, music, art, shopping, going to niteclubs. What if people wanted to ban stuff you like.
It is easy to make a good arguement for banning alcohol and nightclubs when you see how many drunk driving deaths occur, but people like their alcohol. And people like hunting and guns.
24. phnx | June 26th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
As usual, the leftists trolls read the headlines and not the decision. The majority decision clearly deliniates why the 2nd ammendment refers to an individual and not a collective right. Finally clarity on the subject, not that it will make any difference to the leftist.
25. Kahn | June 26th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Eric T -
Barbasol shaving cream. $.98 at Wal-Mart. Best target ever to take to the range. Hit em with a .22 and they fly around spouting shaving cream. Hit with something high velocity and they blow up in a white cloud - that smells kinda nice.
Freedom prevailed today. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because without those Amendments - it was rejected. Rights there are spelled out to protect us, not the government, us from people who think they know all and want to control all.
26. Kahn | June 26th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Eric, to your last post: In fact cars kill MANY more people than guns. And drunk drivers are responsible for thousands of deaths every year.
But in D.C., ONLY criminals have guns. Cops, soldiers, and criminals. There is no way to defend that.
Let the landslide begin.
27. js | June 27th, 2008 at 12:11 am
folks would not think the right to bear arms was so trivial if we came under invasion by a coalition of foreign nations and they didnt have a gun…because some city council member was a bleedin liberal….
28. js | June 27th, 2008 at 12:12 am
why dont they outlaw alchohol instead of guns since alchohol kills so many more people? where are the tree huggers? leave the 2nd amendment alone….
29. What? | June 27th, 2008 at 12:18 am
js writes,
why dont they outlaw alchohol instead of guns since alchohol kills so many more people? where are the tree huggers? leave the 2nd amendment alone….
Um, we did outlaw alcohol. We passed a constitutional amendment banning it. That did not work out.
Although I believe the 2nd Amendment does give a person a right to own a gun, I think if handguns were banned there would be a huge drop in shooting deaths, despite what some commenters here claim.
Not every person shot to death is shot by an illegally obtained handgun.
30. arcman46 | June 27th, 2008 at 12:30 am
The left hates gun, for exactly the same reason they love entitlement programs. It is about control and power. Take Social Security for example. Social Security hurts the poor simply because the poor can’t afford to save money after payroll taxes are taken out. How do I know this? There was a time when I was incredibly poor, and there was nothing left after paying bills and eating. Welfare makes people dependent on government. Why do you think there were so many problems in New Orleans after Katrina? Guns allow people to take care of themselves and not have to worry if the police get to them in time. The left cannot tolerate independence.
31. Jeremiah | June 27th, 2008 at 12:48 am
why dont they outlaw alchohol instead of guns since alchohol kills so many more people?
That would be a grand idea, js.
But ya know what, the people who drink it don’t care about those around them that it is destroying, so the Distillers just keep pumping it out. I couldn’t tell you the people that I know that alcohol has ruined their lives. We have no one to blame except them, the retarded consumer.
Alcohol destroys people!
32. Kahn | June 27th, 2008 at 1:11 am
What? I’ve been carrying a gun for years and years and years. Never shot anyone.
Some Police carry guns their whole lives and never once shoot anyone or even take it out of the holster.
Guns, by there very presence can be a deterrent. Hand guns are used in self defense situations far more times every year than they are for crimes. It’s just that in many of these situations no shots are fired. That is still being used. And areas with legal gun ownership have fewer shooting than areas without.
I know you “feel” this is wrong. But the facts are not with you. Even a cursory examination of reality would demonstrate this to you. If only you cared enough to make rational decisions instead of emotional ones.
33. Danish Artist | June 27th, 2008 at 6:51 am
What? gets it wrong again:
“I think if handguns were banned there would be a huge drop in shooting deaths”
What?
Uh, look at DC. Shooting deaths rose after the ban.
The same goes for other liberal bastions or utopias out there. The areas with gun violence always have bans or restrictions in place. The criminal knows the law abiding citizen will be defenseless and easy prey.
Sheesh, the liberal manta is never ending and always proven wrong. Why do they keep using it?
Cooldown:
From Webster Militia1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b: a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
Thanks for proving the SC justices correct. Militias are units of common citizenry, who are armed. As stated in the 2nd amendment.
The operative clause “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BEAR ARMS”. THE PEOPLE! not limited to militias, BUT THE PEOPLE.
Sheesh, another liberal mantra proven wrong but yet they still use it.
34. bull | June 27th, 2008 at 7:02 am
guns are illlegal in DC. has that brought down the number of shooting deaths? no, it’s gone up.
funny how the left spits out how bush has destroyed the constitution, yet they are the ones who want to ignore it and blast the SC for ruling in favor of the US Constitution.
wow, i mean, just WOW!
35. Cooldown | June 27th, 2008 at 7:18 am
33. Danish Artist | June 27th, 2008 at 6:51 am
So sad, you leave out words in the definition to prove your point and then use only half of the text in the 2nd amendment. It is only one sentence. Wingnuts.
36. OhioOrrin | June 27th, 2008 at 7:38 am
handgun violence =
17-24 yr old, urban, black males killing each other & innocent black bystanders.
take their guns, not mine.
end of story.
37. Greg-O | June 27th, 2008 at 8:13 am
“A Government resting on a minority, is an aristocracy not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing Army, and enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.” - James Madison
James Madison was responsible for proposing the Second Amendment and was one of three authors of the Federalist Papers, a group of essays published in newspapers to explain and lobby for ratification of the Constitution.
“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.” - Patrick Henry
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” - Mahatma Gandhi
“In a polity, each citizen is to possess his own arms, which are not supplied or owned by the state.” - Aristotle
“Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.” - Heinrich Himmler
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.” - Adolph Hitler
“We cannot be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.” - Bill Clinton, USA Today, 3/11/93, page 2A
38. The brain | June 27th, 2008 at 8:28 am
30 years ago communism was on the rise, an inevitable juggernaught that would tip the first domino in Vietnam and bring us all into a socialist utopia. Our progressive democrat followers have spent the years waiting for the last domino to tip over the US into glorious communism where they will get their utiopian vision.
Instead freedom clings on, capitolism refuses to fall, and our leftist friends sit in confusion. That is why Fienstien made the 30 years comment.
39. Retired Spook | June 27th, 2008 at 8:45 am
I was reading the AP account of the decision in the national news section of my home page this morning. The AP, certainly no bastion of right wingers, made some interesting points.
I’m guessing that, had this decision gone the other way, that “archaic grouping of citizens” would have instantly become less “archaic”, because, as Justice Scalia noted in the majority opinion, that is what the 2nd Amendment is really about, protecting one’s self and property, not just from those who would do us harm, but also from an oppressive and tyrannical government.
Gee, imagine backing up his opinion with actual writings of the very people who penned the Constitution instead of using contemporary morals or foreign law.
Au contraire, Justice Stevens. If you read the Constitution very carefully, you’ll find the evidence in the same paragraph that grants an unlimited right to abortion.
For any readers here who wish to educate themselves more on this topic, this comprehensive piece written by David Vandercoy for the University of Valparaiso Law Review (about an hour from me) is an excellent place to start.
40. Bitchslap | June 27th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Since the well regulated militia portion of the second amendment is ignored in modern conservative thought, do any of the conservatives here believe that any laws can be made that would infringe on an individual’s right to bear arms? Remember the second amendment deals with arms, not just guns. Can a law be made that says it is illegal for me to own a nuclear weapon? From the comments on this site it seems as if most of the conservatives would support me in my right to own a nuclear weapon.
If you do not support me in my endeavor, then how can you justify that in regards to the second amendment. Is it not absolute? If not, then it clearly weakens your argument to use the second amendment in any case except an outright ban of all arms in society.
41. ZootAllure | June 27th, 2008 at 9:19 am
As I’ve said before the shallow thought challenged Libs get their little pink panties in a wad because the Gov might read their email but have NO PROBLEM with that same Gov having all the guns…stupidity on a scale that is hard to believe.
Its real simple you nitwits:
A well regulated Militia,(that would be the people) being necessary to the security of a free State,(cause if the Gov has all the guns you have NO POWER) the right of the people(thats you again numbnut) to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A look at Canada (the very best at being north of America) is all it takes to see the effects of a neutered populace not to mention Europe.
42. Retired Spook | June 27th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Bitchslap, I would definitely support your right to own a nuclear weapon as long as you can afford to buy it and find someone who will sell it to you. Why, you’re probably wealthy enough to buy a couple. After all, what if you buy one, and it’s a dud? I guess to be sure you’d have to test it — preferably in your basement.
Your comment reminds me of a line by Jeff Foxworthy on “Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader:
43. Danish Artist | June 27th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Cooldown, lay off the bong.
I copied your definition you provided verbatim. I did not leave anything out.
The 2nd amendment is a complete sentence? Duh.
I was pointing out the significant clause. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE who make up the militia (definition provided by you). The 2nd amendment does not separate the militia from the people. The people have the right to bear arms not the singled out militia. An armed populace is necessary for a “well regulated militia”.
Sheesh. You libs are so f*cking dumb. Well you libs do look for rights that don’t exist and look for ways around restrictions that do.
44. neocon | June 27th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Bitch…….slap,
Do you believe that a ban on all “arms” will make violence and war obsolete?
That’s a yes or no question.
peace, neocon
45. David B. Schmidt | June 27th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Two points overlooked in the majority opinion is that the Militia part has no bearing on the 2nd Amendment as it applies to the individual and that handguns were specifically mentioned (for some of the reasons mentioned previously).
To bad the SCOTUS couldn’t have come to their senses one decision earlier. Oh, and BS, this doesn’t stop states and cities from passing reasonable laws. You still need to be a Class III firearms dealer to own an automatic and buy, sell or transfer several other types of weapons.
Reasonable is not Obama’s attempt to outlaw gun shops within 5 miles of a school, church or playground either.
Nonetheless, you can have a nuke — I think one of the past issues of the liberal rags that try to pass as newspapers published all of the required information in-between outing real covert operatives–Look for the A.Q.Kahn headlines. Some Assembly Required (not the poster).
46. Magnum Serpentine | June 27th, 2008 at 10:54 am
I bet Judical Activist roberts asked the NRA what to do when he got this case. after all he is fond of calling up the Big Wig Family rights groups and asking them how he should rule in Abortion cases.
Many European nations have crime rates much lower than the United States, and its very interesting that many of those same nations ban all guns. Infact in some nations you only have to spend only a few years in prison and their repeat offender rate is less than 10 percent of the United States. 140 years of cowboy republic party control and see what you get.
47. OhioOrrin | June 27th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Here’s the militia the lefties believe should carry guns-
“The roots of the modern Constitutional militia movement is found in the revolutionary nature of the militia with precedents in United States colonial history, found in the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. Constitution, and subsequent federal legislation. This early republican militia tradition included an armed *UNORGANIZED* populace with the function to safeguard against the tyranny of government and standing armies. The modern constitutional movement began as early as 1958, although, in this early phase, the movement was based ideologically with the *WHITE SUPREMACIST CHRISTIAN IDENTITY MILITIA* movement mixed with constitutionalist elements. With the advent of the neo-militia movement of the 1990s, beginning in 1992, the constitutionalist elements became more dominant, although they were still mixed with some underlying Christian Identity themes. [4]
Beginning circa 1960, a fear of Communism was prevalent in the United States in light of communist victories in China, Africa, Eastern Europe and Latin America. This concern was shared by members of the militia movement who feared a collectivist takeover of the United States. The constitutionalist militia purpose draws upon the old Colonial role of the militias as defenders of America against foreign invaders generally, and specifically against collectivist forces infiltrating and dominating within the United States. These militias believe in the sanctity of the U.S. Constitution, and that certain groups are conspiring to destroy America. *Unlike the Christian Identity militias, the Constitutionalist militias generally tend to not cast blame on ethnic, racial or religious lines, but rather blame the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and the New World Order.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_militia_movement
48. bitchslap | June 27th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Spook,
So all arms that have ever been invented in any way you support the owning of by any individual. Weapons of mass destruction of any sort are ok to own by individuals. I can make bombs all day long in my house and you have no problem with it what so ever. That is great, but the problem is that is not simply the reality of our country. Some arms are not legal to own and will never be legal to own. There is not anyone who actually disagrees with most of these outside of talking crap on a forum like you are engaging in.
I am simply pointing out the weakness of the arguments made on this particular topic. All any of the conservatives can do is point to the second amendment. The problem is that the second amendment is not absolute and never will be. As stated by Schmidt, the government can still make reasonable laws regarding arms. Pointing to the second amendment does not actually argue any point in this particular decision. You have to go much further than the conservatives on this site are capable of to actually defend this decision.
Neocon, how about you answer some of the questions I posed and then I will play your little game. Sound fair, or are you afraid?
Schmidt, I agree that the government has the right to ignore the absoluteness of the second amendment and make reasonable laws. The problem is that you have not shown why this law is unreasonable and why whatever proposed law you have attributed to Obama is unreasonable other than stating you think it so. Sorry, but it takes much more than that to actually argue a point.
49. factfinder | June 27th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
It’s laughable to hear Diane Feinstein talking about precedent. I don’t recall her demanding that courts follow precedent when the Supreme Court decided to give foreign enemy combatants access to habeas corpus, or when the California Supreme Court decided to change the definition of marriage. Love that liberal hypocrisy.
50. Retired Spook | June 27th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
So all arms that have ever been invented in any way you support the owning of by any individual. Weapons of mass destruction of any sort are ok to own by individuals.
No, of course not. My previous comment was clearly tongue-in-cheek, a fact obviously lost on your microscopic intellect.
I can make bombs all day long in my house and you have no problem with it what so ever.
You could, I suppose, and hopefully one of them would malfunction and cleanse the gene pool of one incredibly stupid SOB, or, at the very least, an astute neighbor would discover your activity and turn you in to the FBI or DHLS.
Some arms are not legal to own and will never be legal to own.
Well, DUH!!!! And I and about 99.99% of the supporters of the 2nd Amendment don’t have a problem with that. And as David Schmidt notes above: this decision doesn’t stop cities and states from passing reasonable laws. The Court decided that the DC law was clearly NOT REASONABLE.
I am simply pointing out the weakness of the arguments made on this particular topic.
So far the only weak arguments have been made by those on your side of the issue.
You have to go much further than the conservatives on this site are capable of to actually defend this decision.
ROTFLMAO!!! I’m betting you didn’t read the piece from the University of Valparaiso Law School that I linked to above, did you? Clearly you have not presented ANY comprehensive arguments to support your view.
51. bitchslap | June 27th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
And by stating this you have just proven the bad logic used by your fellow conservatives to support this decision.
You sure resort quickly to insults. Normally this signifies a lack of ability to argue one’s point or a complete lack of a point; I will give you the benefit of the doubt this time and assume you are a special case.
And what exactly is my view Spook?
The problem is that the only view continually thrown out by conservatives on this site is that all that is needed to support this decision is typing out the second amendment. As you have stated yourself Spook, the second amendment does not protect the right of any individual to own any particular arm. I am just asking for the conservative posters on this site to go a little further in their reasoning and logic and actually type out something that is relevant to the discussion. Is that really too much to ask. Maybe they enjoy wallowing in their stupidity, but it doesn’t hurt to try and drag them away from that.
52. David B. Schmidt | June 27th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
In a partial answer to your query: This case was brought through the ranks of the courts by a person who was required by his position to carry a firearm in DC (where all guns are outlawed?) to protect other people but he was not allowed to keep a firearm in his own house in DC to protect his family. Please tell me this does sound unreasonable to you.
The reason behind the unreasonable position of the Obama proposed 5 mile limit is the same one behind the 1 mile limit (same parameters except distance) against (pick your perv here) to rout out everything (so far) from child molesters, all sex offenders to whatever they dream up next by preventing them from renting a house / apartment, getting a job, etc. within that radius. Currently in affect in several cities and counties nationwide including Miami, Miami Beach and few others north. When one county enacts this policy / law–the problem shifts–then the next county does the same.
At one mile it excludes almost every part of every city all the way out through suburbia–wonder what 5 miles would do? It would do what Obama’s record and statements through the years couldn’t quite complete–a complete circumvention of the 2nd Amendment.
Now, I do not want a child molester or a previously convicted sex offender of any type moving in next door but I feel that is a job for me and my other neighbors to take up at our local board. It isn’t something for 6-person panel (in my case) some 35 miles away that have no idea about me except I am worth $0.0942 / $1000 once a year.
I was brought up to pull myself up by the bootstraps and then help others around me to their feet–not to rely on a bunch of people that have no concept of what real work is like deciding what flavor ice cream and how much I should eat.
53. David B. Schmidt | June 27th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
To follow up on the next posting — the reasoning behind the second amendment is to have a fully armed nation that can overthrow the government (any one or all three branches) when it gets too whacked out–the government~not the BDS populace.
A fully armed populace — to overthrow — our own government. This means the general population is required to own these weapons outside of government control. The Military is under government control as are the police and other well defined armed sections of our society.
Once again a check & balance that was built into our Constitution.
54. Retired Spook | June 27th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Bitchslap,
You’ve posted here previously under the pseudonym SteaM, haven’t you?
And what exactly is my view Spook?
Sigh, I rest my case.
55. Dasein Libsbane | June 27th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
The things that struck me the most in Scalia’s opinion (and Steven’s dissent, btw) is that there is the lack of activism is staggering. Both tomes rely on the language of the day, the intent of the framers, the prevailing law and customs, and English Common Law which set the stage for both interpretations of the Second Amendment.
Scalia (not Roberts or Alito, MS you insufferable buffoon) framed the Amendment using both parts of the wording; “militia” and “the people” to determine that one is not a requirement of the other. In the context of the Constitution written up to that date, the term “the people” was used three other times and in each and every instance it meant all of the people, not a group or a subset or a restricted membership in any group or organization. Scalia never states that militia “has no bearing” on the second amendment; Mr. Schmidt, on the contrary he states that it clearly has a bearing on the citizens’ right to bear arms, as I’ll explain below. All of the Bill of Rights are collective rights, not restrictive rights.
For me the most compelling is the attachment of the right as “shall not be infringed.” This clearly demonstrates that the right to keep and bear arms wasn’t granted by the Constitution, nor was it codified by the government’s laws but was already guaranteed to every citizen, and previously sanctified by English Common Law dating back to the Stewarts, to every subject of the Crown and by extension every citizen of the new United States. That right, granted in English Common Law was to guarantee that the citizenry could net be bullied by either the Government or by the militia formed by the government to usurp the citizens’ rights. It was the right to arm for the purpose of defense for and from the government that Scalia writes about.
56. David B. Schmidt | June 27th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
DL,
In this case I meant to say what you said; however, I was not as eloquent nor did I fully expand the argument. Well, everyone has an off day (or year).
-David
57. bitchslap | June 27th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Spook,
Quit jumping to conclusions and hurling insults and just argue your damn point. If I challenge you, do not have such thin skin and start trying to attack in every direction except the original one you started down.
I personally don’t have a problem with the ruling, what I have a problem with is the lack of logic being used from conservatives on this site.
58. bitchslap | June 27th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Bane and Schmidt, thank you for detailed reasoned responses.
59. Dasein Libsbane | June 27th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
David,
No worries, I’ve been following your logic and am simpatico with the interpretation save that one point.
As I said, I’m pleased to see all sides addressed the ruling without legislating from the bench, even the dissent. As you said above, too bad the Court doesn’t always use this line of reasoning.
60. Retired Spook | June 27th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Spook,
Quit jumping to conclusions and hurling insults and just argue your damn point
Aha, I knew it. F*ck off, SteaM.
61. Dasein Libsbane | June 27th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Spook,
That link you gave sets the stage for Scalia’s interpretation very well. SteaM should read it carefully; it does a much better job of setting the context for “the People” and the right to arm oneself for and from the government as applied in Scalia’s decision than just about anything I’ve read.
The problem here, and Magnum Surpantongue proves it, is that one cannot fit one’s preconceived notion of the Court into this decision. To have previous 5-4 decision hailed as “landmark” and “sweeping” and this decision as “split” and “controversial” by virtue of Justice Kennedy switching sides betrays the opinion as BDS and nothing more.
Sometimes the Court stumbles into something we all understood inherently, and sometimes they contort themselves into legal pretzels to prove just how “enlightened” they can be. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Btw, I celebrated yesterday with an Ashton VSG and a dram o’ Oban. Tonight will be a Rocky Patel Decade and a pint o’ Stout to drown out my losses in the market this week.
62. Retired Spook | June 27th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
to drown out my losses in the market this week.
It’ll come back — it always does, unless Obama is elected, in which case there should be some tremendous buying opportunities during his first (and only) term.
General Motors at $11.58/share — I didn’t think I’d ever live to see that.
63. Retired Spook | June 27th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
On additional thought: at least you won’t have to worry when Obama signs legislation doubling the capital gains rate. Capital gains? What’s that?
64. Dasein Libsbane | June 27th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Deleted - off topic.
65. David B. Schmidt | June 27th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Deleted - off topic.
66. What? | June 27th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Danish Artist,
You are dimwitted. I was speaking of a nation-wide ban of guns. Such a ban would greatly reduce gun violence. Assuming you are European, you should know this considering the low rate of gun violence in Western Europe where handguns are banned.
67. Retired Spook | June 27th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
What?
A nation-wide ban on guns in the U.S. would spark a revolution, the likes of which you couldn’t imagine, and it still wouldn’t get guns out of the hands of criminals. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the black and Hispanic underclass that commits a disproportionate amount of gun-related crime in America is a demographic that’s essentially missing in Western Europe.
68. Dasein Libsbane | June 27th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Spook,
Ever notice that the most infamous gun related violence in the US is always in “Gun Free Zones“?
Name
Location
Date
Year
Victims
University of Texas at Austin massacre
Austin, Texas, United States
August 1
1966
18
Orangeburg massacre
Orangeburg, South Carolina, United States
February 8
1968
3
Kent State shootings
Kent, Ohio, United States
May 4
1970
4
Jackson State killings
Jackson, Mississippi, United States
May 14-15
1970
2
California State University, Fullerton library massacre
Fullerton, California, United States
July 12
1976
7
Cleveland Elementary School shooting
San Diego, California, United States
January 29
1979
2
Parkway South Junior High School shooting
Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
January 20
1983
2
Oakland Elementary School shooting
Greenwood, South Carolina, United States
September 26
1988
Cleveland Elementary School shooting
Stockton, California, United States
January 17
1989
6
University of Iowa shooting
Iowa City, Iowa, United States
November 1
1991
6
Lindhurst High School shooting
Marysville, California, United States
May 1
1992
4
Simon’s Rock College of Bard shooting
Great Barrington, Massachusetts, United States
December 14
1992
2
East Carter High School shooting
Grayson, Kentucky, United States
January 18
1993
2
Richland High School shooting
Lynnville, Tennessee, United States
November 15
1995
2
Frontier Junior High shooting
Moses Lake, Washington, United States
February 2
1996
3
Hetzel Union Building shooting
State College, Pennsylvania, United States
September 17
1996
1
Bethel High School shooting
Bethel, Alaska, United States
February 19
1997
2
Pearl High School shooting
Pearl, Mississippi, United States
October 1
1997
3
Heath High School shooting
West Paducah, Kentucky United States
December 1
1997
3
Westside Middle School shooting
Jonesboro, Arkansas, United States
March 24
1998
5
Parker Middle School shooting
Edinboro, Pennsylvania, United States
April 24
1998
1
Thurston High School shooting
Springfield, Oregon, United States
May 21
1998
4
Columbine High School massacre
Littleton, Colorado, United States
April 20
1999
15
Heritage High School shooting
Conyers, Georgia, United States
May 20
1999
0
Buell Elementary School shooting
Mount Morris Township, Michigan, United States
February 29
2000
1
Santana High School shooting
Santee, California, United States
March 5
2001
2
Granite Hills High School shooting
El Cajon, California, United States
March 22
2001
0
Appalachian School of Law shooting
Grundy, Virginia, United States
January 16
2002
3
University of Arizona School of Nursing shooting
Tucson, Arizona, United States
October 28
2002
4
John McDonough High School shooting
New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
April 14
2003
1
Red Lion Area Junior High School shootings
Red Lion, Pennsylvania, United States
April 24
2003
2
Case Western Reserve University shooting
Cleveland, Ohio, United States
May 9
2003
1
Rocori High School shootings
Cold Spring, Minnesota, United States
September 24
2003
2
Red Lake High School massacre
Red Lake, Minnesota, United States
March 21
2005
10
Campbell County High School shooting
Jacksboro, Tennessee, United States
November 8
2005
1
Pine Middle School shooting
Reno, Nevada, United States
March 14
2006
0
Essex Elementary School Shooting
Essex, Vermont, United States
August 24
2006
2
Platte Canyon High School shooting
Bailey, Colorado, United States
September 27
2006
2
Weston High School shooting
Cazenovia, Wisconsin, United States
September 29
2006
1
Amish school shooting
Nickel Mines, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, United States
October 2
2006
6
Virginia Tech massacre
Blacksburg, Virginia, United States
April 16
2007
33
Delaware State University shooting
Dover, Delaware, United States
September 21
2007
1
SuccessTech Academy shooting
Cleveland, Ohio, United States
October 10
2007
1
Notre Dame Elementary shooting Portsmouth, Ohio, United States
February 7
2008
1
Louisiana Technical College shooting
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States
February 8
2008
3
Mitchell High School shooting Memphis, Tennessee, United States
February 11
2008
0
E.O. Green School shooting
Oxnard, California, United States
February 12
2008
1
Northern Illinois University shooting
DeKalb, Illinois, United States
February 14 2008
6
69. bitchslap | June 27th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Spook,
I’ve posted on the site before, but never under that moniker. Last time I made you look like a fool as well, not that that says much about me.
Let me get your new argument straight if you don’t mind. You admit that Europe has much less violence compared to America, but you believe it is because they have less blacks and hispanics; is that correct?
I feel sick just typing that racist statement.
70. Dasein Libsbane | June 27th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Feign revolution if you wish, but many studies support Spook’s contention.
Joyce Johnson of the Child Welfare League of America, ~ — 40.9 percent know someone who has been shot. When broken down by race, 60.3 percent of black teens know someone who has been shot, compared to 51.8 percent of Hispanic teens and 33.8 percent of white teens.
Jeffrey B. Bingenheimer,* Robert T. Brennan, Felton J. Earls ~ cause-effect relationship between exposure to firearm violence and subsequent perpetration of serious violence, we applied the analytic method of propensity stratification to longitudinal data on adolescents residing in Chicago, Illinois. Results indicate that exposure to firearm violence approximately doubles the probability that an adolescent will perpetrate serious violence over the subsequent 2 years.
GEORGE TITA, SCOTT HIROMOTO, JEREMY WILSON, JOHN CHRISTIAN, CLIFFORD GRAMMICH ~ Offenders Race/ethnicity Black 67%, Latino 19%, Other 14%
Violence Policy Center ~ Only 11 percent of Hispanics own guns, compared to 16 percent of blacks and 27 percent of whites. Yet Hispanics are murdered with firearms at rates second only to blacks.
71. Kahn | June 27th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
bitchslap - your argument is vulgar. But, it is apparently believed by the liberal elites. They especially want to outlaw guns in the urban areas of the large cites. Well? Who lives there? (Wait for it)
Major city gun bans ARE racist.
Unless you think urban D.C. and Chicago are populated by Swedes and Norwegians?
72. Danish Artist | June 27th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
What?
It is you that the light of intelligence rarely falls upon.
Nationwide gun ban would not work either. It would be the same - the criminals would have guns while the citizenry is preyed upon.
How can repeated failure on the city level be seriously considered on a national scale?
We are not a Western European nation so your argument is moot. Are western Europeans as free as we are? Switzerland on the other hand is a nation where every citizen is armed. Is that country a killing field?
You still get is wrong.
Magnum Stupidity, you still repeating the same crap? It is judicial activism to rule in favor of an amendment to the Constitution? But it is not judicial activism to legislate from the bench or create rights not expressed in the Constitution?
73. Car Donations&hellip | June 30th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Car Donations
That used car yours can do a lot of good for people in need. Consider donating yours to a worthy cause…
74. Better Business Bureau Wo&hellip | August 17th, 2008 at 5:33 am
Better Business Bureau Work From Home Businesses Businesses For Sale
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me