Who has the best lights in town? Vote now for your favorite in our holiday lights contest.
Saturday Night Live’s take on the gun control measure before the Senate.
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
You are grasping at straws.
Like it or not there is a Second Ammendment to the U.S. Constution.
The First Ammendment guarantees freedom of the press and
freedom of expression.
What this means is people can deficate on the U.S.flag, display
Christ submerged in urine and they can spew vile vitriol verbally
and in print.
I am not in favor of denegrating the U.S. and what it stands for
but I will defend the rights of those who choose to do so.
We as citizens do not get to pick and choose what parts of the
Constution we want to abide by, we are injoined to accept the
whole package. The Republic that we live in is not perfect
but it is the best system the world has ever known.
For those who cannot deal with the freedoms affirmed by the
Bill of Rights and Constution they are free to migrate to a more
suitable location in the world.
Cuba comes to mind, there if a journalist publishes language that
the Communist Regime finds offensive the journalist is either
silenced or sent to prison on trumped-up charges.
And hey Mr. Casey, Cuba is only 90 or so miles from the U.S.
Travel expense should be minimal.
That should be enjoined.
The wonderful First Ammendment to the U.S. Constution
even allows me to publish mis-spelled words!!
Is this a great place, or what?
Constitution too….. hee hee
My spell check punked out, but you get the drift.
Maybe if I could spell better I could get a job writing
for the local newspaper.
Now let the verbal assination begin!!
There are well-recognized limits to the First Amendment, and under Heller, limits to the Second Amendment are reasonable too.
If you want to send Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, to Cuba — then I will support that.
#3 As long as you’re cleaning things up, Rob, there’s also amendment and defecate.
There is no right without limits and regulated responsibilities that you may have to answer to in the justice system. The “slippery slope” argument has long since passed being a consideration. Like many of the words in the Constitution, they have precisely the “meaning” we give them, no more and no less. Free speech was quashed more often soon after those words were written than they are today. Gun control was not a consideration with so few people so limited a selection of guns. The ship for not having gun control has sailed. Gun control is a reality of modern life and you will not change that either.
Expecting people to just accept the slaughter of children in a classroom is just not going to happen and it has created the friction that may never die between the unlimited gun rights folk and the we need to mitigate the carnage folk.
Yes Mr. Casey there are well defined limits to both Ammendments.
The public at large is not allowed to shout fire! in a crowded
The public at large is not allowed to own full-auto firearms, but
the Heller decision also contains language and I paraphrase:
firearms in COMMON use for defense or sport shall NOT
I don’t know how many ARs and AKs are out there but
there sure is a gracious plenty. This could be construed
to be “common use”.
As an intergal part of a magazine fed firearm it is not
a real stretch to deduct that magazines are a part of
said firearms. There seems to be plenty of those in
As a side note: I have no problem with the legislation being
considered by the U.S. Senate. What causes concern for
me is after the background check is completed what happens
to the information concerning the background check?
Should the Feds maintain records of all background checks it does?
Short answer: No.
Language in the proposed legislation prohibits the maintaining of
Do I trust the Feds?
Short answer: No.
Are you also for knife control?
.”Like many of the words in the Constitution, they have precisely the “meaning” we give them, no more and no less.”
The Constitution is not a living document.
It is not subject to interpetation by you or me, that is the
Constitutional duty of the Supreme Court of the U.S.
The Adam Lanzas and Sung Yong Wis (or whatever his name is),
have no regard for settleld law, the Constitution or human life.
That is the real problem.
No sane person is willing to accept the gunning down of innocent
humans, children or adults.
Bob H!!! Good to see you. I’d been wanting to tell you about all the stuff I saw this weekend — people going through red lights, stop sign coasting, riding side by side in a way that blocked the whole road, passing on the right, no turn signals, and even some speeding.
Of course these were all people driving cars or trucks. I’m sure you’re just as outraged as you are when cyclists do this stuff.
Looks like #8 Bob H is about to make the same tired irrelevant argument.
Let’s time travel. Go back in time and give mass shooters knives instead of guns. What happens? Countless lives saved. The end.
I’m sure BobH had a dreadful weekend, knowing that it was warm and sunny and that area bicyclists would be taking advantage of the beautiful weather to spin their wheels on greenways and roads.
You see, in BobH speak, “share the path” roughly translates into, “get those bicycles off the greenway! and “share the road” translates into, “got those bikes off the road!”
Steve C and I were out there Sunday!
@9 “The Constitution is not a living document.”
Are you serious?
“The Constitution is referred to as a living document because it is open to constant change whether by ratifying the Constitution with a new amendment or by repealing an existing amendment. Consequently, as time goes on and new issues and concerns arise, the Constitution can be changed to meet the demands of the present and future.”
Surely you jest.
Remember, cyclists, every time you disobey the rules of the road, Bob H kills a kitten.
I could have sworn this was a gun control thread but no one ever accused gdad or Dan of every knowing how to read or staying on topic.
Where do each of you stand on knife control since a cat has Sandi’s tongue on the issue.
You are correct, but I hope you get my drift dispite
my “phonlics” method of spelling.
Cold n P:
You sir are also correct.
The Constitution does offer a remedy for change thru the Amendment
precess, but not thru popular opinion or emotional groundswells.
“The Constitution is not a living document.”
Cold N P makes a great point when he asks, in reference to the statement above, “Are you kidding?”
I would point out that the right to bear arms was not in the original constitution of the United States. It was added by amendment. Women got the right to vote via another amendment. Slavery was banned via yet another one.
In fact, the constitution was designed to be a living document.
Rob Thommins, if “The Constitution is not a living document”, how can Scalia throw away over 150 years of jurisprudence to make an individual right out of one never considered so before? How did he negate the first part of the Second Amendment? Maybe you need to re-think that one.
It is ABSOLUTELY because the Constitution is “subject to interpetation by you or me” that the Supreme Court even exists. That is why their “duty” was created.
And you are wrong, plenty of supposedly “sane” people “accept the gunning down of innocent humans, children or adults” as long as no one messes with their “rights”.
“The Constitution does offer a remedy for change thru the Amendment precess, but not thru popular opinion or emotional groundswells.”
Rob Thommins, I invite you to explain your statement vis a vis Prohibition. Are you saying that the 18th Amendment was NOT the result of popular opinion or emotional groundswell?
When death by knife reaches death by gun, I and a whole lot more people will be for “knife control”.
#15 Bob H, I have to catch your attention whenever I can since you failed on other threads, as far as I can tell, to explain why you get so upset about cyclists violating a few rules while remaining absolutely mum about vehicle drivers who pretty much violate one or more rules every time they get in the car. It makes no sense.
As for knives, I pretty much ignore it every time a gun lover brings up this cliched irrelevancy. There really nothing to say about it.
I beg to differ Rob. Yes the amendment process goes through state legislators or Congress. However, we the people elect those responsible for voting to amend the constitution. Hence the people do have an impact on how the Constitution is amended, interpreted.
Pretty sure that “popular opinion” as well as the SC mood has determined the Constitutionality of many issues without any Amendment to the Constitution, which is WHY it is a living document 225 years later.
“The exact scope of the constitutional phrase “cruel and unusual” has not been detailed by this Court…The Court recognized in that case that the words of the Amendment are not precise, and that their scope is not static. The Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”
THAT is from 1957!
In truth, I cannot imagine a better primer for the Constitution being a “living document” than Scalia’s acrobatics here:
“ The Second Amendment provides: “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.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931) ; see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.
The two sides in this case have set out very different interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. See Brief for Respondent 2–4.
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “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.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).
Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “ ‘It is nothing unusual in acts … for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)). Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.”
He makes it more than clear that not only is he disregarding decided law for over a hundred years, he is deciding that there are “clauses” that need to be interpreted and separated (for our own good no doubt).
Do not speak of activist judges telling us what the Constitution means unless you include Scalia and the not so “dead, dead dead” Constitution he reinterprets for his own political benefit.
The dissent in Heller held to the original intent of the Constitution, the Founders and to what would “have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation”. Scalia and the majority chose otherwise. No way around it. People at that time expected to be in the militia and expected their guns to be used for that purpose. Clearly.
“In 1619, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a law making the transfer of guns to Native Americans punishable by death. Other laws across the colonies criminalized selling or giving firearms to slaves, indentured servants, Catholics, vagrants and those who refused to swear a loyalty oath to revolutionary forces. Guns could be confiscated or kept in central locations for the defense of the community. And in the late 1700s and early 1800s, the state and federal governments conducted several arms censuses. (Imagine what the NRA would say if government officials went door to door today asking people how many guns they owned and whether they were functional.)”
“You could wear your gun into town, but you had to check it at the sheriff’s office or the Grand Hotel, and you couldn’t pick it up again until you were leaving town,” said Bob Boze Bell, executive editor of True West Magazine, which celebrates the Old West. “It was an effort to control the violence.”
Speaking of gun “rights” and the Supreme Court, the radicals who believe
New York’s gun control law is unconstitutional got their answer today.
Thanks for the update, Wayne. Besides the SCOTUS declining to review the law, the article also points out that many legislatures and lower courts have been neutering Scalia’s brazen legal activism (when he invented a never before recognized right in Heller), and they are backed by the details given in Heller’s minority opinion; and that such a process is the normal and constitutional way that law is implemented.
The best part of the SCOTUS refusal to review the NY law is the ongoing affirmation that guns are absolutely useless in the legal process, and that guns are useless in freely democratic electoral processes, and that guns are useless in civil debate, among the many other parts of life in which guns are absolutely useless.
Judges don’t kill guns, ideas do.
Wayne – the words “well regulated” remain invisible in their copies of the 2nd Amendment…
Furthermore, Hillary, the words “guns” and “firearms” remain invisible in everyone’s copies of the 2nd amendment.
I ask one favor of my opponents and friends alike, let’s not use the names that want to live in infamy. Refer to “Va Tech”, “Sandy Hook/Newtown”, “Columbine”, “Oklahoma City”, etc. but let’s deny them the place in history and memory they wanted. At least here. Please?
Excellent point that bears repeating Warren! The “ongoing affirmation that guns are absolutely useless in the legal process, and that guns are useless in freely democratic electoral processes, and that guns are useless in civil debate, among the many other parts of life in which guns are absolutely useless.” It is very true, and some of the gun debates here make it seem that this nation cannot function without guns in the hands of all who desire them.
I think it is worth noting that even though guns have become somewhat ubiquitous, they, nor the possibility of their presence is stopping shootings anywhere. Texas FGS, still has plenty of gun crime to match their plenty of guns. As does Florida, Kentucky, Arizona and Louisiana.
Over 100 injured instantaneously at the Boston Marathon. What gun is capable of that?
Hint: It’s the not the weapon; it’s the person behind the weapon. Bad guys will always find a way, people.
#31 “Over 100 injured instantaneously at the Boston Marathon. What gun is capable of that?”
Oh look, suzie politicizing it on yet another thread!!! And doing exaclty what Dusty predicted. How about that?
While we’re talking about guns on this thread, I’d like to again ask John W to either produce evidence of his claim that cops stood outside Norris Hall for 10 minutes simply listening to the gunfire (made on another thread) or for him to offer his apology to all the brave first responders that day.
In case the rest of you haven’t gathered, I know that John W has no such evidence, and I’m pretty disgusted that he would post something like that on the eve of April 16.
Sandi , I would even bet you dont believe in the death penalty. I have 1 question for all of you libs.. Will Gun control stop criminals from having guns or even make it harder for them to get one. ( and how will it make it harder for them to get guns….) Your beloved OBAMA administration is providing guns and weapons for rebels in syria and you are fooling yourself if you dont think these guns are not making it back to the us on black market deals to make the rebels money to support their cause) You libs need to grow up and accept reality IT IS HAPPENING and you dipsticks reelected him.
Name is required
A valid email is required (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.All fields are required to comment.
Thu, 12 Dec 2013 05:12:38 +0000
Metro Columnist Dan Casey knows a little bit about a lot of things but not a heck of a lot about most things. That doesn't keep him from writing about them, however. So keep him honest!
He welcomes your rants, raves and considered opinions, so long as the language is civil (i.e. no four-letter words). He'll read all your posts and may or may not respond.