Let’s start talking sense about guns
by Bob Peckman
The Second Amendment to the U.S. 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.
This is a short, single sentence. In order for the states to have well-regulated militias, the federal government cannot infringe on a state’s citizens’ right to bear arms. Each state can maintain a militia to protect itself, even from the tyranny of the federal government.
Peckman is an engineer/physicist retired from ITT, jazz musician, cycle tourist and hiker in Roanoke.
March 2, 2013 - 11:38 AM
The best part about it all…We do not need permission fom anyone to protect our communities. People, my travels around this state, and West Va., alone tell a very brave story…There are many, many `militias` growing rather big and ready to stop any gov`t intervention whatsoever. I`ve met men and women both who think obama can do NO wrong, but they themselves are locked and loaded, organized and ready to protect their guns and property. And just talking to these folks and looking them in the eye, and you know damned-good-and -well that they mean what they say. The Government is going to push when it should pull, and once again we`re going to hear `The shot heard `round the world`.
“It is a stretch to argue that the framers guaranteed anything they couldn’t conceive of.”
Dis this weak logic apply to all aspects of Constitutional law, or only guns? Is it a stretch to argue that the framer’s guarantees would apply to cell phones? Or social media? How about DNA? So the argument here is that the second amendment only applies to state owned muskets and cannons. Am I reading that correctly? What does that say about a press that uses computers instead of the Gutenberg printing press? Or is it not a stretch to assume the framers were able to conceive of the Macbook?
Liberals just don’t seem to get it! The SCOTUS decision in DC v. Heller said:
“(1) The Second Amendment 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. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
The phrase “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, …” has nothing to do with the individuals right have a gun for self protection. Let’s put that “militia only” nonsense to rest!
An individual citizen has the constitutional right to own a gun, any lawful gun in common use today, for any lawful reason, e.g. self defense, hunting. target practice, hang on the wall, or even to sleep with! And as many as the heart (and pocket book) desires!
John R…..I’ve been saying it for decades. But deaf ears, are deaf ears.
Oh yes, “deaf ears, are deaf ears”, and thank you for saying so.
#3, regarding dc vs heller, sometimes the supreme court gets things wrong. or are you just fine with roe v. wade?
#5 My “deaf ears” comment was within a specific context (thread) and apparently hit a nerve….yours?
#6 In Heller (McDonald and others) we are dealing with SCOTUS addressing a specific Constitutional right. In Roe….not so. When you can show me an enumerated, specific Constitutional right to abortion….I will grant your analogy.
jim, it still comes down to interpretation by the court. judicial activism is in the eye of the beholder. if the constitution was crystal clear, “scotus” would have few cases.
#7 Jim, is exactly right! The 2nd Amendment, as part of the Bill of Rights, says that the right to bear arms shall not be “infringed”. The framers of the the Constitution believed that the right to bear arms preexisted the Constitution.
The “right to privacy” on which Roe v, Wade is based, is not found in the Constitution. The Constitution, correctly interpreted, leaves abortion up to the individual states as it was before Roe.
You win some, you lose some, and some are rained out!
#9 So “Jim, is exactly right”? I’ll consider the source.