2nd Amendment
USA Today is running a poll
please vote USATODAY.com - Quick Question HOLDER SAYS WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO POSSESS GUNS TAKES 10 SECONDS ... DO IT AND PASS IT ON. Own a Gun? Please Keep This Moving. Guess they were not happy with the poll results the first time so USA today is running another one... Vote now. Attorney General, Eric Holder, has already said this is one of his major issues. He does not believe the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms. This takes literally 2 clicks to complete. Please vote on this gun issue question with USA Today. It will only take a few seconds of your time. Then pass the link on to all the pro- gun folks you know. Hopefully these results will be published later this month. This upcoming year will become critical for gun owners with the Supreme Court's accepting the District of Columbia case against the right for individuals to bear arms. Here's what you need to do: First - vote on this one. Second- launch it to other folks and have THEM vote - then we will see if the results get published. Click above to vote. USATODAY.com |
97% :btu:
|
done! These people are idiots. They think they can just change everything our founding fathers have created.
|
If you consider yourself a constitutionalist and consider yourself in alignment with the founders / framers on the topic of rights, the correct answer is NO.
This poll has been chugging along since November of 2007. The Supreme court decided Heller in June of 2008. |
Quote:
During the events that led to the Constitution being written, it was individuals who were armed, and then joined together to form a militia to fight the British, before Washington even fielded an Army. So I am thinking that is exactly what they meant. |
Quote:
And this is one of the biggest reasons Obama needs to go. He has an agenda and that is get elected the second time and go after guns and gun rights, since he can't be elected a third time |
The question cultivates and nurtures a profoundly incorrect belief about the Constitution and the origin of rights.
I do not possess the right to keep and bear arms because the 2nd Amendment "gives" it to me . . . I possess the right because no power was ever granted to the federal government to have the slightest interest in the personal arms of the private citizen. The acceptance of the anti-constitutional concept that our rights are given to us by government decree is the ultimate insult to the framers and their novel exercise of establishing a charter of conferred powers that recognizes and secures retained rights. This poll's results are sad testimony of just how far we have wandered from the principles the framers held dear. |
That poll is from 2007. What's the source for the assertion Holder is against the second amendment?
-spence |
Quote:
Of course that basic argument flows directly into his position that the 2nd Amendment is not a claimable immunity for individual citizens to claim any injury of the RKBA (whatever it might be) against the federal government. |
When did he ever say that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Well, Holder signed the BRIEF FOR FORMER DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIALS AS AMICI CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONERS (255kb pdf) also known as the "Janet Reno et al" amicus in DC v Heller.
That brief contains the statements:
The signers (including Holder) believe that the 2nd Amendment:
The signers (including Holder) believe that if a right can be argued to be secured by the 2nd Amendment it is conditioned, qualified and thus limited by the Amendment's 'militia purpose' and only exercisable to that end:
The signers (including Holder) warn of the eventualities of the Court upholding the lower court's individual right interpretation:
And:
Holder's official position of the 2nd Amendment is that is does not secure an individual right. Holder's official position is that no claimable right to keep and bear arms exists for anyone independent of the scope of the 2nd Amendment's protection sphere that he embraces. IOW, whatever right that can be said to exist must be filtered through the 2nd Amendment as if it is the right's genesis. That position is hostile to all prior SCOTUS opinion and the principles of conferred powers and retained rights and it demands we ignore the rules for constitutional interpretation set out in the 9th and 10th Amendments. The right of the people to keep and bear arms does not exist because of any particular interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The people possess the right to keep and bear arms because no power was ever surrendered by them to be granted to the federal government to even contemplate the personal arms of the private citizen. ALL NOT CONFERRED IS RETAINED. It's not that Holder just doesn't "get it", it's that he and his anti-constitution ilk (including Obama's SCOTUS picks) vigorously endeavor to destroy the principle at every turn. |
Just an additional note on how reprehensible the disingenuous selective quoting of the statist left can be.
They need to lie to make their points, especially when their point relies on prior Supreme Court opinions supposedly affirming their arguments. Who can tell me what is profoundly, fundamentally wrong with the following statement (in reference to Miller) contained in the brief's "Summary of Argument"?
Quote from page 3 of the above referenced Amicus. Page 30 says:
Hint, the answer is found on page 12 of the brief (part 2 of Section B of the actual argument of the brief). . . |
The SCOTUS and pretty much every federal appeals court have been very consistent in the belief that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right up until the Heller case.
The language used in the brief prepared by the Holder DOJ has been used by numerous administrations regardless of party, go look up the briefs prepared by John Ashcroft for Emerson, Silveiri and Lamar Bean. The context of this thread is that the Obama administration and Eric Holder in particular represent a radical departure from an established course, but the facts don't support this at all. Remarkably the Administration has done little if anything to curb the rights of gun owners even when the Democrats had a majority in Congress. Holder seems to advocate more restrictive gun measures to help prevent crime, and I think a lot of people would agree with this. Given that the Heller decision was a close 5 to 4 it would seem as though some well read justices do as well. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
The lower federal courts went off the rails in 1942 when the First Circuit (39kb pdf) and the Third Circuit (52kb pdf) infected the federal courts with the "collective right" and "state / militia right" interpretations. The 1st Circuit was especially disingenuous, first offering a true explanation of the recent Supreme Court Miller decision but then dismissing Miller as establishing no rule so it could create the militia conditioned scope of 2nd Amendment protection. SCOTUS with the Heller decision only invalidated these lower court diversions (which of course were the guiding law for 66 years). Quote:
Quote:
Biding time is all that's happening right now. Heller and McDonald altered the timeline of the attack on the individual right to arms. Those hostile to the right to arms have not gone away nor have they had an epiphany and now embrace the principles of conferred powers and retained rights. No, these statists are just biding their time until a Court that leans that far left can be established and begin dismantling those impediments to their agenda. The reality is, no matter how hostile Obama or any member of Congress might be to individual gun ownership rights they are astute enough to not make matters worse for the left's agenda. Having another priority of the left under scrutiny by SCOTUS before the election is not conducive to victory. Bottom line is, no gun rights supporter should mistake present gun control supporter's quiet patience for acceptance and tolerance of gun owner's rights. None of them are deserving of trust. For you to seemingly argue that this current national inactivity of anti-gun politicians (Obama included) somehow represents political acceptance and tolerance of gun owners rights is just laughable. Quote:
This we can be sure of, there will be no gun control law written or signed into law until the left has a rubber-stamp majority in place on the Court. That Fenty went against their advise and appealed Heller to SCOTUS ticked a lot of people off. They will not make the same mistake twice. Quote:
Steven's dissent (which all members of the minority joined) said:
Breyer's dissent (which all members of the minority joined) said:
The dissents just weaseled themselves into a position where they could dismiss or ignore the legal realities of that individual right determination. The dissents were focused on the standard of scrutiny and agreed that, under the standard envisioned and embraced by the minority, the DC laws would have been upheld . . . So, for the time being the question of what type of right the 2nd secures is closed (well, until it's time to revisit it).(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting)." |
get the guns out of the criminals hands first, then worry about the rest
|
Quote:
|
Looks like the results of the poll show over 10 million of us think the 2nd Amendment give us the right to have guns. As a great man once said:
"I have more guns than I need but less than I want". |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The reality is that Democrats feel they have bigger fish to fry, oh, and a lot of them like to hunt also. Quote:
So yes, the individual has rights, but without a declaration of scope to those rights there's not a lot of benefit. Perhaps it could be used to overturn a total ban on all weapons, but it certainly doesn't say a state can't restrict gun ownership by the individual. 9-0 is a bit of spin... To the whole thing about the Second Amendment not granting the right, I think it's more to state that the government can't go to far in efforts to keep us safe. -spence |
Meant above in a modern context of course.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
I just puked, back to watching the Bruins
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
forgive me for posting this in the forum I thought was appropriate :rollem: :hs:
|
A good civil discussion is always appropriate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
By invalidating lower court inventions and diversions SCOTUS brought the "guiding law" back into the constitutional fold. The administration just hasn't gotten the message yet . . . Quote:
The hodge-podge of collective / state / militia conditioned rights will not be argued again in a court until it is heard by a receptive panel at the SCOTUS. I also say "abandoned by nearly all" as someone who has been debating gun rights / gun control online since 1993 (the dark ages as it is known by gun rights supporters, when your side was "winning"). I can honestly tell you that it is very, very difficult to find a debate such as this, discussing the constitutional points and rights theory. Those arguing a gun control position based in constitutional interpretation have pretty much evaporated. Yeah, gun debate still exists but the foaming mouth animosity in the left for gun rights and especially gun rights organizations like the NRA control the discussion. With philosophical arguments gone, gun debate, especially in political forums, has devolved to scat throwing monkey level. It is seeing that anger and hatred that I draw my "holding pattern" conclusions from. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
With as you note, the current lack of public support for gun control it would be difficult for Dems to retain or gain offices if legislation was pushed through. For most of the gen-pop the gun control issue is more of a cultural issue, urban vs rural etc. As we see now, those voters are placated by a SCOTUS ruling and focus on other issues. The debate we are having on the Constitution and the legitimate powers of government make their eyes gloss over or are simply over their heads. Like abortion and gay rights the extremes are the motivated actors and most people are turned off by what passes for discourse between them. As I said before, there has been no epiphany, there is no respect for gun owners among the Democrat power structure, nor is there any acceptance of the Heller and McDonald holdings in the majority of the left. An honest answer please . . . All things equal, had Heller not been heard and decided in 2008 would the Obama administration's gun control "agenda" been different? Given no Heller and the same non-action you are holding up, would you still be happily touting the then Democrat controlled Congress and President Obama's non-record on gun control 3-1/2 years in? Quote:
Is it really your position that Obama can now be counted upon to defend gun rights and respect the traditions of hunting, target shooting and gun collecting and the diverse cultures of gun owners across this nation? I must ask, when will his judicial appointments begin reflecting this new, "common sense" respect for gun rights? Quote:
Quote:
It is sad really . . . Quote:
How can you defend reading words UPON WHICH THE RIGHT DOES NOT, IN ANY MANNER DEPEND into creating dependencies, conditions, qualifications and restraints on the exercise of the right? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
US v Tot (1st circuit link above): [The Second Amendment] "was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power"ANY recognition of any individual right aspect of the 2nd Amendment's protection sphere is a noteworthy refutation of that "guiding law" . . . especially if it is contained in dissents that people have been told represents the opposite of the majority's "individual right" holding . The Tot "state's right" theory is abandoned by Stevens but he equivocates from his "individual right" opening and parrots a "limited, militia conditioned individual right" which had its genesis in a law review article written in the Spring of 2004 heralding "A New Paradigm for the Second Amendment". :smash: Quote:
|
he says it well
|
You guys want to talk about law inequity, try to get a LTC in RI. In almost every other state you take a course, qualify on a range, pass a BCI check and you have it.
In RI you have to all of the above with much more stringent shooting qualifying rounds and then you have to go in front of the RI Atty General and present a case as to why you should be granted what the 2nd Amendment guarantees. Also RI doesn't recognize a LTC from any other state as being valid. WTF!!! |
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com