Ms. Shaw, despite her "prize-winning" whatever ... fails to mention that for over 200 years the meaning of the Second Amendment has stood, as the founding fathers intended, as an "individual right" to keep and bear arms.  If anyone is "nervous", it's Ms. Shaw.  

by Carl Lot (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 8:26:25 AM

  (0+)

.  .  . where the thugs have been killing each other at a rather substantial rate.  The Philadelphia Inquiirer runs it's almost daily "A City's Dealdy Toll" feature, which reached 360 on Monday.

There was, of course, the recent murder of Police Officer Charles Cassidy, and that had the city up in arms, but the problem wasn't that there were no gun control laws to prevent John Lewis, the confessed murderer, from getting a gun: he obtained his weapon illegally.  

And, of course, even though the police knew that Mr Lewis had committed at least one armed robbery eleven days previously, and they knew where he lived, they never did anything about it; the detective who was directly informed that Mr Lewis was the armed robber never even attempted to obtain an arrest warrant, and even if she had, the police commissioner admitted that there are some 10,000 outstanding warrants in the City of Brotherly Love that nobody is doing anything about.

What nobody wants to admit is that the problem isn't guns; the problem is with the people who have been reared with no sense of civility, no flaming idea of how to behave in decent society, and the community tolerate it.  The gang-bangers aren't ostracized by their communities; rather they are rewarded with money and "respect" and willing women.  The men who actually go to work every day and try to do a decent job aren't the role models; it's the gang-bangers who get the idolization and the wanna-bes trying to emulate them, and nobody cares.

by Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 194 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 9:23:02 AM

  (0+)

Mary,

My hope is that the Supreme court holds up the Second. I never apologize for my view that citizens without guns become subjects of those with guns. History is full of vivid examples.

The Bush years and lose of freedom created by the rules enacted after 9-11, should reinforce your commitment to keep American citizens armed. If you really believe that the police, the F.B.I. the CIA, Homeland Security, ATF agents, Federal Marshall's et al, are the answer to our security issues because they are the good guys, then I can't believe that you have come in contact with this people or really know them personally.

Not to mention they are on remote control by government, against whomever government choses to point them at.

America is in for tough economic times which will no doubt accelerate crime. The fact that police are an "after the fact remedy," makes them ineffective at the point of the crime.

There really are bad guys Mary, and personal protection is mandatory for keeping them at bay.

Mike

by Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 10:00:27 AM

  (0+)

If they uphold that a person cannot own a gun,  Does this mean blackwater will have to give up theirs ?   I bet not  they will be the new millita under control of the white house.  and If those bastards dont give up theirs  I am NOT giving up mine.

by mike (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 92 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 2:39:36 PM

  (0+)

The "ambiguously-worded Second Amendment" is not confusing to those who have studied the Constitution under some of the finest constitutional scholars in some of America's top universities.

The phrase a "well regulated militia" that starts the Second Amendment refers us back to Article I, Section 8, paragraph 16, that gives power to Congress for organizing, ARMING and disciplining the state militias.

James Madison, considered the Father of the Constitution also wrote the Second and he didn't create the amendment with the idea that Americans could keep guns for any purpose other than national defense. Madison's statement that, "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country," means national defense, and nothing else.

The idea, expressed in another reply, that the intent of the Founders that the right to keep and bear arms is an "individual right" is nonsense. The Second protects the "right of the people" to own guns. Had the Founders wanted each individual to own a gun they would have written "no person's right to keep and bear arms shall be abridged." They didn't do that.

If this right-wing court has any constitutional fortitude, it will rule that the right to "keep and bear arms" is directly related to the power of Congress to arm the militia--National Guard in modern parlance--and no state or city may intrude into that area except as to valid police power over criminal use of firearms and the state's power to regulate public property (i.e. no one can transport a firearm over public property unless authorized by Congress's power of militia duty.)

Alas, I fear the court will get it all wrong, again.

by tabonsell (33 articles, 0 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 318 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 4:30:55 PM

  (0+)

"giant assault rifles that can penetrate brick walls"

Do you really take yourself seriously? Do you think anyone with a brain will? Are the citiots in Philadelphia really that stupid now? 

Yes, the court's decision could be a matter of 'life and death.' When guns are outlawed, "Liberal season WILL begin. I hope I get to see you then Shaw. 

click here

by Barry Bright (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 6:40:00 PM

  (0+)

for some reason my url didn't work. Let's try this:

willowtown.com/reality/blacksburg.htm 

by Barry Bright (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 6:42:36 PM

  (0+)

Since when does 'arms' = 'guns'? The Supreme Court may interpret that it doesn't. It may say the 2nd refers to an armed militia for national defense - which is the National Guard. So bye bye 'arms' for average citizen.

by TomK (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 330 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 9:02:45 PM

  (0+)

The 2nd amendment protects the right of militia members to bear arms.

The 9th amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms regardless of whether they're in a militia.

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 9:20:42 PM

  (0+)

It is somewhat amusing, yet sad, to watch Leftists contort logic to explain how "The People" has unique and different meaning in the 2nd Amendment than it does in the others.

by Dave Stevens (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Thursday, Nov 22, 2007 at 3:54:29 AM

  (0+)

I would think that most who read these pages would have great trepidation for allowing Congress to determine what is right about anything. Do any of you really believe that allowing government to determine who should and who should not own guns is a good idea? That the police are going to protect you? That the FBI, The CIA, etc., etc. are the good guys? Our founders GREATEST fear was that of government! Jeez.

by Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 22, 2007 at 9:34:19 AM

  (0+)

There is no difference between abolishing the 2nd Amendment and re-interpreting it to mean "Don't worry, Be Happy." The Constitution is a contract and its ratification was contingent upon the federal government's recognition of and respect for the right of the people to keep and bear arms (a militia having meant an armed citizenry as distinct from professional men-at-arms).

What is at stake here is not the individual right to have a handgun -- that is a given. What is at stake is the continued legitimacy of the U.S. government.

by Frank Silbermann (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Thursday, Nov 22, 2007 at 2:26:09 PM

  (0+)

by Dave Kisor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 315 comments [40 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 22, 2007 at 7:48:30 PM

  (0+)

When the Constitution was written, militias, per se, did not exist unless and until they were called out.  If the people had no arms, the militia could not be called. The National Guards of today have nothing to do with this.

If guns were to be outlawed, only outlaws and the government would have guns.  I'm willing to take my chances with the outlaws, but I surely don't trust the government. 

by B York (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 119 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 26, 2007 at 8:09:03 AM

  (0+)