I waited and waited

[dlaing]

Don't be daft: any legislator who conveniently overlooks their oath of office to promulgate more gun laws should be impeached for treason. I'm not talking just Presidents, per se: they don't write the laws, Senators & Congresscritters do. Your poster children of Boxer, Feinstein, Schumer, et al should literally be dragged thru the streets & hanged for treason: they *know* what they're doing is wrong, but they don't care, their rights aren't in danger - after all, they're part of the problem...er, government!

 

As for Obama quickly fixing the economy, don't hold your breath: it took years to get us here, getting us out won't happen overnight. Now, go back & reread my post above, & this time, pay attention...

Amazing!

and you are calling me daft!

[dlaing]

A lot of people have been getting pink slips lately [& I don't mean the vehicular title kind...]

 

This was one of the most divisive elections in recent (U.S.) history, with most of the divide falling along the lines of support for Bush's war in Iraq. Obama was by far the best talking head of the bunch, but I was not impressed by his oratory until the night of his acceptance speech. I am impressed (negatively) by his track record on civil rights; I only hope that he has his hands too full with trying to rescue our nation from its impending economic doom to set us back another 10 years.

 

And lest we forget, the difference between Obama and Osama is just a little b.s...

 

However, I'm ecstatic that the U.S. electorate has finally matured enough to send an ethnic minority member to the White House. I just feel we'd all have been better off if Alan Keyes was going to be that black man in the Oval Office.

 

But you're right, it is a big day, and I've spent it as I've spent virtually every other inauguration day since achieving the age of majority (save one) - by ignoring it. It's just an opportunity for the winning side of our unfortunately two-party system to throw a big party and cause thousands to stand outside in the cold & risk their health. In short, it's pretty dang stupid, & you'd think we'd have learned our lesson by now after losing one president to this tradition!

 

Luckily, the weather where I am in So.Cal. is so benign as to have allowed me to enjoy a ride today. But I probably should have chucked it & gone to the beach instead!

Here is the full post. What am I allegedly missing? The BS?

Calling me daft and saying I am not paying attention. C'mon Skeeve, you have more class than that.

[Skeeve]

Here is the full post. What am I allegedly missing? The BS?

Calling me daft and saying I am not paying attention. C'mon Skeeve, you have more class than that.

 

Your question:

As for hoping that his hands are too full dealing with economic problems, I trust you are not implying that you are hoping he does not QUICKLY fix the economy. Or are you rooting for his failure?!?

 

in regards to my statement:

I am impressed (negatively) by his track record on civil rights; I only hope that he has his hands too full with trying to rescue our nation from its impending economic doom to set us back another 10 years.

 

I fail to see how that could be construed as my rooting for his failure. I'm not wealthy enough to short-sell the U.S.; even Warren Buffet didn't do that [he got out of the market until after the collapse; he's been buying since. That's not the same as betting against the market.]

 

I am negatively amazed by his track record on civil rights because he has consistently betrayed his oath of office and attempted to undermine our 2nd amendment rights. Just because you choose not to utilize them does not make them any less a civil right than one of those mentioned in the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights. The fact that none of the others are worth the paper they're written on without the 2nd is likely an observation that will escape you as well. My condolences on that. The fact that the DNP elite continues to pursue that shibboleth of the Communist doctrine of disarming the masses despite the fact that it cost them the control of the legislatures during the 90s and ushered Dubya to power in the first place just goes to show how stupid they think all of us are. And why they aren't to be trusted.

 

As I wrote in reply:

As for Obama quickly fixing the economy, don't hold your breath: it took years to get us here, getting us out won't happen overnight.

 

That's not the mutterings of someone who wants Obama to fail, but the realistic view of his (hopefully) pathway to success.

 

Ride on!

[jrt]

Why is this turning from...well, whatever it was, into a second amendment discussion (that's gun control to our non-American friends).

C'mon folks, holster it. Please. This discussion rarely works out.

 

 

Here, I'll start. Obama's election should really help out wine growers. Discuss. Yeah, I know it has nothing to do with anything. Good luck.

[DeBenGuzzi]

come'on guys, don't make us shut down another intellectual discussion because some ppl feel the need to turn it into a pissing match, we're all friends here, who can agree to disagree on the things we often agree on even when we don't agree, are we in agreement?

[Skeeve]

come'on guys, don't make us shut down another intellectual discussion because some ppl feel the need to turn it into a pissing match, we're all friends here, who can agree to disagree on the things we often agree on even when we don't agree, are we in agreement?

 

Huh? Are you channeling Maxwell Smart or something? "Missed me by that much!

[gavo]

I concur, nothing drastic will change, at least not right away or maybe even after awhile. I also don't see the hype of him being black, to me that has little to do with the chief socio-economic and political job he has been elected to, and if thats all some ppl point out, first black president, which is cool and good we've come that far yes, but no matter your own color, if its all you see then you sir are a racist, we're all ppl not colors. the OTHER thing is Rome wasn't built in a day, but it was ransacked and burnt to the ground in one, he has his work cut out for him to right the ship in whatever programs those turn out to be we shall see. I'm not trying to be pesimistic, I just like to keep as much of a realist approach to things as I can and nothing moves quickly when youre talking about the government

 

 

It's simply because he's the FIRST, subsequent black presidents people won't bat an eyelid it doesn't make them racist. When the first woman is elected it will be novel not because she's a woman but because she's the first that doesn't mean I'm a sexist. It will be the same for the first gay ,disabled, etc being first always creates extra intrest

[dlaing]

I fail to see how that could be construed as my rooting for his failure.

Good, just making sure.

If I said that I hope you are too busy defending your house from a raging fire to go to the yes on h'8 rally, that would be all good?

I am hoping Obama gets done fixing the economy quickly so that he can get on with a huge list of important things like reducing the high percentage of young black men in prison or dead with bullets in them.

Hopefully with sensible laws.

And speaking of not being sensible, IMHO closing Gitmo is not a sensible solution to ending Torture and other civil right violations.

Executing laws governing the treatment of prisoners that adhere the spirit of the Constitution and the Geneva convention should be all that is needed in Guantanamo.

If closing Gitmo is an indication of how he is going to operate, I share some of your concern, but I fail to see how you can say he betrayed his oath of office

 

As for the comment about pissing contests, Ben has Skeeve and me (assuming that is whom he is targeting) misunderstood. Skeeve and I are both passionate about where we would like to see our country headed and we DISAGREE about it.

A pissing contest has more to do with egotism. Neither of us give a damn how far the other piss, we only care who is getting pissed on. Skeeve doesn't want his gun toting buddies pissed on, and I don't want the underclass pissed on. Long before Obama, those in power have pissed on both.

I have not seen any evidence of Obama as President betraying his oath or him having YET undermined even the most insane right wing interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Perhaps Skeeve could enlighten us with facts???

[dlaing]

snip

but no matter your own color, if its all you see then you sir are a racist,

There is a difference between lack of color blindness and racism.

It is OK to see the color, it is not OK to treat people in a negative way because of their color.

Celebrating the President's color is not racist.

If all you see is his color, you are ignorant, not racist.

[Skeeve]

Good, just making sure.

If I said that I hope you are too busy defending your house from a raging fire to go to the yes on h'8 rally, that would be all good?

 

If my house is already on fire & I have a track record of being a hater? Absolutely!

[Skeeve]

...I share some of your concern, but I fail to see how you can say he betrayed his oath of office

 

I have not seen any evidence of Obama as President betraying his oath or him having YET undermined even the most insane right wing interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Perhaps Skeeve could enlighten us with facts???

 

As president he has not yet breached his oath of office. As senator, he has [voted yes for unconstitutional (not to mention unnecessary) federal firearms laws], and he has publicly stated his intent to do so while campaigning.

 

These folks are (mostly) all lawyers, so they can't claim ignorance of what they're saying & doing. All federal firearms laws are repugnant to the Constitution, being flat out forbidden to the federal govt. by the 2nd amendment, and as such are null & void. But the govt. will kill you for trying to tell'em so!

 

Hey, did you hear the one about the ex-Soviet analyst who'd been predicting the downfall & dis-unification of the United States for the last 10 years or so? Target date is 2010... while I don't think things will progress as far down that road as he forecasts, I can see some interesting times ahead for all of us!

 

Ride on!

[GuzziMoto]

I have read the 2nd amendment many times, but have never noticed it forbiding any federal firearms laws. In fact, it is a very vague amendment that without interpretation says very little. Thus, the debate. Your interpretation of it may not be the same as someone elses.

[Skeeve]

I have read the 2nd amendment many times, but have never noticed it forbiding any federal firearms laws. In fact, it is a very vague amendment that without interpretation says very little. Thus, the debate. Your interpretation of it may not be the same as someone elses.

 

Sorry, not going to rise to the bait, for it will surely lead to closure of this thread! That said, the fact that you cannot parse "...shall not be infringed" as clear & unequivocal I find truly disconcerting...

[Guest ratchethack]

I have read the 2nd amendment many times, but have never noticed it forbiding any federal firearms laws. In fact, it is a very vague amendment that without interpretation says very little. Thus, the debate. Your interpretation of it may not be the same as someone elses.

What part of, "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." seems so "very vague" to you, GMoto?

 

I learned the following in the 5th grade. But that's just me.

 

The United States is a government of enumerated powers. Congress, and the other two branches of the federal government, can only exercise those powers specifically enumerated by the Constitution and its amendments. There are no powers specified in the Constitution or any of its 27 amendments that give the government power to limit individual rights to keep and bear arms. This is clarified in the 2nd Amendment.

 

The 2nd Amendment is, and has always been been one of the most clearly laid out and well understood of all 27 amendments. Technologies and cultures have changed since it was written, but the nature of man and the nature of governments have not, as the authors of the document, being among the most accomplished students of history and of governments in the history of mankind (even to this day) well understood. The only "debate" about it has been historically fabricated, and those fabrications have been heavy and hard, for the sole purpose of fanning the flames of the illusion of "open debate" to the latest crop of Philistines. The assault continues today at an accelerated pace by those whose agenda it is to undermine the Constitution and substitute tyranny (well underway). Those who have swallowed the designer propaganda without giving it the smell test first have little or no understanding of the fundamentals of the Constitution. The dumbing-down of our Nation through the government school system continues. . . The blatantly obvious motivation of self-interest in promoting lies about the 2nd Amendment by the government is as self-evident today as it was to our Nation's Founders, but (as might be expected), not quite so obvious to the most ignorant and dimmest of wit, and those who have succumbed to the poison of mindless GROUPTHINK. Alas, Philistinism is a cultural epidemic in the Age of Disinformation. . .

 

Please (I beg of you) DO NOT look up the 2nd Amendment on Wikipedia and post any such nonsense here. As I have posted here many times, Wikipedia is an OPEN SOURCE site akin to a blog. It has NO inherent credibility as a source, and no value except as a reference to sources other than itself.

 

But since you've read the 2nd Amendment "many times", GMoto, you're certainly a truth-seeker who is fond of reading. Let's put your reading comprehension and the sincerity of your truth-seeking motivation to work here on some updates from the Supreme Court, which has ruled more decisively than at any time in our Nation's history in the face of the most recent assaults on the 2nd Amendment:

 

SOURCES:

 

The United States Constitution, US Senate Home Page: http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_...onstitution.htm

United States Historical Documents Home Page: http://www.usa.gov/Topics/Reference_Shelf/Documents.shtml

 

District of Columbia v. Heller

 

Original source document:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

2823k - Adobe PDF - http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Syllabus. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. ET AL . v. HELLER ... DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER. Opinion of the Court ...

 

Highlights of the Supreme Court’s Decision

 

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed, in a 5-4 decision, the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia (re-cast as District of Columbia v. Heller before the Supreme Court), that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing, private, individually-held right, to keep arms and to bear arms, without regard to a person’s relationship to a militia. The Court held that the Second Amendment does not (as the District argued) protect a right to possess arms only while in service in a militia or (as others have argued) a “state’s right” to maintain a militia. (No dissenting justice endorsed the “state’s right” theory, putting an end to it once and for all, one can only hope.)

 

The decision struck down the District’s bans on handguns and on having any gun in operable condition as violations of the Second Amendment, and prohibited the District from denying plaintiff XXXXXX Heller a permit to carry a firearm within his home on “arbitrary and capricious” grounds. Highlights of the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas, follow:

 

On the Meaning of “the Right of the People”

 

The operative clause [of the Second Amendment] codifies a ‘right of the people.’ The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase ‘right of the people’ two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology . . . . All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not ‘collective’ rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to ‘the people’ refer to anything other than an individual right. . . . In all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ‘the people,’ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. . . . Justice Stevens is dead wrong to think that the right to petition is ‘primarily collective in nature.’”

 

On the Meaning of “Arms”

 

“The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. . . . The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. . . . Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

 

On the Meaning of “Keep Arms”

 

“[samuel Johnson’s 18th century dictionary] defined ‘keep’ as, most relevantly, ‘[t]o retain; not to lose,’ and ‘[t]o have in custody.’ Webster defined it as ‘[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.’ No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of ‘keep Arms.’ Thus, the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to ‘have weapons’ . . . . [T]here is no evidence whatsoever to support a military reading of ‘keep arms.’

 

On the Meaning of “Bear Arms”

 

“At the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’ When used with ‘arms,’ however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose-confrontation. . . . Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of ‘offensive or defensive action,’ it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that ‘bear arms’ had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, ‘bear arms’ was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to ‘bear arms in defense of themselves and the state’ or ‘bear arms in defense of himself and the state.’ It is clear from those formulations that ‘bear arms’ did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. . . .

 

“[T]he meaning of ‘bear arms’ that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby ‘bear arms’ connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving ‘bear Arms’ its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war-an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. Worse still, the phrase ‘keep and bear Arms’ would be incoherent. The word ‘Arms’ would have two different meanings at once: ‘weapons’ (as the object of ‘keep’) and (as the object of ‘bear’) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying ‘He filled and kicked the bucket’ to mean ‘He filled the bucket and died.’ Grotesque.

 

“If ‘bear arms’ means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (‘for the purpose of self defense’ or ‘to make war against the King’). But if ‘bear arms’ means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add ‘for the purpose of killing game.’ The right ‘to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game’ is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that ‘to bear arms’ is not limited to military use.

 

On the Meaning of the Amendment’s “Keep and Bear” Clause in its Entirety

 

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’ As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, ‘[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed.’

 

On the Meaning of “Well Regulated Militia”

 

“In United States v. Miller, we explained that ‘the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.’ That definition comports with founding-era sources. . . . Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that ‘[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses.’ Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that ‘militia’ means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. . . . Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them. Finally, the adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.

 

On the Meaning of “Security of a Free State”

 

“The phrase ‘security of a free state’ meant ‘security of a free polity,’ not security of each of the several States. Joseph Story wrote in his treatise on the Constitution that ‘the word ‘state’ is used in various senses [and in] its most enlarged sense, it means the people composing a particular nation or community.’

 

On the Relationship between the “Militia” and “Keep and Bear” Clauses

 

“Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights. It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right-unlike some other English rights-was codified in a written Constitution. Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a ‘subsidiary interest’ of the right to keep and bear arms is profoundly mistaken.

 

On the Court’s Decision in United States v. Miller (1939)

 

“The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were ‘bear[ing] arms’ not ‘for . . . military purposes’ but for ‘nonmilitary use.’Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection. . . . This holding is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that ‘have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia’). Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen. Justice Stevens can say again and again that Miller did ‘not turn on the difference between muskets and sawed-off shotguns, it turned, rather, on the basic difference between the military and nonmilitary use and possession of guns,’ but the words of the opinion prove otherwise.

 

On Arms the Second Amendment Protects

 

“We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase ‘part of ordinary military equipment’ could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s ‘ordinary military equipment’ language must be read in tandem with what comes after: ‘[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.’ The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense. . . . Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. . . .

 

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service-M-16 rifles and the like-may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

 

On Restrictions Permissible Under the Second Amendment

 

“[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’

[GuzziMoto]

First off, that post was way to long to bother reading in its entirety. But I will assume it went on and on in support of your view.

There are two parts of the 2nd amendment. The first part references a militia, the second part is the part gun rights people always quote. To me it says you have the right to bear arms in a militia in defence of your coutry, and you do. To you it says you have the right to own guns. But the reality of the amendment is there has been some control of arms for a long time in this country and you would have to be very far out of the norm to think that is wrong. The question for most is where do you draw the line? Are hand guns to be regulated? Are automatic assult rifles? Are 50 caliber machine guns? What about rocket launchers, cannons, or bombs? The line is drawn somewhere, exactly where depends on the individual. If you think all modern arms should be unregulated, then this is a waste of time and you are never going to listen to anyone elses opinion on this.