We have the right to bear arms? Duh!
Posted by: The BoBo // Category: A Nation at Risk, Civil Rights, Constitution, Liberals, Second Amendment, Socialism, US Constitution
The Second Amendment says, “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 just my thoughts about today’s decision by the SCOTUS regarding the Second Amendment. This will probably be one of the shortest posts I’ve ever written since I think it was absolutely ludicrous that SCOTUS even had to address a very CLEARLY written amendment. Who do you think the Militia is? It is WE THE PEOPLE! In order to create a Militia, we need to have the right to keep and bear arms – that is exactly what it means and that is exactly how it was interpreted today.
This whole case was not about Heller vs. D.C., it was about socialist liberals, over-reaching governments with over-reaching laws, and radical judges trying to tell WE THE PEOPLE how to live our lives. Gun bans don’t prevent gun crimes, in fact, gun crimes increase when law abiding citizens cannot protect themselves – Just for instance – since we are talking about D.C., let’s use D.C. as an example – in 2007 – there were 143 murders gun-related murders. That must mean since the ban has been in effect since 1976 (more than 30 years) – the gun-related murder rate at that time must have been astronomical – since gun bans reduce crime right? Wrong – In 1976 there were 135 gun-related murders. Wow – that gun ban worked out well there didn’t it? (Source) Here’s how I feel:
1. NO SHIT!
2. WTF? DUH!
3. There were actually 4 Justices who voted against the 2d Amendment? That’s scary!
4. Based on #3 – We really need to be careful who we put on the bench! We were just 1 vote away from losing one of the most fundamental rights given to us in the constitution.
5. See Picture! The constitution would have given me the right to take up arms against the government using this baby had the Supreme Court tried to wield its judicial authority to usurp my rights and try to take it away from me!
Tags: 2d Amendment, Constitution, gun bans, SCOTUS
June 26th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
This is just crazy to me. The Constitution gives the right to bear arms. It is quite freaky that we were only one vote away from losing such the right, and if we had lost this right, I think many people who believe in the second amendment might just form those militias and prove that it is our right to bear arms.
But yea, really scary how 4 of the justices voted the way they did. I think this should mean an auto-kick, I say. If you vote against a clearly written right that is located in the United States Constitution, you shouldn’t have that much power.
Reply to Bradley Hankins
June 26th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
We have the right to bear arms? DUH!…
Person opinion from the clown regarding today’s decision regarding the right to bear arms and the second amendment. This affirmation of the intent of the forefathers was brilliantly written!…
Reply to Vote for this article at blogengage.com
June 26th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Yeah..it sucks doesn’t it? I really didn’t know what more to add regarding today’s decision, simply because – it was so totally unnecessary, it shouldn’t have had to happen, and…this was a political decision – not a judicial decision (which is what they are supposed to be doing)
Reply to The BoBo
June 26th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
I read similar article also named nnial 2007 – salvatore iaconesi – del.icio.us poetry, and it was completely different. Personally, I agree with you more, because this article makes a little bit more sense for me
Reply to Daniel
June 26th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Well I mean, this brings me back to my point in another post, how our government is wasting time. Instead of focusing real issues, we are trying to take away freedoms. That’s not America, and it just seems like we are digging our graves further than the usual 6 feet.
Reply to Bradley Hankins
June 26th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
You’re spot on again Bradley! It seems to me this day that all three branches of our government are wasting a butt-load of timing discussing, voting, and ruling on non-substantive issues or those that are unnecessary rather than tacking the big things..like..oh..I don’t know..the fact that oil is now at $140/barrel, Libya just announced they will be cutting back production and OPEC is looking for prices to continue to increase…in the meantime those assholes in Congress have put of the vote again…and they’re bring up the Fairness Doctrine again – that’s tomorrow’s blog post BTW!
Seriously – I can see the real possibility of a new revolution or civil war if this kind of shit continues in D.C.
Reply to The BoBo
June 26th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Hey, I’m all in for it to be honest. Washington has just become a load of crap, and it is not helping us at all. There will be a lot of mad people if gas prices go up, and jobs keep getting shipped over sees. All everyone will be able to do then is to plot the revolution, while the pompus leaders make all their wealthy money and gain more power, and take away more of our freedoms. Just watch and see if it goes to far.
I think they are doing it on purpose. I don’t know why, but I just can’t see why someone would want to ruin a perfectly good country, and when you trip it up, dig its grave instead of helping it up. Makes no sense.
Reply to Bradley Hankins
June 26th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
If there was ever a place on earth that needed MORE guns it was DC.. all them targets running around disguised as POLITICIANS! LOL
Ok in all seriousness, this decision is as you say, a POLITICAL one. The DC city council and mayor decided they were going to usurp the constitution in order to make it appear to their constituents that they were doing something… They were not.
It is the easiest path to take away guns from law abiding citizens and claim to be “Working” the harder path involves taking Guns away from criminals, and actually punish the perpetrators of gun crimes.
Reply to Robert
June 26th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
I don’t think the Federal government could take guns away from the people without the country falling apart a second time. States would succeed and the law would be changed or civil war would ensue. I have no intention of giving my guns to anyone. Its a sport, what if someone took golf away from all Democrats or whatever sport they are into? If someone is convicted of shooting someone (not in self-defense or defense of property) they are in prison forever or a long time. I have no problem with never letting them own a gun again. Only if it is a crime of that nature should someone lose the right to bare arms. Washington should be focused on our energy needs and the fact Oil is at another record level in terms of cost!
Reply to Blake
June 27th, 2008 at 2:10 am
You could try living across the pond in the politically correct UK where the only people who carry guns are the criminals .
There was a time when I believed that a “no gun” society, like we have in theory, was a good thing – but if criminals keep getting armed to the teeth then sooner or later the solid citizen has to respond in kind, if only to survive .
Reply to Caledonian Jim
June 27th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Another point where I diverge from liberal dogma is on the 2nd Amendment. While I don’t think it gives us the right to bear any gun we want, Jefferson and company’s intentions on this one couldn’t have been more clear.
I can’t have a gun because my wife thinks that A) I’m such a klutz I’d shoot myself with it and B) our daughter who has a way of getting into everything she’s not supposed to would get her hands on it.
I’ve now lived in 2 cities that tried to ban handguns, DC and San Francisco. The San Francisco ban never even got off the ground, but the DC ban didn’t even put a dent in the murders there. That city was the murder capitol of the world during that ban. I sat on a jury for a kid who robbed a dry cleaner with a gun.
I really wish more on my side of the fence would embrace the 2nd amendment. They need to be reminded of the spirit in which it was written and of the creeping tyranny of our current government. It might not be our generation who needs to overthrow it, but maybe our kids.
Reply to Jason
June 27th, 2008 at 8:07 am
With the United States Supreme Court having weighed in on the Second Amendment; that being “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, I think it vital that we as Americans not only fight to preserve this right but that we too are reminded that there exists no such thing as collective rights (something opponents of the Second Amendment argue against).
It is only the individual who has rights.
Because, let us be reminded that any collective or group, be it large or small, is comprised of nothing more than individuals; each and every one having their rights as such. Any collective right not extending to each and every individual only leads the collective to hold exclusive power over the individual. Be it known, that such a practice runs counter to what it means to live in a free society. The framers knew this and it is for this very reason they preserved Life as the first of our unalienable rights defined in our nation’s Declaration of Independence.
Our life; it is solely ours to keep, to own, to preserve, and to protect at all costs. And, while I may personaly never choose to look to a gun to protect my life or my property, with the celebration of our nation’s Independence upon us, I am again reminded that I too will never cease in preserving this right for my fellow countrymen.
Reply to Soapboxgod
June 27th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Great post.
Perhaps when the liberal kooks regurgitate this issue again in a few years, we may have to actively prove our convictions about the Second Amendment?
Reply to Cato
June 27th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Cato, between this and your comment on my blog today, I’ve got to wonder who took a dump in your oatmeal today. Geez dude, it’s Friday. Why so cranky and murderous?
Reply to Jason
June 27th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Why do so many conservatives detest — and yes, “detest” is the most accurate word — John McCain?
Why are radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Hugh Hewitt abandoning their customary stance on Republican unity by endorsing or supporting Mitt Romney?
Why would the right-wing queen of provocation, Ann Coulter jackass that she is, claim that she would rather campaign for Hillary Clinton than the longtime Republican senator from Arizona?
Why, many talking heads marvel, are conservatives ambushing their only real shot at a general election victory in November?
Well, just maybe, to conservatives, the principle is worth more than the victory.
Well if that’s the case my friends, the we are Fucked, yes we are screwed without even getting kissed or foreplay,
Sometimes it may be best to think out your best course before starting to sail.
Who knows? The mood of the country might be swinging towards John McCain pragmatism. Conservatives might be an ideological minority in the Republican Party, once again. But things change.
These so-called Reagan Republicans seem to have conveniently forgotten Reagan’s 11th Commandment, “Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.” Their blatant hypocrisy is unfortunate.
As a patriotic Christian conservative white male, I pretty much fit the profile of a talk radio listener. But they don’t rule my thoughts. I love my country, and am proud to support John McCain to lead it, unify it, and protect it.
Reply to Fredhead from TN
June 27th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
5-4 is a damn slim margin.
Look for this to come back around as several of the Anti-gun cities are already saying they will challenge this latest ruling.
For now I guess breathe a sigh of relief but please continue to support the NRA and GOA, and never let your guard down, this ain’t over folks. …
Reply to Greg
June 27th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
With respect to Hannity and Coulter, neither of them have a shred of credibility with respect to Conservatism. Yeah that’s right! You heard me say that. That these two asshats are jumping on the opposition to McCain bandwagon is a joke.
In Sean’s case, I’ve never seen or heard a guy who was such a flippin’ water boy for the GOP. All he cared about was his ridiculous “Stop Hillary Express”. He didn’t give to shits about preserving or returning to conservatism within the Republican party. This explains why he was for Giuliani out of the gate.
As for Coulter….her opposition to McCain is even more flippin’ absurd given she authored a book titled: “If Democrats had any brains they’d be Republicans.”
Notice she didn’t say they’d be “Conservatives”. She said Republicans. And, having heard her challenged by my local radio guy about the fact that Republicans have wandered so far off the reservation, and her having no legitimate response other than “well they’re not Democrats”, that she won’t embrace McCain shows what a fraud she is.
As for Rush, he’s always been a champion of Conservatism over Republicanism. His opposition is fully warranted.
Reply to Soapboxgod
June 27th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Out of curiosity, did you happen to look at the number of gun-related homicides per capita in both years?
Sure the basic number might be a few higher, but is the rate higher or lower compared to the number of people who live there – and how did the number of gun-related crimes fare in relation to the overall crime rate.
Just curious… seems like we should be looking at this from all angles and not just one.
Namaste,
A. Caleb Hartley
Reply to A. Caleb Hartley
June 27th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I wrote about this as well. We have the same feeling here, that they should not have even been discussing it at the supreme court, because it is a self evident right. I made the point that if you want to know the founding fathers intent of what they meant by “Militia” and the 2nd amendment, read some of their stuff. James Madison (Who authored the bill of rights) has a lot of good material that further explains what he means.
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” -George Mason
It doesn’t get any more clear than that.
I have two articles on the subject that are fairly short that prove the intent of the founding fathers. Check them out if you’re interested.
Collin
Rejectsociety.com
Reply to Collin Williams
June 27th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
First – to answer Caleb’s comments regarding gun-related crimes per capita in D.C. – The population of D.C. in 2007 was 588292 (source: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_event=Search&_name=&_state=04000US11&_county=&_cityTown=&_zip=&_sse=on&_lang=en&pctxt=fph)
The population of D.C. in 1976 was 702000 (source: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm) First, you’ll note a significant decrease in the population over 30 years. So..to put these numbers in perspective of per capita -
2007 = (143/599292)*100000 = 24.31 gun-related crimes per 100,000
1976 = (135/702000)*100000 = 19.23 gun-related crimes per 100,000
So – this means that gun-related crimes have increased since the ban. You can use these resources I provided you to figure out the years in between if you’d like – but – ultimately – the ban was ineffective – that’s why the population there has dwindled and continues to do so. People just don’t feel safe there. The last source I gave you was all the crimes committed in D.C. between the years 1960 – 2006. Unfortunately, that particular table does not identify whether or not the crime committed was gun related.
Regarding the initial question plus all the subsequent responses to Fredhead – I’m not fan of Hannity or Coulter. I agree that they just toe the Republican party line – think about it – Hannity was so set against McCain – yet – now he’s pushing everyone to vote for him. Hannity claims to be a conservative – well – he might be – but – he’s a Republican first – as is Coulter. Before the talking heads on conservative talk radio had even suggested they weren’t going to vote for McCain and jumped on the bandwagon together – I had already stated from the outset that I would not vote for McCain if he ever became the nomination. My guy is Thompson. I still plan on writing him in.
Why do conservatives detest McCain? I can’t speak for ALL conservatives but for me its because he co-sponsored a bill that took away our freedom of speech during elections, he consistently votes against tax cuts, he’s pro-amnesty, he’s pro-guest worker programs, he buys in to the global warming hoax, etc. He is no conservative and he takes every opportunity that he can to bash and step on conservative principles. His only strong-point is that he supports the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism.
I have never been a one-issue voter and I have always been conservative before Republican. I am no longer Republican. I changed my voter registration to Independent now since the Republican party no longer represents my values.
Cal – I feel your pain. I lived in Europe for 10 years and visited England frequently. You guys are still a great ally – but – you’re unfortunately headed down the wrong path – and we’re headed right behind you.
Jason – Amen, brother!
Collin, Soapbox – I read the articles both of you guys put up – awesome job and some excellent points made.
Cato – give me a call when you’re ready! LOL!!!
Robert, Blake, & Greg – all excellent points! I don’t think I have anything to add there.
Reply to The BoBo
June 27th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
If people are still upset over McCain, why even think about voting for him. Just because he is a lesser evil than Obama doesn’t mean you go for “your party” anyway and vote someone you don’t agree with. How about checking out Bob Barr. He was once Republican, but got out because he believed that the Republicans were leaving their once great selves. Now he is running as a Libertarian, and his views are excellent (in my opinion). He is going to make the United States as great as it was, and lead us to a better future. He is the best candidate in my opinion.
But you should never vote for someone unless you believe in them. Just because you think not voting for someone in the main two parties means you are helping “your party” lose is just stupid. If you work hard and spread the word, you can get other parties into the mix too.
Back to the topic kind of. Like I said, it is quite scary that this topic had to show up anyways. It should of been simple to begin with. I’m telling you, some politicians out there are trying to change the America that is great, and lead it into something that it was not founded for. So now some governments want to restrict the second amendment, then tell you how you can watch TV and what light bulbs you have to use, and then they want to monitor your telephone calls and e-mails.
What’s next? Anyone care to guess?
Reply to Bradley Hankins
June 27th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Well – there’s also what you can or cannot eat (they’ve already starting banning various oils because of trans fats which has made the food taste like shit now) give us the knowledge and let us make the decision for ourselves
Then – there’s diet supplements – they banned Ephedra because 2 prominent sports people died because they misused and abused the producte. There have been less than 10 deaths over all contributed to Ephedra use – yet there each year approximately 7,500 people die from aspirin – but you don’t see them taking that off the shelves
Bradley – they’ve already been telling us how we can live – but people aren’t really thinking about it. When I was a kid, cars didn’t have seat belts.
There are smoking bans all across the country, motorcycle helmet laws, bicycle helmet laws for children under 14 – again – there were no such things as bike helmets for kids when I was growing up – but I survived.
They’ve been slowly and gradually encroaching on our freedoms all in the name of “public health” for the last 30 decades. People say..hmmm…makes sense…okay. But, each time we the people allow it to happen, the more it becomes a nanny state. The government is already controlling more of your life than you realize.
Reply to The BoBo
June 27th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
The seat belt idea came to make the road ways safer (because of many idiots out there). I understand the government wanting to help keep us safe (at least it looks like they were trying to do good here, as well with the bike helmets), but in some cases seat belts have helped in the injury and deaths of car accident victims. I think it should be up to whoever is in the car really, but I myself am so use to the things, and in most situations I am in, it is usually helpful.
The helmet thing isn’t really a big deal (technically yes). Hardly anyone uses helmets anyways, unless training for a bike. Now if your talking about motorcycles, it is kinda the same with the seat belts above.
Who cares about the food? Who cars what medicine we take. I think what people should do is put warnings (like cigarette companies do) that says how the product is good for you, and how it is bad for you, all equal spacing and such (make it fair). Then people can choose what they want and what they don’t. I mean, when people use a product that says “Warning: This has the possibility to kill you or damage your health”, people still use it.
People should do what they want (as long as they follow some simple laws like no killing, stealing, etc. and stuff), they should be warned of the consequences, and whatever actions they choose, they must face the consequences, good or bad.
The government shouldn’t babysit us, and just because someone famous dies for a reason, the government shouldn’t be wanting to ban the reason (either their own decisions or because they feel obligated because the deceased was “famous”).
Reply to Bradley Hankins
June 27th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
You’re right on all points there Bradley. However, with regards to the seatbelt and helmet laws (yes, motorcycle and bicycles) I don’t care if the government just wants us to be safe. Constitutionally, it is not the government’s responsibility to ensure our safety by instituting MANDATORY laws.
Reply to The BoBo
June 28th, 2008 at 4:41 am
I was just saying at least it seems like they were trying to make us do something good. But your right, it is wrong. And like I said, they should just make the facts public, good and bad, and let the people choose if they want to use the products.
Reply to Bradley Hankins
June 28th, 2008 at 8:47 am
I’m with ya 100% Bradley.
Reply to The BoBo
June 29th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Conservative Republican Bob Barr now Conservative Libertarian Bob Barr, and tomorrow Independent Conservative Bob Barr could be a “game changer” in this election just as Ross Perot was in 1992.
I guess he want to give the ultra-conservatives a reason not to sit home on election day.
Instead of sitting home, rather than voting for McCain, some of these ultra-conservative Republicans will vote for Bob Barr.
In November, Bob Barr will win zero Electoral Votes, John McCain will win about 100 Electoral Votes, and President Barack Obama will have received 438 Electoral Votes.
Most people will rejoice, but the ultra-conservative Republicans will belly up to the Barr
Welcome to the campaign Bob.
Just for starters––
What are you going to do about the deficit?
What are you going to about the economy?
What are you going to do about Iraq?
What are you gonig to do about energy policy?
What are you going to do about the environment?
What are you going to do about the nation’s infrastructure?
What are you going to about the nation’s lack of health care for millions of citizens?
What about the government’s ability to hold and torture and spy on citizens?
Are you ever going to tell us or are you just going to coast as a spoiler?
His track record in Congress is nil and near non-existent. No one cares about him. He’s anothe joke. Just like Ron Paul is.
Reply to Fredhead from TN.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
What are you going to do about the deficit?
Bob Barr believes the the government is spending way to much, and way more than it needs to be doing. He also thinks that some of it is a waste of taxpayer money. He believes the coporate welfare should be eliminated, largesse for middle and upper class uncome Americans must be cut, and defense spending which protects our populous, prosperous allies needs to end.
What are you going to about the economy?
All the above would mean real tax reform. He thinks we should adobt a form of compsumption tax, like a national sales tax that would replace the IRS and all federal income taxes as well as payroll taxes. This means more money in your pocket, which means more money for you to spend. Bob Barr thinks that the government should have never “tinkered” with the countries economy. The Federal Reserve, he believes, helps make the economy worst. Instead of the people controlling the economy, now you got non-elected “managers” who run it – Bob Barr will stop this. He also believes in a free market.
What are you going to do about Iraq?
Bob Barr wants to get out of Iraq. He also does not want to go to war in Iran. He believes that we should reinstate a non-intervention foreign policy. He says that the U.S is not the worlds police fource, and we should be seen as a peaceful nation, and not a war-mongering one. But, Barr says if attacked, the aggressor will experience firsthand the skillful wrath of the American fighting man. However, invadind or initiating force against another nation based upon percieved threats and speculative intelligence is simply un-American.
What are you gonig to do about energy policy?
Bob Barr is not a fan of corn-based ethenol. He believes we should ewxpand coal-to-liquid fuel productions and build more nuclear power plants. Also, Bob Barr wants to drill offshore and in ANWR – free up the market and begin development.
What are you going to do about the environment?
Bob Barr thibks global warming is a myth so to say. It is just some hype to get everyone scared. He also believes that the Kyoto Treaty is “going to saddle us”. Barr says that the government should not regulate greenhouse-gas emissions.
What are you going to do about the nation’s infrastructure?
Ok, you got me on this one. I couldn’t find much about this. But I will ask him for you, and I will be back with an answer.
What are you going to about the nation’s lack of health care for millions of citizens?
Bob Barr believes the government should not run health care, as it would just keep running it to the ground, and make it worst. Just like with the economy, Barr wants to return health care to the hands of the people, and let the doctors choose what is best for their patients, and not hovernment insurance companies who are only looking out for theirselves.
What about the government’s ability to hold and torture and spy on citizens?
Bob Barr believes that the use of torture will come back to haunt us, and he also believes that the famours “waterboarding” is torture. He says that the Patriot Act in unconstitutional, and he believes that Americans should be given their civil liberties back – giving back Habeus Corpus is a start.
Are you ever going to tell us or are you just going to coast as a spoiler?
You can find a lot of information about Bob Barr, you have to look, just like for the other candidates. You do not Bob Barr has is own website, http://www.bobbarr2008.com You can also find more information on YouTube, Facebook, Myspace, and Digg. Not only that, you can just Google it! Bob Barr says that this is a three man race, and he is in it to win it.
Oh, and are you the guy who post basically this same post on other blogs too? If so, have you ever really been given an answer? And why do you really keep doing it, and who do you support?
Reply to Bradley Hankins