LA Times Editorial - 2nd Amendment

[mgregg85]

surprise, surprise... Kalifornistan wants to enforce it's own radical interpretations of the bill of rights onto us all. Sure the 1st amendment guarantees an individual right but not the 2nd. They criticize gun manufacturers for supporting 2A rights but then support the amendment that protects their own line of work. But thats not what its really all about, its about protecting Americans from those gun owning psychopaths who care not for safety but only for automatic weapons.

 

[rdhood]

Nice how they even make it sound like Bush's idea, as if RKBA proponents haven't been saying that this is an individual right for the last 80 years:

But in striking down the district's law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia embraced the Bush administration's view that the 2nd Amendment

 

[gunsmith]

what he said (but with new improved spelling)

the Second Amendment IS for the publics safety & security!

 

[gunsmith]

yay! my thread was first

06:49 ....you....1834....dupe thread!
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=292408

 

[gunsmith]

their Jim Crow laws will be destroyed

The Hollywood elite don't want blacks and hispanics to have equal rights.
They will use every lie to preserve their power.

 

[Smokehouse]

The "anti" propaganda machine is just warmin up,folks get ready for a lot more of this in the MSM before the hearing. Take an anti to the range!

 

[DonP]

The LA Times is self destructing all by itself.

We buy a lot of media space and three times in the last year we have gotten "refund" credits from the Times because their circulation dropped below the guaranteed minimums.

Their advertising rates are all negotiated with deep discounts (40% and up) "off card" because they are desperate to keep advertisers on board and it's still not working.

Their subscription base is getting older every year and younger people aren't buying into the dead tree media, even with all their re-designs and online editions.

At the rate they are going pretty soon they will be competing with the "Penny Saver" shopping circular. The only differenc eis the Penny Saver has a better editorial board.

 

[longeyes]

Probably written by one of their student interns, after careful coaching.

 

[Marshall]

but also its radical reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Great, reporters who think they're self appointed 2A justices and get to decide what is and is not radical. Left Coast strikes again. Idiots.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Merginated!

 

[Deanimator]

their Jim Crow laws will be destroyed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Hollywood elite don't want blacks and hispanics to have equal rights.
They will use every lie to preserve their power.

The only people on earth more dishonest than anti-gunners are Holocaust deniers, and I've seen my share of overlap between the two.

 

[Dan M.]

surprise, surprise... Kalifornistan wants to enforce it's own radical interpretations of the bill of rights onto us all.

You're wrong. The LA Times wants to do that, but there are Californians (with a "C") who are 2Aers. The anti-gunners haven't run us out.

http://www.calccw.com/

 

[SWMAN]

Here is what I do not understand if the NATIONAL GUARD was set up in the 20th century and the 2nd amendment was written and ratified in the 18th century I fail to understand how the 2nd only applies to the National guard..anyone?

I went to Consolidated Theater a couple weeks ago to see a movie, and in the advertisements shown prior to the movie, the National Guard stated that they have existed for three hundred and some years. Actually, the NG structure as we know today has only existed since 1903. Prior to the Militia Act of 1903 that essentially federalized the NG, only state militias existed.

 

[Tim James]

This issue cries out for the "judicial modesty" that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has celebrated.

...and while we're at it, the LA Times has prepared a list of other things that cry out for judicial modesty, plus a list of things that cry out for judicial activism to change for the better. Thanks!

 

[[FH]K96]

You're wrong. The LA Times wants to do that, but there are Californians (with a "C") who are 2Aers. The anti-gunners haven't run us out.

Yeah Dan M. you are right. There are several of us here. But, sadly it won't be 2A haters that cause me to leave it will be the fact that I would like to be a home owner.

 

[Colt]

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia embraced the Bush administration's view

I was wondering how they would twist this subject into a condemnation of President Bush. Bravo! Didn't see that coming!

The 2 rules of popular media: Sex Sells. It's Bush's Fault.

 

[Titan6]

I love how they blame it on Bush. One wonders if they know anything about the issue at all.

 

[Dan M.]

Yeah Dan M. you are right. There are several of us here. But, sadly it won't be 2A haters that cause me to leave it will be the fact that I would like to be a home owner.

No dissension from me on that point.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The LA Times is so slanted it is a wonder it has not slid into the Pacific by now.

 

[LeafsFan]

where gun violence mocks the "pursuit of happiness" guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence

The Declaration didn't actually guarantee this or anything else. It simply said everyone had the right to it. And sometimes you have to fight to keep your rights from those who would take them from you, eh? So in that case the Declaration seems to be implying that i need a gun, just in case.

Also, "Pursuit of Happiness" was originally worded in the rough draft as "Pursuit of Private Property", but I beleive it was B. Franklin who thought it should be changed so that everyone in the country at that time could relate to it, as not everyone could own private property.

Happiness in the context of the Declaration simply means the right to own "stuff", not the emotional "I feel Good" type of happy.

 

[longeyes]

"Public Safety"--the new fascism.

 

[Leanwolf]

I lived in Los Angeles from Feb., 1962, until Dec., 1997. I subscribed to the Los Angeles Times for 28 years. (Finally gave up the subsc. because of their extreme left wing political slant on EVERYTHING!)

The editors, reporters, columnists, and cartoonists of the Los Angeles Times have been in favor of banning and the confiscation of ALL firearms from the "worker peasants" for many, many years. The L.A. Times has published MANY editorials and articles demanding confiscation, and "explaining" that the Second Amendment was in the Bill of Rights in order to arm the police and military. Individual worker peasants had NO Right to own and protect themselves with firearms. Their real assault began after J.F.K. was assasinated in Nov., 1963. The assault has continued incessantly ever since.

Although I'm not there anymore, I have friends who are. The Los Angeles Times is as strictly controlled by the Marxist Socialist inspired power mad editors, etc., as it ever was.

FWIW.

L.W.

 

[Matt King]

How about mounting a letter writing campaign over in the Activism sub forum, to try and make our voices heard? I am sure that even the LA times couldn't ignore a wave of pro-gun "Letters to the editor."

 

[Carl N. Brown]

"Fulfulling its duty to defend its laws..."

If the law struck down by a court was one opposed by the
LA Times, the jurisdiction would be wrong to appeal the
court's decision.

".... danger ... radical ... reasonable ...."

The danger lies in laws that disarm the law abiding and embolden the
criminal. The radical position is the stance taken in the 1930s taht
the 2A was a "collective" right: for over 100 years the courts had
treated the right to keep and bear arms like the right to vote: see
the Cruikshank decision 1873 or the debates on the 1870 Civil Rights
Act. Antigunners support prohibition and reasonable to prohibitionists
is bans like Washington DC.

The first clause is a reason--but not a limiting reason--why the
government should support the RKBA.

The individual rights model of the 2A is the Standard Model which
existed before the 1930s and has been championed in legal and
historical journals since then and long before the election of
GWBush. 1930 to 2000 saw,what, EIGHTY peer-reviewed articles
published in refereed academic journals supporting the Standard
Model?

Miller 1939--Miller himself was dead, his lawyer did not make an
appearance, essentially the "prosecution" presented the government's
case without a "defense", and one judge Reynolds wrote a decision.
If a decision had been handed down under such circumstances on
a cause that LA Times supported, it would be labelled a miscarriage
of justice. But it was not Reynolds who described the "militia" so
broadly--it was every militia act or law from the time of the
revolution that described the militia "so broadly."
U.S. Code of Laws, Title 10, Subtitle A, PART I, CHAPTER 13,
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in
section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who
have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of
the United States and of female citizens of the United States
who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National
Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or
the Naval Militia.
THE US CODE OF LAW described the MILITIA "broadly" not the
1939 court. The definition cited by Silberman is the USC definition.

The LA Times calls for ignoring the Constituion at the LA Times'
convenience. That is not how a democratic constitutional republic
is supposed to work. Support and defend the Constitution first.