More Wild West/Blood in the Streets/The World will end

Status
Not open for further replies.

xjchief

Member
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
443
Location
People's Banana Republic of Hawaii
More dribble from a person who claims "to be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment". He claims DC was making "good strides" in curbing homicide rates in DC. Apparently he's too ignorant or dishonest to note that handguns have been banned in DC for decades prior to the "record shattering homicide rates of the early 1990's." :rolleyes:

http://www.examiner.com/x-367-DC-El...8-The-Wild-Wild-North-West--A-Supreme-Mistake

The Wild, Wild (North) West - A Supreme Mistake
POSTED June 28, 9:29 PM

Earlier this week the Supreme Court outlawed the gun ban enacted by the District of Columbia. In a 5 to 4 decision, the Justices decided that the ban was unconstitutional as it violated the right of an individual to own a firearm through the Second Amendment.
In my opinion, they have made an error in judgment based on an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution. For those of you who have not read it lately, here is what 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.”

The key phrase is the one before the comma; “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State.” The Constitution was a compromise between the states and a national government that allowed both entities to share power in a federal system. A State militia was necessary to protect the States from the National government and to protect the United States from foreign invasion (the British). The Second Amendment was written out of necessity because there was no standing army therefore mobilization of citizen soldiers was crucial to our defense as a nation.

In their landmark decision the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment differently. The majority decision reads: “Therefore, the District of Columbia's handgun ban, which "amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense," and the requirement that any firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock, which "makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense," is ruled unconstitutional.”

The Second Amendment mentions nothing about a “lawful purpose of self-defense” against other citizens. The purpose was to secure the State, not for people to practice their personal brand of justice. This decision will have long-term consequences for public safety at every level of society. In Chicago, gun right activists have already filed a lawsuit to get their gun ban law repealed and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. I am a veteran, a member of the American Legion, and a citizen soldier in the Army National Guard. Repealing the gun ban in D.C. is wrong because the reason given for the decision is not applicable under the Constitution.

This is the wrong signal to send to a municipal jurisdiction that was making good strides in the reduction of homicides (85 as of June 27th) and a record number of firearm recoveries in 2007 (2,924). Time will tell if this ruling will be a blessing ….or will signal a return to record shattering homicide rates of the early 1990s.
 
From the author
The purpose was to secure the State, not for people to practice their personal brand of justice. <snip> I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. I am a veteran... (yadda yadda, the usual platitudes to establish credible knowledge of firearms...)
Apparently, in his own Bizzaro World, the Second Amendment is about the right to hug fuzzy bunnies and enjoy puppy kisses because of the protection provided by the Militia. Well, I wonder if the First Amendment he so reveres means that he can read whatever tripe the Ministry of Truth has to offer?
 
What he doesn't realize is that WE THE PEOPLE are the state militia, not the National Guard nor Army Reserve.

DUH. :rolleyes:
 
We heard the 'blood in the streets' argument when I lived in Portland OR and the state went from discretionary CCW to 'shall issue'. Personal crime dropped significantly, an the antis quickly stopped using that argument.

There is not a single case i can think of where gun crimes increases in a jurisdiction where gun laws were liberalized.
 
I am a veteran, a member of the American Legion, and a citizen soldier in the Army National Guard.
....and a future threat to every law abiding gun owner who foolishly registers his / her weapon because I WILL DO AS TOLD regardless of the Constitution and confiscate your weapons, by gunpoint if necessary (Wasn't Katrina FUN)!
 
What a blithering idiot! How did this moron graduate from high school with such a poor understanding of English grammar? Any Fifth Grader should know that in a complex sentence the clause that can stand on its own as a complete sentence is the main thought.
 
During the Revolutionary War, the people were the militia and were required to own a firearm after the war was won.

Folks like this will sit back and watch the US crumble and say "whatever".
 
Let him dither on about the militia as much as he would bigfoot or the easter bunny. His interpretation nor his telling the SCOTUS they got it wrong has any weight or validity any more. It is just rants and nothing to fear any longer. We will hear about militia fallacy until the second coming but it has no weight of law any longer. Lots of battles to be fought but that argument will never hold water in a courtroom ever again. Pretty sweet don't you think? Just grin at the idiots.
 
"The Second Amendment mentions nothing about a “lawful purpose of self-defense” against other citizens. The purpose was to secure the State, not for people to practice their personal brand of justice."

So in his opinion, defending yourself would be considered your own "personal brand of justice"?

I guess that quivering in the dark waiting for 911 to pick up is HIS personal brand of justice.
 
some guy said:
I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. I am a veteran, a member of the American Legion, and a citizen soldier in the Army National Guard. Repealing the gun ban in D.C. is wrong because the reason given for the decision is not applicable under the Constitution.

Since he bases his opinion on what is stated "before the comma" in the 2A: I think it is appropriate to point out that in the above quote, what is stated in the first half of his paragraph has nothing to do with what is in the second half.

Might be that since he has some obvious difficulty connecting sentences to form coherent paragraphs; he also might have problems connecting dependent and independent clauses.

Just sayin'.
 
This is the wrong signal to send to a municipal jurisdiction that was making good strides in the reduction of homicides (85 as of June 27th) and a record number of firearm recoveries in 2007 (2,924). Time will tell if this ruling will be a blessing ….or will signal a return to record shattering homicide rates of the early 1990s.

Rights have nothing to do with homicide rates; in any event, Washington, D.C. is, has been, and doubtless will continue to be a cesspool of crime.
 
In my opinion, they have made an error in judgment based on an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution. For those of you who have not read it lately, here is what the Second Amendment says:

Another jackass that thinks he knows more about the constitution than the nine (five?) most brilliant legal scholars in the country. Does he really think that he got it spot-on in one paragraph, when it took Justice Scalia almost one hundred pages?
 
My question to him would be:

If you can have "An Army of One", couldn't you have "A Militia of One"?

Methinks I have an idea for a T-shirt. :evil:

You heard it here first, folks. I got dibs on the idea. ;)
 
The Second Amendment mentions nothing about a “lawful purpose of self-defense” against other citizens. The purpose was to secure the State, not for people to practice their personal brand of justice.

actually i thought the second amendment was to insure limitation upon the power of the state. i.e. to defeat the state should it become a tyrant. the abilty to protect oneself is just an added bonus.

of course i think this dude for got the key word which is a "free state".
 
The antis wore out the whole "blood in the streets" arguments when states started doing shall-issue CCW. It didn't happen then and it won't happen now.
The purpose was to secure the State, not for people to practice their personal brand of justice.
Read the federalist papers if you can lower your nose long enough Mr. Historian.
Time will tell if this ruling will be a blessing ….or will signal a return to record shattering homicide rates of the early 1990s.
Like during the ban? Yes, time will tell indeed. Just think, those stupid serfs defending themselves from violent criminals, the horror!
 
bluestarlizzard said:
actually i thought the second amendment was to insure limitation upon the power of the state. i.e. to defeat the state should it become a tyrant. the abilty to protect oneself is just an added bonus.
My understanding has always been that the 2A is to protect us from tyranny, and that this other idea - that the right of self-defense from common thugs would have to be enumerated in the Constitution - was simply beyond the imagination of the founders. Clearly, they gave future generations too much credit.

Scalia does seem to follow this "self-defense is gravy" interpretation. Notice how he quotes from Rex v. Marks via J. Bishop at the bottom of page 4:
It is nothing unusual in acts . . . for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.
The court's interpretation hinges on the idea that the prefatory clause does not in any way limit the scope of the operative clause, thus the people have the right to bear arms for any legal purpose. Self-defense, militia service, sporting, etc., are all equal under this interpretation... which is what we've been saying for years!
 
This decision will have long-term consequences for public safety at every level of society.
the author is right about one thing. it just got alot unhealthier to enter uninvited into another's home.
 
He clearly did not read the opinion he is disagreeing with. Scalia tears apart that whole "it's for the States" canard.

To me the most convincing argument is that the Constitution proper contains the Militia clause that allows the Congress to regulate the organized militia. Given that the Congress, through its regulatory powers, could so drastically limit the organized militia as to make it nonexistent, the Second Amendment would be completely useless. It would protect a State's right to arm a nonexistent militia. Absolutely stupid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top