The Heller Misdirection

Status
Not open for further replies.
I know that several of our founders held that the citizenry might have to throw off a tyrannical government through armed insurrection at some point. However, I do not think the language of the Second Amendment supports the idea that this is the purpose for the amendment.

It is the fundamental purpose of the amendment. Is a state with a tyrannical government a "free state"? If not, then what does "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" imply?

In the twentieth century, four times as many people were murdered by their own governments than were killed in war. The founders had no clue how right they were.

On the other hand, it is entirely possible that the framers left writings expressing that purpose (the overthrow of tyranny) clearly. If they exist, I am not aware of them. That does not mean they do not exist as I am not a constitutional scholar of any sort.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html
 
We can't really expect a statist creature like Antonin Scalia to embrace the view that the right to keep and bear arms includes the right of citizens, acting either individually or collectively, to kill agents of the state when such action is necessary and morally justified.

This windbag is nigh-near promoting anarchy with his "version" of freedom - and lying to substantiate his position.

Mr. Grigg either didn't read or purposely ignores Scalia's claims on pages 25, 27, and 41 (Heller decision) that opposition to tyranny is one of the purposes for the 2nd Amendment. Shame on Grigg for omitting that.

Further, if being reticent to endorse "[individually killing] agents of the state" automatically makes one a statist, then there's probably a little of that in me as well.
 
Last edited:
Umm, all the other citizens with artillery and armor?
I was trying to infer that, assuming everything else was the same and people were able to buy whatever sort of artillery they could get their hands on...not everyone would have gobs and gobs of cash to buy Tomahawk missles or aircraft carriers, or what have you. But some people would, i.e. Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet...ya pickin' up what I'm layin' down? :cool:
 
Did Grigg read the same court documents that I did? I think not.

Sheesh, I sometimes think that some folks won't be happy until their apocalyptic predictions come true and blood runs in the streets.
 
I said:

I know that several of our founders held that the citizenry might have to throw off a tyrannical government through armed insurrection at some point. However, I do not think the language of the Second Amendment supports the idea that this is the purpose for the amendment.

shdwfx said:

Scalia's claims on pages 25, 27, and 41 (Heller decision) that opposition to tyranny is one of the purposes for the 2nd Amendment.


I stand corrected. I went back and reread the passages that shdwfx referenced, and obviously Scalia's far superior legal brain thinks that the languge of the Second Amendment recognizes throwing off tyranny as one of the purposes of the Second. Somehow, I bet he is right.

Thanks, shdwfx.
 
Last edited:
^^^
Yes, Scalia's detailed chronicling of the reasoning that went into constructing the exact verbiage of the 2nd was amazing. It's what our founders and many here have held to for years. Vindication is a sweet beverage.
 
Sadly, too many of the folks who say "all or nothing" (and they are far too prevalent among us...)

Thats funny. Our Fore-Farthers said "all or nothing." MY understanding back then was "Give me Liberty or give me Death". They didn't compromise back then. No NRA or pack money either. They gave their blood so I could sit here and type this message. Unfortunatly its gone too far in my books for anything to really turn around. The Govt has way too much power. :(
 
A narrow ruling in Heller was not necessary. Roe v. Wade, for example, had a broad holding; however, the facts presented a relatively narrow question. The Supreme Court should set broad, simple holdings. It is the Supreme Court after all, and their holdings are on the same par as the Constitution itself. With narrow holdings, side-steppers run amok. Consider, for example, the DC authorities after the Heller decision.

Today's Supreme Court may be trying to prevent another Plessy or Dred Scott fiasco. However, being a SCOTUS justice is supposed to be tough, and narrow rulings are too easy. SCOTUS should leave out all the extraneous language that narrows a holding related to the Bill of Rights, particularly the Second Amendment.
 
There are some thoughtful responses here. I hope you guys are spending equal or more time in the Activism section. You can disagree with what I posted above. However, if you aren't participating in activism, your opinion here holds no weight.
 
saltydog said:
Thats funny. Our Fore-Farthers said "all or nothing." MY understanding back then was "Give me Liberty or give me Death". They didn't compromise back then.

If you read the period history, you'll find a lot of compromise.
Your quote was of Patrick Henry, a radical even by revolutionary standards, and it took nearly 3 years for the anti-federalists of Henry's ilk to agree to a Constitution with stronger central government.

Not all colonists entered into the war with England quite so boisterously as Henry. The extreme anti-federalist ideal is an imbalanced sample (statistically speaking) if you are looking for a representative founding father flavor.

...just sayin'

jakemccoy said:
I hope you guys are spending equal or more time in the Activism section. However, if you aren't participating in activism, your opinion here holds no weight.

Appreciate what you are saying, and I'm sure you back up your words with actions. However, don't assume we all do nothing just because the Activism section of THR isn't a hot hang-out. Many, like myself, are involved in local (state level) activism boards and do call, write, and generally pester our representatives on a regular basis.
Forgive me if you didn't mean that as harsh as it sounded.
 
Isn't Lew Rockwell the guy who wrote the racist Ron Paul editorials?
Sounds fishy to me, especially since I've read a bit of Heller.
I concede! I haven't read the whole thing yet!
But we got so much more than we were expecting. This just feels like complaining for complaining's sake.
That is called...
Something I'm not allowed to say on a family forum.
 
Some people may call criticism of the opinion merely complaining. It's more like noticing weaknesses in order to predict the enemy’s next move. If you think a healthy paranoia of the enemy is unnecessary, then you vastly underestimate our enemy. After all, they did get 4 Justices on a decision that seems plainly obvious.
 
A balance will be determined by other (lower) courts between the dicta of the ruling and the operative reasoning.
Dicta is NOT binding.
 
Dicta is NOT binding.
Thats certainly true. It is however indicative of what 5 of the SC justices think and lower courts are quite likely to give it a lot of consideration.
 
I think we all need to realize/remember that we are dealing with the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States of America. We are not dealing with a document or Amendment that allows for bargaining away of our precious rights by creative interpretations (including those that stop short of declaring what it means in its entirety).

The Supreme Court made a decision that assured the boat would not be rocked more than they would be unable to avoid having happen. They were never going to declare 1934 NFA gone, nor would they ever strike down the Hughes provision of 1986 FOPA as what it is, a de facto ban on even currently civilian legal machine-guns, due to massive price inflation. The Supreme Court has no intention of aiding citizens in acquiring things such as machine-guns, sound suppressors, short-barreled weapons, grenades, mortars, etc... They know how useful such items would be to insurgents and they know how restless citizens can get, especially when they are losing their properties, their homes, their farms, their livelihoods, in increasing numbers, to bogus eminent domain cases involving private companies that seek to build hotels or shopping malls.

This is the same Supreme Court that declared private businesses can seize your property or receive seized property from local governments, as long as the building they will be building, that is to say the business they will be running, is projected to generate more revenue for the local government in question.

We are not talking about a decent Supreme Court here; we are talking about out of touch elitists. With Heller they threw us the bare minimum bone to placate those of us who are easily placated, and to avert a massive backlash from those who were close to the breaking point.

If they declared an outright ban to be proper and constitutional, it might have sparked a wave of violence. They found something that provided an option for the restoration of the least amount of rights that instantly defanged almost all gun-owners by assuring they had no cause to do what the founding fathers would have done decades ago in this nation; rising up and stopping tyranny.


What Heller translates to is a tactical victory in an overall strategic defeat. Gun rights are on the way out, slowly but surely. Gradualism is how they do it when the people are asleep and unattentive about such risks.

Our crucial inherent rights are non-negotiable, not subject to court decisions, and they are really not up for debate. As far as I am concerned, the constitution says what it says, it doesn't take a law degree from Harvard to understand it, it pretty much speaks for itself. I don't need a court, in a 5-4 ruling no less, to recognize and grant rights and liberties that I have and that I've known I have had all my life.
 
bare minimum bone
I would hardly say that. The minority opinion was the bare minimum that they could have gotten away with giving us.
We got a lot in the Heller decision. We didn't get everything, we didn't get the repeal of the '34, '68 and '86 bans, and we didn't get the dissolution of the BATFE. But we got recognition for modern firearms being used in self-defense situations. That is firm land to stand on. My friends, we have just gained a staging area in the great battle for the 2A. We can now attack the antis and win. We need to take more cases to court, we need to open this break in the line as wide as we can.
And we will do it. If I have to do it myself.
Just because Heller is the beginning of the end does not mean it is not important. We have the momentum and force to win this completely, and Heller is our door to victory. Don't say "we've lost" just because in one decision we didn't get free machine guns from the government; say "we are winning. We are finally winning." Because we are. This is the beginning of the end for the Bradys and their ilk. Provided we stick with this and continue our fight, in fifty or so years, the 2nd Amendment will be as sacred to every American as the 1st. Mark my words.
 
The next generation of adults is growing up, coming of age, and they have been brought up in a nation where popular sentiment is against firearms, at least that is the projection made by the media, movies, TV, Hollywood, etc. Attitudes towards firearms are ultimately what will determine the fate of firearms in this nation, and while many older people are still strongly in favor of firearms, many younger people, particularly college educated young adult professionals, are against firearms or at least weapons such as "assault rifles," "Saturday night specials," "fifty caliber 'sniper rifles'," and generally handguns as an entire class. Even if their parents tell them that guns are okay, and often necessary, their celebrity heroes (who they often emulate in terms of promiscuous sex and drug use) tell them that guns are far from okay. Why listen to your parents about guns if you won't listen about sex, alcohol, drugs, and the other things that Hollywood is pushing?

It doesn't matter what laws are stricken down in the meanwhile, as the youth continue to come of age after having been subjected to typically twelve years of publicly funded anti-freedom and anti-American indoctrination, all paid for by their parents and by all Americans who are victims of government perpetrated theft.

While we fight in the courtrooms for our rights, we send our children to the very institutions where our rights are demonized, being associated with the most vile of criminals and outlaws. You're trying to plug the surface leaks in a dam, while ignoring the fact that the foundation is being washed away under the surface...

It makes little difference that concealed carry is an almost nationwide reality, or that the Supreme Court just approved a very narrow understanding of the Second Amendment that will realize the Amendment being subject to the interpretation of tyrants who legislate from the bench, and local political bosses who seek to strip away precious liberties and rights from those citizens unfortunate enough to live within their reach.

The children of the 1980s were largely taught to hate and fear guns, as the children of the 1990s are being taught, as the present young children of the 2000s are largely being taught, all on the taxpayer's dime.

We don't lose today, nor will we. We lose in twenty years...

They want to grant anywhere from twenty to forty million criminal illegal aliens amnesty and citizenship in this nation. They want to unify the United States of America with Canada and Mexico. They want to grant the UN international courts total jurisdiction within the United States. They cannot accomplish these goals or maintain their goals as realities (once accomplished) unless the American people are by and large disarmed or ideologically and morally defanged. They are not only going to attack our rights, they are going to attack our cultural values, which they have been doing so vigorously for years, to assure that what few guns we do wind up able to keep, are never put to use in opposing their New World Order.
 
Why listen to your parents about guns if you won't listen about sex, alcohol, drugs, and the other things that Hollywood is pushing?
You do realize that, if parents do their job, children are much more likely to listen to them than celebrities, right?
Now, I agree with you, education is the huge rotten core at the center of our country.
I was homeschooled until sixth grade (and in private school until HS), and I cannot begin to imagine what I would be like if I had been shoved into a public school at the most important time in my development.
It doesn't matter what laws are stricken down
Yes, it does.
having been subjected to typically twelve years of publicly funded anti-freedom and anti-American indoctrination
You have no idea how bad it is... My God, it makes one want to storm the schools and try the admins for treason.
we send our children to the very institutions where our rights are demonized
Sometimes there is no other option. Now, I intend to be rich, so, God willing, my children will have an education unconnected with the travesty that is American public schools.
while ignoring the fact that the foundation is being washed away under the surface...
I disagree. We cannot tell people where to send their children to school (but we can vote for candidates who will abolish the Dept. of Ed., hint, hint), but we have figured out that the best way to undo the miseducation that people receive is to expose them to firearms on a firsthand basis. That is the first step to integration in the gun community, which, at it's heart, is dominated by freedom-loving and independent individuals.
It makes little difference that concealed carry is an almost nationwide reality
Tell that to the people who have used their weapons in self-defense and are now advocates for freedom.
or that the Supreme Court just approved a very narrow understanding of the Second Amendment that will realize the Amendment being subject to the interpretation of tyrants who legislate from the bench
That's just plain fallacious. The floodgates are open. To us.
The children of the 1980s were largely taught to hate and fear guns, as the children of the 1990s are being taught, as the present young children of the 2000s are largely being taught, all on the taxpayer's dime.
Well, yeah, that's why you pull your kids out of public school and vote for Ron Paul.
We don't lose today, nor will we. We lose in twenty years...
With that attitude, you will not have to wait twenty years.
They want to grant anywhere from twenty to forty million criminal illegal aliens amnesty and citizenship in this nation.
"They", who's "they"? There are some members of this board that want that. That has little bearing on the gun issue. If I had my druthers, they'd have never had to come over here illegally in the first place, we'd have an open-gate policy for immigration.
They want to unify the United States of America with Canada and Mexico.
That's not a bad idea. As long as they follow our Constitution, not the other way around. Quite frankly, Mexico would be way better off under a constitutional, federal system as we have. And military incursions onto US soil every year is a strong reason for war.
67 states doesn't sound so bad when you look at it that way.
They cannot accomplish these goals or maintain their goals as realities (once accomplished) unless the American people are by and large disarmed or ideologically and morally defanged.
Hence why we should fight doubly hard against it.
They are not only going to attack our rights, they are going to attack our cultural values, which they have been doing so vigorously for years, to assure that what few guns we do wind up able to keep, are never put to use in opposing their New World Order.
Yep. But they will not win. Not as long as I draw breath.
And a NWO ain't a bad thing in and of itself. It's a NWO under the principles of European socialism and oppression that is frightening. A NWO with the US Constitution as it's sacred core would be awesome.
 
You have no idea how bad it is


Having graduated high school in 2004 I have every idea of how bad it is. Despite being an honor student and graduating magna cum laude, I still had approximately 70 days of suspensions on my record. I was suspended for things such as having an NRA hat in my locker, having a gun manufacturer catalog in my locker.

I actually had my locker subjected to a search because the principal said she was looking for a "gun magazine" (she heard I had a gun magazine and immediately assumed it meant "clip" which she pressed me about when all she found was literature with pictures, ie- a magazine as in the type you read).

I'm telling you from having interacted with people of my age group for a good number of years, most of them either do not care, or they are actively opposed to gun ownership. The only thing we have going for us is that those of my age group who are pro-gun tend to be zealous about it.
 
We cannot tell people where to send their children to school

We can urge people not to send their kids to any school. Tax-payer supported schools where citizens are required to involuntarily support the schools via involuntary taxes, are illegitimate. I disagree with them in principle and I hate how they are run in practice.
 
Yep. But they will not win. Not as long as I draw breath.
And a NWO ain't a bad thing in and of itself. It's a NWO under the principles of European socialism and oppression. A NWO with the US Constitution as it's sacred core would be awesome.


There is no such thing as getting to pick your NWO. For a decade they denied the existence of a NWO, and then when they finally admitted it, they said the NWO won't be so bad, that it will be a NWO that is in line with the views of the true right-wing libertarian patriots in the USA.

The very idea of an international promulgation of the Constitution and a Roman style Pax Americana being spread across the world would be the antithesis to the basic tenets of American republican values and the very principles upon which the Constitution itself is founded. The founders did not create this nation so we could skip across the world and plant American style democracies everywhere we found ourselves.

Globalism is Stalinism/Marxism no matter how you slice it.
 
Having graduated high school in 2004 I have every idea of how bad it is.
Okay, then we're in the same boat. My apologies.
We can urge people not to send their kids to any school.
Which I do, to the best of my abilities (people tend to not listen to me). Certainly you can, but you'll never get to everyone at the low level.
There is no such thing as getting to pick your NWO
Really? Assume the United States is the world. Bam! A Constitution-based NWO.
that it will be a NWO that is in line with the views of the true right-wing libertarian patriots in the USA.
Which I call BS on.
The very idea of an international promulgation of the Constitution and a Roman style Pax Americana being spread across the world would be the antithesis to the basic tenets of American republican values and the very principles upon which the Constitution itself is founded.
I never said forcibly. Well, except for Mexico, but that's because their military crosses our borders up to and exceeding 200 times a year.
I think, for Mexico, we should at least show them that is not acceptable behavior.
The founders did not create this nation so we could skip across the world and plant American style democracies everywhere we found ourselves.
No, but they did have provisions for new states. Including Canada. I am not for spreading the USA against any sovereign country's will. I am, however, for spreading the USA to places that wish to adopt our mantle.
Globalism is Stalinism/Marxism no matter how you slice it.
Incorrect, as there are many forms of both.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top