Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, February 09, 2009
Ken Blackwell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Obama, Ginsburg and Guns
by Ken Blackwell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is being treated for pancreatic cancer. While Americans pray for her recovery, this sad news is a sobering reminder that President Obama is likely to appoint several justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. And in the aftermath of last year’s landmark decision on the Second Amendment, gun owners need to zero in on what these events mean for the future of the right to bear arms.

Last year the Supreme Court held in D.C. v. Heller that the Second Amendment secures the right to bear arms for individual Americans. In doing so, the Court rejected the view put forth by liberals that the Second Amendment only empowers state governments to equip their National Guard units.

But too many lose sight of the fact that the Heller decision was a 5-4 decision. Four justices - only one short of a majority - adopted the liberal argument that the Second Amendment does not involve any rights whatsoever for private citizens. The Second Amendment was only a single vote away from being eradicated from the Constitution.

Justice Ginsburg was one of those four.

Fortunately for Justice Ginsburg, the doctors detected the cancer in its earliest stages. But pancreatic cancer is among the most aggressive types of cancer, and even with early detection and immediate surgery her recovery will probably require her to step down. President Obama will likely have to nominate someone to Justice Ginsburg’s seat before his presidential term is finished.

This is a reminder that one of the most consequential things a president does is appoint federal judges, especially those to the Supreme Court. All federal judges serve for life, and they wield the power to authoritatively interpret and apply the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. It is quite possible that President Obama may exercise his appointment power to fill Supreme Court vacancies as many as three times before the 2012 elections.

That being so, legal circles are all abuzz right now about whom President Obama is likely to appoint, either to Justice Ginsburg’s seat or to other seats on the high court that may open up soon. Several judges from the federal appeals courts come up repeatedly, as do several names from elite law schools.

Three people in particular are getting close scrutiny this week because their names are before the U.S. Senate. Mr. Obama has nominated David Ogden, Elena Kagan and Dawn Johnsen to be deputy attorney general, solicitor general, and the assistant attorney general in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), respectively. These positions, in addition to being three of the highest-ranking posts at the Justice Department, are also common stepping stones to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The deputy attorney general is the number two at Justice. The solicitor general is the lawyer who argues for the government in the Supreme Court when the United States is a party to a suit. And OLC issues official legal positions for the federal government.

Each of them - Mr. Ogden, Ms. Kagan and Ms. Johnsen - are committed liberals whose views on a whole range of issues are on the far left. Each of them could argue anti-gun views in our federal courts, and if any of them end up on the bench, could enshrine those views in the law books.

In the aftermath of the Heller decision, there will be a handful of major Second Amendment cases over the next few years that will shape gun rights in this country forever. In fact, it was a pro-gun 2004 OLC opinion that laid the foundation for gun-rights advocates to win the Heller case.

Of all these issues, the most significant is whether the Second Amendment only protects gun owners from the federal government, or if it also applies to states and cities. Liberals argue that the amendment only limits the federal government. There are two major lawsuits underway right now, both of which could go to the Supreme Court.

So gun owners had better beware, and should be urging their senators to ask these nominees tough questions on the Second Amendment.

Separately, last week’s news regarding Justice Ginsburg reminds us of what is important. Even the most powerful people are still only people, with every human frailty. Justice Ginsburg is a cancer survivor, and we can all hope that she defeats cancer again. Justice Ginsburg has led an amazing life filled with historic accomplishments, and millions of Americans offer their prayers for her and her family.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Mr. Blackwell, a contributing editor at Townhall.com, is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and American Civil Rights Union.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Ken Blackwell's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
liberal & socialist obama/ginsburg
2nd amendment is a Constitutional Right, and there is NOTHING these lib/socialist can do about it. Ture Americans will stand and fight if that is what it comes to, I doubt if those cowards(libs/socialist) will. Sincerely, T.A. Tate conservative/American

THE Civil Unrest:
1. National registration

2. Amnesty period and/or buy-backs

3. Confiscation

4. Destruction

5. Loss of Liberty, in that order

Hint: Registration of firearms is the gateway to 2. - 5. Registration is the harbinger of what is to follow, and intent.

Government For The People By The People.
If they make a move on the guns...whether it is registration, federal licensing, or confiscation...you as an individual will have to make a decision.
This is what was done in Nazi Germany in 1933…and after that over 20 million Jews and other races were genocide because they had no way to resist the government.

A Government that does not trust its law abiding citizens with guns…most certainly should not be trusted.

You decide...

Join the NRA, let your voice be heard, and whatever you do determine now what you will do when they come for your guns.



TJ
I of course don't know if your system could be improved through a clean install, but I'm saying that this page here is now 1.28 million bytes and that's huge for any dial-up connection. That's all.

Save the guns . . .
Thank you for your suggestion. I live out in the "sticks" and cable is not an option. This only happens with Townhall and not other sites. I will reformat and reload my operating system (a clean install)
Thanks again

Ginsburg
The only good Liberal Supreme Court Justice is a dead Liberal Supreme Court Justice.

No Friend of Liberty is Ginsburg
If you recall, she is also one of the five justices that were in the majority of the Kelo decision that expanded the power of a state to use eminent domain. She is an enemy of personal property and of individual liberty.

cicil unrest
all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed--Declaration of Independence
It has to get awful bad before people will rise up--question is--when they get uncomfortable enough will they still be ABLE to. My hope is the tyrant wanna-bes seeing victory will move too fast and wake up the frogs.

Educated Morans = Educated Morons
Before anyone comments it is a play on words from the Urban Dictionary...I do not hate "Liberals" I am leery of the liberals to whom power is granted!!!!

Educated Morans
The liberal would and will say that I am a "brain-washed" member of the USA. Having been a soldier, Military Policeman, Deputy Sheriff and Security Specialist and Adjunct University Professor, I must be brain washed to own firearms for sport and protection. Did I mention that I am a Life Member of the NRA and a Certified Pistol Instructor? How many of you "liberals" have taken the Oath of Office to serve the USA? It states that "I will protect the Constitution of the United States from "ALL ENEMIES" foreign and DOMESTIC. To the person with Reply #67 as for your English language analysis, the “RIGHT “to Keep and Bear Arms was not granted by the 2nd Amendment; the 2nd Amendment protects the pre-existing right. (Read Blackstone). The founding fathers mentioned militia in the sentence to describe one of the purposes to keep and bear arms as it applied to the security of a free State; that purpose was protection of the Freedom of the people and the state or from the state (Read Declaration of Independence). Also, at the time, most people that did not live in cities so they hunted to supplement their winter survival. Patriots! That cannot possibly include liberals. They have already sold their soul to the devil! Patriots! Look to the Old North Church, one if by land, two if by sea!!

civil unrest
Mr. Conservative writes:
"The U.S. has not seen the likes of civil disobedience that will occur should they deny citizens of their guarantee to keep and bear arms."

Would that be after the National Firearms Act (1934) or the Federal Firearms Act (1938) or perhaps the Gun Control Act (1968)?

There was lots of civil disobedience in those times but I don't remember any significant dispbediance over the ownership of firearms.

Hmmm maybe Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act (1986), Crime Control Act (1990), Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1994)

Nope.

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (assualt weapons ban) (1994)
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html

I just don't remember any civil disobedience to any of these. Is it just cause the government has not yet said (to quote Ms Feinstein) "If I had the votes I would ban all guns"

What will it take to get the frog to jump out of the pot? Or is it already too late for the frog?

Maybe the government does expect disobedience and that is why Hr 645.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc111/h645_ih.xml

This congress is not the first one this plan has been proposed in.
110th Congress: H.R. 1796:
109th Congress: H.R. 4112:


sheepdog
The illegals coming across don't have guns for a good reason. If any were caught with them that would give us better arguments against allowing them into the country in the first place. Besides, it is hard for the average person in Mexico to get a gun. That's why the drug wars are so deadly. They make sure they attack only those that are unarmed or try to. El Paso, for instance, has very little of that drug shootings going on just over the river from them. They know most Americans (Texans at least) keep a gun handy.

Correction
I wrote:
" 5 Supreme court Justices in modern times see it the same way."

Actually they only ruled on the argument of state vs individual not the entire meaning.

So now we only have to work on the definition of "shall", "not", and "infringed"

Be has already been taken care of by Clinton (depends on the meaning of 'is' :)

more baby steps
Jim writes:
"I just want an amendment that would state directly what we think it should say, before those on the other side do the same thing."

Would this work?
------------------------------------------------
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own State or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed disarming the people or any of them unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals.[172]"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/897090/posts
----------------------------------------------
Or maybe this one
----------------------------------------------
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html#Sec5
-----------------------------------------------
Notice that the directly above quote uses 3 independent clauses therefore forming 3 sentences all connected by correct English grammar (';'s)

There was much debate at the time on how to word that amendment. I think, using the rules of the English language still in effect, that they did a fine job and it is our lack of formal education that creates the confusion, not the (Very simple) statement itself.

Baby Steps
Jim writes:
"I guess I must write in baby steps for you gun nuts." ----- Ad Hominem attack (3rd one btw)

It's ok Jim. I was once about where you are. Now let us look at your points anyway.

Jim - "I know what the Constitution says, and I know what the 2nd people want it to say, and what the anti-2nd people want it to say. As it is now written is not specific for either those who want guns everywhere, and those who don't."

I say that it does indeed say exactly what those who believe that guns should be available without infringement say it does. 5 Supreme court Justices in modern times see it the same way. Bummer for those that don't think that ownership of arms is an individual right (There is that independent clause formed of a complete sentence again. :)


Treaties
Regarding the notion espoused by Donovan on Treaties.
The Constitution is a contract between the people and the government. A new contract with a third party (such as a treaty with another nation) is of course binding, but CANNOT violate the existing contract. This is so basic that it should not have to be stated. Any alternative would destroy the legal system. No contract would mean anything as it could be voided just by making a deal with someone else.
Further, our rights existed independently of the Constitution. Neither a Treaty or a revision of the Bill of Rights can alter them because they did not create them.

talking (writing:)
Save the guns.com writes:
"Those who maintain and hold firmly to incorrect presuppositions, are really not worth wasting time on and discussing issues like this. "



Like Jim for instance who just handed me victory in the debate. Wasn't even debating him. I was just observing that the independent clause in the 2nd amendment was a complete sentence and therefore a complete thought.

Even a prestigious University agrees.
-----------------------------------------------
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_clause.htm l

Definitions
Independent Clause (IC)

An independent clause is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought. An independent clause is a sentence.
--------------------------------------------------

Therefore then and even now, under current rules of the English language, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The reason to debate with them in forums like this is to help the open minded reader here gain some useful knowledge.


Btw I once held firmly to all the liberal anti gun myths. Fortunately a Canadian friend unintentionally cracked the brainwashing and I started poking into firearms ownership.

My thanks to all of those who discussed and debated with me and not giving up on me.


Btw I call it brainwashing in my case cause I was holding both the (correct) interpretation of the 2nd amendment and the brady law, along with most other gun control laws, together in my mind. Somehow totally missing the definition of "infringe"

A living document?
I am tired of liberal judges who treat the U.S. Constitution as a fully editable set of suggestions by our forefathers. The U.S. has not seen the likes of civil disobedience that will occur should they deny citizens of their guarantee to keep and bear arms. A major problem is that these supreme court judges often substitute their own philosophy for the law, and then rig a circuitous explanation justifying their decision. These will be precisely the judicial temperaments that will pass Obama selection. Asking about gun possession in the vetting process for the cabinet merely reflects the position taken on the issue. These far left appointments to the bench have served de facto in the elimination of rights, freedoms and have dismantled the U.S. Constitution, piece by piece. My sense is that our forefathers would turn over in their graves to see what has happened to our republic. Our forefathers had an incredibly insightful understanding of the nature of men and the possibility of government tyranny over the governed. It is most unfortunate that our leaders do not share this same understanding and respect for the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Freedom Loving
I'm a Patriot, a Viet Nam war vet and a gun owner with 3 grown sons who are gun owners. Guns are what keeps us free from tyranny of our own government. I have always preached that "if you don't love your freedom enough to die for it, you don't deserve it!" When they come for mine, I hope they have made their peace with God because they will get the smoking end first.

evidence
As evidence of the ability of men to twist simple words. quote-"It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" Pres. Clinton

Jim
Late to the discussion I haven't followed all your remarks---JUST replying to this one. Your aim may be noble for all I know. But I think it is futile. The ability to twist words and ignore their meaning is limitless. SCOTUS itself has proudly proclaimed their ability to read gassy glows coming off the constitution, but are unable to see simple one syllable words like 'shall make no law'. ANY improved wording you come up with will be twisted by those with an agenda. Our freedoms are only secured by writing them in the hearts and the minds of the people, not on parchment. There is where we have failed.

write in baby steps for you gun nuts.

Vicki Location: CA
Reply # 9
Date: Feb 10, 2009 - 3:06 AM EST

I guess I must write in baby steps for you gun nuts.

I know what the Constitution says, and I know what the 2nd people want it to say, and what the anti-2nd people want it to say. As it is now written is not specific for either those who want guns everywhere, and those who don't.

I just want an amendment that would state directly what we think it should say, before those on the other side do the same thing.

Vicki
I have noticed the same thing. A definite increase in stories of mistaken shootings, accidents, etc. And of course no mention of incidents of legitimate self defense. I have learned over the years to watch for such stories as indicators of pending gun bans. The timing is interesting. A bill will be written but not introduced, there will be a flurry of incidents reported—often along with depictions in sitcoms and such—and it just happens there is a Bill ready to go to address that very issue. It is NOT a matter of the Bill being written BECAUSE of the problems—because the Bills are readied BEFORE the reporting begins. At this point it should be possible to track the number of such reports and correlate it with each Presidency and against the actual firearms injury rate.
And get ready when we see the next psycho in therapy and on anti-depressants on a rampage. Thats when they will move.

Faulty Presuppositions again
Sorry about the incomplete thought on the last paragraph. What I want to say here is if there's anyone reading this, who is an anti-gun advocate and who does not have a complete grasp on everything concerning this issue from the English Bill of Rights, up to how felons commonly obtain firearms, please do not have a closed mind on the issue and listen to the truth.

I am one of the top ten NRA Membership Recruiters in the United States. I am also a very active membership recruiter for the United States Concealed Carry Association as well as a retired Certified Firearm Instructor. I have been shooting for more than thirty five years and have been an active pro-gun guy since I was eighteen years old, twenty six years ago.

I only urge the anti-gun type, to have an open mind before I agree to spend any of my valuable time here telling the truth on this issue.

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com

Faulty Presuppositions
I have argued with anti-gun types on the left that have such strongly held faulty presuppositions on the Second Amendment, firearms, lawful and honest gun owners and felons and firearms, that presented facts will make no impact whatsoever.

Those who maintain and hold firmly to incorrect presuppositions, are really not worth wasting time on and discussing issues like this. If anyone, I don't care who you are, do not have a full and complete grasp of this issue, I urge you to have an open mind and listen intently to those in the know.

I have come across literally hundreds, perhaps thousands of people in the anti-gun crowd who are good, decent and caring people, but they simply don't know what they're talking about.

If there's any anti-gun types on this forum, quite obviously don't have a full and complete grasp on this issue. I'm talking about everything from the English Bill of Rights from 1689 all the way to the primary method in which the average felon got hold of a gun last night.

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com

Reply to TJ
It's likely that your dial-up connection is at fault. When there are a hundred or more posts on an article, Townhall has the page load as one document. In fact, the size of this page right here, is more than 1.1 million bytes.

A cable Internet connection will relieve a lot of stress. I could never go back to dial-up, never.

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com

2A MARCH ON DC IN 2010
Supported by MANY 2nd Admendment groups including NRA, JPFO, 2A SISTERS AND MANY OTHERS
read obout it here

http://www.secondamendmentmarch.com/

I'll be there, what about you? Tell the BOZO's in DC we won't toloraye them messing with the BILL OF RIGHTS

DON'T TREAD ON ME

2A MARCH ON DC IN 2010
Supported by MANY 2nd Admendment groups including NRA, JPFO, 2A SISTERS AND MANY OTHERS
read obout it here

http://www.secondamendmentmarch.com/

I'll be there, what about you? Tell the BOZO's in DC we won't toloraye them messing with the BILL OF RIGHTS

DON'T TREAD ON ME

2A MARCH ON DC IN 2010
Supported by MANY 2nd Admendment groups including NRA, JPFO, 2A SISTERS AND MANY OTHERS
read obout it here

http://www.secondamendmentmarch.com/

I'll be there, what about you? Tell the BOZO's in DC we won't toloraye them messing with the BILL OF RIGHTS

DON'T TREAD ON ME

Bill of Rights
If you had elected Independent Candidate Don Cordell for President, instead of Illegal Alien Obama, I'd have made sure you had the right to own Military quality guns, ammo, and other items needed to protect us from the out of control United States Government. The weapons of 1776 are not sufficient now to protect us from Martial Law misuse, that is soon to be used to destroy our nation. Bit by bit, we have ignored the government removing our rights. We have a police force in this nation, that see all citizens as the enemy. We are told in no uncertain terms to shut up, they are the law, submit or else. YOU can be ordered to submit to search at anytime when you are outside of your home, and any refusal is automatic guilty of ignoring the command of a police officer.
You are told, you must submit at any time to authorities, you have no rights. When the SWAT team knocks on your door, demanding surrender of all weapons, or else, what are you going to do? YOU will surrender, because you are outnumbered, and you will be shot on sight, for any refusal to submit. Is this the intentions of our founders, that faught and died to give us a free nation? We must do something to restore or Constitution and Bill of Rights, as right now, they no longer exist.
Obama will finish destroying our nation, if we don't recall him, when the Supreme Court refuses to research his legality about not being a citizen of the United States.

News stories
Pirate Rob writes:
"When the news has a bunch of stories about gun accidents children getting killed

Or a bunch of other events related to guns.

The media manipulators are prepping the people to demand that our rights to bear arms."



When Clinton came into office I noticed in the following years a significant increase in the number of news stories about people mis-using firearms.

During the bush years there were still a few but they were very spectacular.

Now with Obama in office I have started to notice more of those stories again.

I wonder if there is anyone tracking such stories. Kind of like the number of negative ads about the republicans during the election campaign

Writing
Ronald writes:
"Whichever one of you – Jim or Vicki – is in favor of giving up personal self-protection and defense please post your home address here"

Well hmmm. You can't tell by my writing which side I am on? Bummer. Well see if this helps.

"When seconds count the police are only minutes away"

English lessons
Jim writes:
"HERE IS EXACTLY WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS, INCLUDING PERIODS, COMMAS, AND WORDS.

"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."

To misquote the Constitution, while lying about what it says, is nearly traitorous.

You took a phrase out of context and said it is a complete sentence. That makes you a liar without a doubt."

My My My you are really all worked up over this.

I am still not sure why. You originally stated that a complete thought had to have a complete sentence. You seemed to be discussing the 2nd amendment (which I provided a link to the full text) and so I pointed out that the independent clause in the 2nd amendment was a complete sentence (Even ends with a period :) and therefore a complete thought.

That is hardly out of context. So why do you keep claiming that I am a liar or a traitor?

Guns Don't

Guns don’t kill people government programs do
Abortionist do
Crack heads do
President Obama has killed more babies then Ted Kennedy’s car has.
Being with out a gun do
Soft on crime do
Not protecting the border do

Fill in your own ideas

You'll know When

When the news has a bunch of stories about gun accidents children getting killed

Or a bunch of other events related to guns.

The media manipulators are prepping the people to demand that our rights to bear arms

Be taken from us and Congress and the President need to act now.

So get ready to counter attack with what ever voice of reason is needed to stop the talking heads.

Call them traitors blame them for the gun violence with their network programs.

Jim in CA
Whichever one of you – Jim or Vicki – is in favor of giving up personal self-protection and defense please post your home address here. Jim you seem to win the prize of being an advocate of defenselessness without self-protection. As we sink further into anarchy, chaos and third-world status with Obama at the helm, some will be looking for people and places – like you and your home, Jim or Vicki – to take what they need for survival or simply as is done now enjoy the pleasure of raping and murdering you and your loved ones.

Obama the Tyrannical Despot
Obama is just another elitist, hypocritical and tyrannical despot. With unprecedented security during his campaign and as President at least for awhile he wants to disarm or in some other way deprive citizens of self-protection and defense. His disregard for the U.S. Constitution is so evident first in his refusal to provide, subject to independent verification, any and all records proving his eligibility to have run for POTUS let alone serve in the Office.
If there is a God, and I believe on faith there is, Ginsburg is suffering again the wrath of God for her lead role in the murder of babies – 1-1.4M a year in the U.S. alone since Roe v. Wade (1973) – a holocaust about 7x that of the WWII Holocaust.

Might makes Rights
We might have to form well regulated private citizen militias again (Not a Mob)

And after practice take our guns home and protect ourselves.

Does anybody else have a problem . . .
with TownHall web pages taking 5 minutes to load?? I think that they split up the web pages to double the number of "hits" that take credit for. I don't blame them for this.
I have no choice but to use "dial up"--no high speed internet where I live.
It may be to the point that I give up on Townhall because of the inordinate time to load web pages. It can take 5 minutes to load ONE Townhall Web page. TownHall is the problem--I do not have this problem with any other web site.
If anyone can help, I would appreciate it.

Second Amend., "Schmeken Amend"
My Son went to Law School!! I don't even LIKE lawyers!! I've read some very provocative entries here this evening and I agree with most..
Having said that ALL I KNOW FOR SURE: They (USSC,WVSC, or the court of Last Resort) can pass/invalidate, etc. All the laws on the books, but THEY CAN;T TAKE MY WEAPONS!! This oughta be FUN..CHEERS

Are you a traitor to this country?

Vicki Location: CA
Reply # 6
Date: Feb 9, 2009 - 9:13 PM EST

HERE IS EXACTLY WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS, INCLUDING PERIODS, COMMAS, AND WORDS.

"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."

To misquote the Constitution, while lying about what it says, is nearly traitorous.

You took a phrase out of context and said it is a complete sentence. That makes you a liar without a doubt.


UHHHH ... AHHHHHH ....ERRRRR
Do you think those excrutiating grunts and groans that the IMPOSTER-IN-CHIEF makes during his Q & A are SCRIPTED?

NOBODY - not even "W" stammers - as much as the FRAUD-IN-CHIEF ....

b-HUSSEIN-o

Anna you ignorant troll!!!!!
Blackwell is on the BOARD of the NRA and most of the members here VOTED HIM IN!!! What a twunt you are.


-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!

MILITA
JOIN ONE

Ken Blackwell
I was completely shocked to find out recently that Blackwell is a current member of CFR.

That means he is a globalist and supports the creation of the North American Union and ultimately the "New World Order"/one world gov. (How could someone who calls themself a Christian support the establishment of one world gov????)

Why does he even bother writing this article? His pals WANT to disarm Americans. Indeed, it is imperative. The patriots WILL revolt.

Obama had a bill up that would require Americans to register their guns with the UN.

http://townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2008/02/25/c ongress_contemplates_giving_cash_to_foreigners


"There is much more to the Millennium Goals than merely extorting more money from U.S. taxpayers. The goals set forth a comprehensive plan to put the United States under U.N. global governance."

"These goals include a "standing peace force" (i.e., a U.N. standing army), a "U.N. Arms register" of all small arms and light weapons, "peace education" covering "all levels from preschool through university," and "political control of the global economy."


But Ken would already know all that.

I feel like we are in Braveheart
The Dems are the English, the Republicans are the nobles. And we, the back bone of the country are going to have to fix this mess with our own blood.

sentence structure
Jim writes:
"That is a lie and you know it. Well maybe it is a complete sentence if you are not trying to tell what the constitution says.

BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS, AND YOU KNOW IT!!! "

Ummm... what exactly are you yelling about? And calling people liars while printing what they said so that everyone else can see that they are not lying is foolish debating style.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02

You were already given links to English grammar.
to show how sentence structure and clauses work.
Here it is again so others won't have to search for it.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/modules.php?name=News&file=a rticle&sid=3898


Those who would give up liberty?
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety- Ben Franklin. We have evolved into a culture that has become dependent on government. This was not the intent of our founders. Citizens are not beholding to government to be granted the "right" to bear arms. That "right" is already ours to claim. Why has there been such a rush to purchase fire arms since the election of Obama? Why are so many of our uneducated citizens frighten at the very site of a gun? Firearms are a tool that is only dangerous as the the user. Obama is off to a very rocky start as president with rookie mistakes. If he makes the mistake of pushing his anti-gun agenda it will be met with serious rebellion. There are millions of unregistered fire arms in the United States with the number of owner growing daily.

Come on, read the Constitution

Vicki Location: CA
Reply # 6
Date: Feb 9, 2009 - 7:26 PM EST
sentence structure
Jim writes:
"Still, to normal people, a phrase expressed a thought, but not a complete thought, and a sentence is a complete thought."

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is a complete sentence and therefore a complete thought.

=========

That is a lie and you know it. Well maybe it is a complete sentence if you are not trying to tell what the constitution says.

BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS, AND YOU KNOW IT!!!

Something To Ponder:
This article started out with the following statement: "While Americans pray for her (read Ruth Bader Ginsburg) recovery, this sad news is...."

Isn't it ironic that this story states many American's are or will pray for her when she, herself, is uncommitted to her Jewish heritage and never attends shool (Sabbath services in the synagogue). Her record shows her desperately to eliminate the word "God" from many of our traditions. Unless she quietly acknowledges a 'secret" belief in a Superior Being (which the public thinks she has no such belief) then why should she have faith in those prayers, much less even want them?

Richard...
In my post at 12:46 PM EST, I noted that there may be an underlying "worry" behind the Liberal's push to band handgun ownership AND to re-interpret the 2nd Amendment into oblivion. That is the fear of the very few anti-Obama hate groups who I call "nut cases."

You said: The East LA Police withdrew in 1992 during the riots following the Rodney King verdict. If something like that happens again maybe you can call Pelosi, Feinsein (sic) and the rest of the gun grabbers."

I have news for you, even Pelosi, Feinstein, Reid and Kennedy will want a gun should anything ever happen to Mr. Obama. I truly fear the outcome as you will see all-to-many rioters not legally qualified to own or possess a gun in any state, shooting it out with those they perceive as having fallen their President. In other words, I fear that no police, federal agency, military or para-military group will be able to quell the storm should that happen. This would result in Marshall Law -- Get caught with a firearm of any kind in your home and your rights, having been suspended in Marshall Law, will only include a last meal and the death penalty. No appeals and no justice!

Richard #163
SCOTUS ruled that the police donot have to protect the people, regardless what that saying is. That is why the police were able to take off during the Rodney King riots. They'd have been crazy not to.

Don't blame me. I voted American.

Tyrants disarm so as to enslave
Simple as that.

We Can Speak
in this forum because of real men who, when they read the signs of the times, stood up and said "There's no way in hell". Including my father and those before him all the way back.

They have taught me to do the same for my kids, and I have taught my own children.

So all of you who keep preaching surrender, or keep characterizing faithfilled patriots as rag-picking hicks, SHUT YOUR PIE-HOLES.

And when the time comes, just get the hell out of the way and keep quiet, I'll be busy setting an example for my children.

And if you pay attention, maybe you'll learn that your life is actually supposed to be about living, and if need be, dying for others.


sentence structure
Jim writes:
"Still, to normal people, a phrase expressed a thought, but not a complete thought, and a sentence is a complete thought."

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is a complete sentence and therefore a complete thought.

granting rights
Hawkeye58 writes:
"I have read more history than you have read entirely, particularly about the law. You want to quibble over the use of the word "grant"?"

It is rather an important detail. Our government can not grant rights. It can only grant privileges or powers. It can "protect" rights however and is its primary function.

The closest to using grant from M-w.com is
1b: to permit as a right, privilege, or favor (luggage allowances granted to passengers)

Unfortunately this masks Constitutional limitation nature of our republic and makes one wonder what would happen if the government decided that the action was a privilege or favor instead of a right.

time counts
Richard writes:
"The anti-gun rhetoric is that all that is necessary is to dial 911"

The pro gun counter is
"when seconds count the police are only minutes away"

Liberal hogwash
If the leftists want to argue that the 2nd amendment is only enforceable against the Federal Government, then the other parts of the Constitution are not enforceable against them either. Wonder if these bozos were asleep the day they taught the 14th amendment at lawyer skool.

It takes more than that.

URock Location: NJ
Reply # 27
Date: Feb 9, 2009 - 4:01 PM EST
===

A very interesting link, but it will take more study to understand it.

Still, to normal people, a phrase expressed a thought, but not a complete thought, and a sentence is a complete thought.

My main point, on this and many other phrases in the Constitution, is why not amend so it sys what it should say. I grant you that the meaning depends on the time, the people, and who controls Congress and the States.

But what is an establishment of religion, and what is a militia, and on and on.

Lenard wrote:
hawkeye58
'Such ignorance, why don't you actually try reading some history, and BTW the government didn't grant this right, and never does. The government ACKNOWLEDGES rights which preexist, the "government" is a creation of man, not the other way around.'

Is it your purpose in life to insult? I have read more history than you have read entirely, particularly about the law. You want to quibble over the use of the word "grant"?

Then I will make the case that your mother didn't know how to spell Leonard.




Even If The Worst Happens
The National Rifle Association, the sundried state rifle and pistol associations,Ducks Unlimited, Whitetails Unlimited at al are not going to wither and die even if the worst scenario occurs and firearms are confiscated in the United States.
The legal battle will begin and there will be elections to be contested and new judges to be appointed eventually. All living gun-owners who have maintained their receipts will rightfully demand compensation for property seized from them by an ex post facto insurrection of law perpetuated by those who feel they have the title power to do so.
The most tragic occurence will be when crime does not decrease but does what it has done in EVERY circumstance. It will increase.
Human beings are easily corrupted. If all firearms are confiscated in the USA it is absolutely inevitable that a huge amount of them will be in the black market in short order. Organized crime has oodles of cash to bribe any and all necessary to get caches of confiscated weapons and only the most hopelessly naieve could believe otherwise.
Inquire into what happened in Louisiana in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when firearms were confiscated by the New Orleans Police. Many of them are missing and will most likely never be accounted for. BATFE is absolutely mute on this oversight but will prosecute any FFL for the slightest infraction of paperwork.
The anti-gun rhetoric is that all that is necessary is to dial 911. Good luck with that when there's pandemonium. The East LA Police withdrew in 1992 during the riots following the Rodney King verdict. If something like that happens again maybe you can call Pelosi, Feinsein and the rest of the gun grabbers.
Come to think of it I might back off from Rosie O'Donnell myself.
Yes I am a proud life member of the NRA.

Vicki...
No "militia" does not equal "people." What I meant was that the first two clauses: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is one part meaning that security of the state is the priority of the militia. The final two clauses "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” is separate. Meaning, militia do one thing, AND the people (separate group) have a right.

Goshawk
I cannot remember the times I begged conservatives to please vote to see that Obama was defeated. That was ALL that mattered.

I debated a couple who were adamant that we could weather four years of him and come back and prevail.

I knew he would change enough laws ,with total control,that would make it impossible to ever win again.

Only if the Soros plan fails,will any party make a comeback. It will be Democrat until it becomes a full-fledged Socialist country with one-party rule.

Guncite.com
has all the info needed regarding how the 2ndA should be read, with citations.

Militia = people?
J Corson writes:
"Although the coordinating conjunction "AND" is not used between the second and third phrase of the 2nd amendment it is implicit. It could have been inserted by the authors but they knew well there could be no other interpretation as "militias" and "people" are separate and distinct."

Even if we were to somehow accept the claim that the writers used people meaning militia rather than people there is still the matter of who is the militia. According to some of the founders the militia is all of the people. Therefore even viewing the 2nd as only applying to the "militia" it is still the right of "the people".

To the argument that the 2nd means only the militia when in service as a militia I say that a militia must be ready at all times therefore they are always serving and must always have immediate access to arms.

Re: Gun rights!!!
The very moment that this is ruled in the way of the liberal left you can beat that there will be a total revolution of people in this country who are flat MAD at the way this elitist government has become!!! I enjoy shooting and the commadeship it brings but if this elitist group of clowns think that they are going to do something to take away the "RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" this is only going to bring a real social war on the hands of the people who feel that the elitists aready are taking personal freedoms away!!!!

45caliber
You'd think the damn environmentalists would have a hissy fit with all the trash they leave behind but they remain eerily silent. The illegals that have been caught by this guy should feel damn lucky their alive. It's funny that the article says he's been doing that since 98. If he had shot one of them we'd had heard it along time ago. I'm surprised that none of them (the illegals) had weapons with them. Otherwise he would have been dead already.

writs of certiorari
As for writs of certiorari, these are often used by SCOTUS in picking and choosing cases, even when appeal has not been made, so don't give me that garbage about it only being used only when there has been a petition.

donovan
Gotta love your logic. By your logic then, I have a right to demand of you to live only in a way that is best for me, as somehow, in someway what you do might affect me. I now demand that you get 8 hours of sleep, that you eat only healthy food and that do nothing that might frustrate you, as you might get angry and yell at me, and that would then affect me.

So your essentially saying that the Constitution doesn't matter, it's just whoever has the most power. So by that logic you would be okay with sharia law, supposing muslims become the dominant force in this land, or wait even better, what if christians became the dominant force, and instituted a nationally established religion, after all the Constitution is no longer relevant.

powers of arrest.
45caliber writes:
"The illegals have no "rights" in the U.S. "

Even if we accepted the claim that they have the same rights as U.S citizens the rancher was fully within his rights to detain people suspected of committing one or more felonies. As you mentioned "Citizens Arrest".



Lenard
I think Donovan explained his thinking when he said he was active in politics. Most politicians dislike the Constitution since it restricts them. Therefore they want it translated by the SCOTUS in such a way that it gives the people no say but gives the politicians anything they want. And he twists things in an attempt to make them mean what he wants rather than what they really say.

donovan
If you don't see the power of crafting laws as the strongest aspect of government then I think you have trouble seeing clearly. How does the executive power compare to that? He only brings about what has been legislated. He may veto bills, but he can still be overridden, and must then do what Congress has decided is to be done. I am not misinterpreting anything, I am merely stating what is the actual significance of the powers given, regardless of intent. For instance who gets to decide who the judges are that will hear cases, Congress(the Senate), AND the President, not just the President. This gives them the power to influence SCOTUS.

Lenard
For the record, the Plaintiff in Gibbons v. Ogden operated a ferry between NY and NJ that violated the Defendant's government-induced steamboat monopoly. SCOTUS held that because a ferry between two states constituted interstate commerce and could be regulated by a Congressional act. In all, this case was not too egregious.

Other than that, you raised some excellent points.

Lenard
Certiorari is only granted by the Supreme Court to cases that have petitioned for it! You are obviously not a lawyer.

And no state exists in a vacuum, you know. Things that happen in one state do affect other states. The Court has every right to hear cases originating from within a single state, because the outcome of such is going to impact the entire nation.

You need to let go of your illusion of 50 sovereign, independent states. It just doesn't reflect reality any more. The United States of America is *one* nation.

good article
I wish this guy had gotten RNC chairman.

In Other Words, Jim...
Although the coordinating conjunction "AND" is not used between the second and third phrase of the 2nd amendment it is implicit. It could have been inserted by the authors but they knew well there could be no other interpretation as "militias" and "people" are seperate and distinct.

This is not just grammar it's common sense! Common sense is that one basic component in a person's brain that most liberals lack because common sense is almost always excluded when one uses enotions and feelings in the place of thinking and the intellect. And yes I am implying that the far left-wing fringe are not intellectual. Left-wingers can be pragmatic, but far-left wingers have only agendas and are idiots.

donovan
I don't understand you're need to lie. For one SCOTUS does decide on cases where they have not been appealed to, this happens through writs of certiorari. Second many of their "decisions" have been the crafting of law, contrary to what you say. Also, regardless of whether or not an appeal is made to them,they have NO AUTHORITY to decide in state matters and have often done so, the earliest example that I can think of is Gibbons vs. Ogden which had nothing to do with trade between states (Commerce Clause), but only the transportation WITHIN New York's borders. You've been too indoctrinated, OH I'm sorry, educated, to see the continual usurpations of power by all the branches of the Federal government. Here try another one, school busing, entirely an internal state matter, yet SCOTUS has weighed in. Under what authority?

sheepdog
There are a lot of guys like him. The press is careful to not let you know. I can't blame him. He has lost thousands and probably hundreds of thousands of dollars to the illegals. The Feds do nothing to help him. I would expect the jury to find him innocent. If they don't, then I know that the government definately intended to find him guilty before the trial and stacked the jury with that intent.

The illegals have no "rights" in the U.S. Basically he made a citizen's arrest, which is legal in the U.S. And you don't have to honor the same rules as a police officer if you are not one. This whole thing is meant only to cost him more money to defend himself in the hope it will shut him up.

I definately support him.

Donovan
"None of the 3 branches of the federal government is any more or less powerful than the other. They are all co-equal, they simply have different duties."

None of which are to take away any of our rights....

Another Day
To all lefties who continue to say what can happen and what can't happen,you do not understand. That was before.

Before the Soros-backed 'Dear Leader' came to power. All things that were are no more . Tis is a now day. Check out this link:
************************************************
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/the_clowardpiven_str ategy_of_e.html


Lulu
Preach on sister.

Lenard
I'm actively involved in Virginia politics, so I am acutely aware of the federal system of government. I think it's great!

But you're still misinterpreting the intent of the Constitution. None of the 3 branches of the federal government is any more or less powerful than the other. They are all co-equal, they simply have different duties.

jim;
If you are wondering if J Colson was right or not about his interputation of the 2nd Amendment, study the recent ruling by the SCOTUS of Heller vs. DC. They had the same reasoning. If you don't like the reasoning, too bad.

Jim, The Argument Still Stands...
Since there are three commas (four distinct clauses in a compound sentence), the fact still remains that there are two seperate and distinct groups mentioned within ONE sentence thereby providing for the militias' role to be security AND the people's right to own guns. Two seperate things! It does not say and it is a violation of the rules of grammar to interpret the sentence as a whole in this way: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Nor is it implicitedly or explicitedly stated in any possible 18th or 19th century phraseology and grammar that the noun "people" modifies or defines "militia."

Now, would you find it interesting that most of those who penned the Bill of Rights were conversant in and could read Greek and Latin? From these two languages, 95 percent of the rules of English grammar derive, not to mention the morphology of the same. In both languages no two nouns could define or modify each other unless the context demands it and/or the sentence so states it. This one sentence does not equate in any way, shape or form the noun "people" as identifying, defining or being the "militia." As I said, I am not a professor of English, but I once was an instructor of Classical Greek and Latin and I have had to acquire a very strong working knowledge of English in order to present, defend and publish a Ph.D. dissertation.

donovan
It doesn't matter for how long you've "learned" to think in a particular manner, it only matters what the Constitution actually says, and by what is set down in the document itself, order having nothing to do with it, the legislative branch is the most powerful branch. Not only that, your traditional skewed version that you have been taught, neglects the fact that the states and the people are also checks in terms of power. It is clear that you think in terms of a national government, and not a federal one.

We need more guys like this
A mans home is his castle and he has every right to protect it. That's what this guy was trying to do. This guy his money where his mouth was.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-sue -arizona-rancher/

Jim
Maybe the following link will help you with understanding the wording and meaning of 2A.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/modules.php?name=News&file= article&sid=3898

Jim and J Corson:
First, Jim, while punctuation has its place, one doesn't construe a constitution based on placement of commas alone. J Corson is correct, one must look at the words to divine what was plainly intended by the drafters. Those words refer to a "free state", and they mean not one subdivision of a federal republic, but a generic state in principle - the United States. Then based upon the clear history of the times (and in fact, from the 17th century), militia meant a military force raised from the civilian population to supplement a regular army. This was codified in the Militia Act of 1792, which made all able-bodied men 17 to 45 members of the militia. So, the drafters saw "militia" and "people" as the same in this context, and plainly wrote that their right to bear arms should not be infringed. Arguments to the contrary are simply disingenuous. The Supreme Court in Heller handled it correctly.

Lenard
You said, "They continually craft law, and interfere in state matters that are outside their purview."

The Courts cannot craft law. They can only rule on cases that are brought before them.

And by the way, the Court cannot "interfere" in anything. Someone has to appeal a case to them. The Court can't just decide to rule on whatever it wants. Someone had to have decided that they wanted the court to hear the case, otherwise the court would never have seen it.

donovan
That is not how the Supreme Court operates. They continually craft law, and interfere in state matters that are outside their purview. For instance Kelo vs. New London besides being a horrible decision was entirely a state matter, as it did not affect citizens of another state, yet SCOTUS heard it, IN VIOLATION of their Constitutionally given purview. Try clearly reading Article 3.

Lenard
Just because Congress is mentioned first in the Constitution and the Supreme Court mentioned last doesn't mean that one is meant to be more powerful than the other.

Believe me, I have studied government and political science for a long time. I know the origins of the ideals that are enshrined in the Constitution. The tripartate system of government that the USA created, which has now become common in the world, was first conceived by Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu. He conceived of it in the midst of massive political strife in France, which eventually led to the French Revolution.

The whole point of the 3-branch system is that each branch controls the other two, so that one will never become too powerful.

You are not looking at rules of grammar

J Corson Location: VA
Reply # 11
Date: Feb 9, 2009 - 3:07 PM EST
Jim,
Whereas I am not a Professor of English Grammar

========

You are not looking at rules of grammar, of periods and commas, but giving opinion of words.

That is not the same thing. We must follow what they wrote, not your opinion of the maybe meaning of the words they used.


donovan
Further, you said that each branch is equal in status. That is merely another myth taught in school. Clearly by the delegation of powers given in the Constitution, the legislative branch is dominant. It is leftist "interpretation" such as yours that puts all this power in the Supreme Court. John Marshall got all this garbage started by ruling in a case(Marbury vs. Madison) where he was the original offender(he was Secretary of State before Madison), and which the Constitution makes no allowance for SCOTUS to decide on. Thus did Judicial overreach begin.

Lenard
You said, "There is some room for judicial review, but that would only be in instances where a case is brought before SCOTUS, and then it could only be for nullification, and again that would only be only be within Federal jurisdiction, not internal state affairs."

Yes. This is exactly how the Supreme Court operates.

No way!!!

There are no federally designated rights. The rights are for states and individuals. The Constitution LIMITS what the federal government can do and is responsible for.

Basically they are to coin the money, run the courts, and provide for a common defense and that's it.

EVERYTHING else is reserved to the various states and their individual citizens. Period!

Of course, NONE of what is in the Constitution means anything today and most Americans neither know or care what is in it. But hey, the new season of American Idoit is begining now, so they don't have time for this sort of thing and this weekend, a car race is going to be on Saturday afternoon. You can sit and watch cars go round and round in big circles. Waaay cool dude.

Conservatives who didn't support McCain
for being a "RINO" had better not complain when Obama nominates Mark Geragos to the Supreme Court. Those who turned their backs on conservatism during America's darkest hour should own some responsibility for what is about to happen to the second amendment.

Social, economic, and libertarian conservatives need to be realistic and stick together during general elections. A fair strategy for everyone is to adopt a national primary system. That way, conservatives could vote for their favored candidate during the primary yet opt for solidarity in the general. I, for one, disagree emphatically with Ron Paul's isolationist agenda. That said, I would have voted for him in the general election without hesitation had he won the nod. A free-market pacifist is far superior to a socialist pacifist.

Conservatives should argue their differing ideals vigorously. In the end, however, we must strive for cohesion and solidarity against a dangerous and amoral democrat party.

donovan
Again wrong. You have trouble with the English language apparently. The Constitution only gives the areas for which the Supreme Court is to decide, it is not a common law document as "all legislative authority" lies with Congress. There is some room for judicial review, but that would only be in instances where a case is brought before SCOTUS, and then it could only be for nullification, and again that would only be only be within Federal jurisdiction, not internal state affairs.

Read the 14th amendment
No state can infringe on any federally designated rights. This amendment was ratified in the aftermath of the Civil War in order to ensure rights to the former slaves. The second amendment was particularly important at the time because white southern militias were organizing to disarm the black population. Clearly, our right to keep and bear arms is protected against the federal and state governments.

Lenard
You said, "The Judicial branch was created merely for the separation of powers, but nice leftist try."

Yes, the separation of powers as conceived by Montesquieu, from whom we got the idea.

The Legislative branch creates law.

The Executive branch enforces the law.

And the Judicial branch interprets the law.

That's the whole point. Each branch is equal in status, and each branch is designed to keep the other two in check.

hawkeye58
Such ignorance, why don't you actually try reading some history, and BTW the government didn't grant this right, and never does. The government ACKNOWLEDGES rights which preexist, the "government" is a creation of man, not the other way around.

Donovan at 2:28, what a load of hooey.There is no basis for your statement concerning the Judicial branch, you won't find your sentiment put forth in the Constitutional Convention debates, nor the Ratification debates. Why don't you try not lying, or at best superimposing your opinion on the Constitution? The Judicial branch was created merely for the separation of powers, but nice leftist try.

As for DC vs. Heller, DC is not a city, it is land ceded for the federal government and Constitutionally is to be under the authority of Congress with all the relevant applications of Congressional power so what we see is merely further contempt for the Constitution. Authority can be delegated, but city council and mayoral elections?

Further, let's remember that the STATES ratified the Constitution on conditions, and the wording in most state ratifications places gun ownership before the militia, unlike the Constitution where the order is reversed.

Donovan:
Believe it or not, I have - recently. What you are saying is a simple twisting of the words and creating something that really isn't there. A treaty has the status of law - but ALL LAWS including a treaty MUST conform to the Constitution. It could be possible, for instance, for the Sentate to approve a treaty that bans murder as a crime. But that does not mean then that any murder in the U.S. is legal. The entire idea of the Constitution is to limit the government - not to give the Senate special powers. You can tell that easily enough if you read the Bill of Rights. The reason the Senate was to vote on a treaty was to limit the President, not to create a new law system. Besides, most of those Senators we have don't have the intelligence or the desire to do what is best for the country - only for themselves. Therefore 80% of the citizens don't trust them - with good reason. And now you want to turn all law making over to them? You REALLY need something to do.

Christian Lib

May I assume you would have no problem with the police searching all traffic in and out of the cities to make sure none of those nasty gunzzz get smuggled into the city from the farms? Internal passports next?

Liberal Argument:
The liberal argument is that the Supreme Court can use the Constitution as a "framework" to follow on any law. The conservative view is that the Constitution means what is says and is not a "framework" to be used for other matters except as those other matters don't infringe on what is legally in the Constitution. Some laws simply are not covered - deliberately - since the Constitution is not meant to give laws but to set up a government and restrict that government to what it can and can't do. The liberals insist that the government can do whatever it wishes.

I'll stick with the conservative view. It is far safer. If something comes along that cannot meet Constitutional requirements then it should be studied and an amendment made to make it meet requirements. But that doesn't happen often. Nor should it. Nearly everything can be decided by Congress - if Congress will bother to actually try. (It is a good thing our Founding Fathers wanted to set up a good country instead of making names for themselves as our present politicians do.) Too many times a court must because Congress can't be bothered.

Jim,
Whereas I am not a Professor of English Grammar (and I am not sure if there any around anymore), I can only attest to a couple of interesting rules of grammar that existed in the late 18th century.

“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.” gives us two distinct types of persons mentioned: 1) Militias and 2) People. Within the context of this compound sentence rests two thoughts not one.

The first thought is the security of a free state. The question here is does the word "state" refer to any one of the 50 regional governments that exist within the U.S., or is it collective, i.e. the U.S. as a whole? Then, the next question is who is in charge of the security detail? If it is the militia, then we have no security as such today as there are no militias.

The second thought is whether militias and people are the same, which grammatically would be a stretch as the original authors knew that the best rule of grammar would have render it this way: "...militia, being necessary..., the right of the same to keep and bear arms,...” or the right of "said militia."

Basic rules of grammar suggest that in the 2nd Amendment we have two seperate entities performing one function with one right. Militias and people can keep and bear arms and perform the duties of safety and security. If anything, law abiding citizens have a right to own guns, but also have an obligation to secure the "state." Granted many don't or can't but, I believe, if possible they should.

Uncle B


The key phrase is "law abiding citizen". Once firearms and ammo are illegal, people possessing them are no longer "law abiding". Nor is someone who has shot up a squad of "Civilian National Security" members "law abiding".

In addition, people are not going to ask a cop if he is enforcing a law before shooting at him.

Further, I fully expect that anyone identifiable as law enforcement or identifiable as a government employee will get shot at.

Lenard
You are correct, it refers to treaties made under the authority of the United States. This means treaties that have been legally ratified by the Senate, as required by law.

donovan
You omitted part of article VI, which states that those treaties are made under the authority of the United States, which essentially means trade treaties, unless we were to come under attack, then Common Defense would apply. These treaties cannot be made willy-nilly without regard to what the Constitution gives as the realm of the Federal government.

45 Caliber, read Article VI for yourself
It's pretty plain. It places the Constitution, Federal law, and treaties all in the same category: Supreme Law of the Land.

You said, "The ONLY way the Constitution may be changed is by using the methods in the Constitution."

This is correct, and the Constitution itself says that treaties are equal in authority to the Constitution.

Treaties need to be ratified by the Senate before they can be signed. The Constitution addresses all of this.

It's all legal and laid out in the Constitution.

Donovan: On Treaties
You are using exactly the same argument as Obama about using treaties to void the Constitution. BUT...

ALL LAW - regardless of who proposes and signs it - is to be in line with the Constitution. The ONLY way the Constitution may be changed is by using the methods in the Constitution. If there is a law passed and signed - of any sort - it must meet Constitutional requirements or it is unConstitutional and therefore is not a valid law. That includes treaties signed by the U.S.

Therefore any part of a treaty that voids a part of the Constitution is not valid - which in effect means the treaty is not valid since it conflicts with the Constitution. The ONLY things that can be done is revising the Constitution and then signing the treaty or the government MUST back out of the treaty and renegotiate a new one without the conflicts.

You, your sponsors, the liberals, and Obama all try to insist that this is not true. Again, lies.

I Want The Government...
To stay out of my wallet, my bedroom and my church. I don't want the government to take away my freedom of speech, assembly, worship God, my right to a jury trial, my protection from self-incrimination AND MY GUNS!!

As I close my participation in this thread I ask this question (which should be any President's litmus test question): Do I have a right to own a gun, to protect myself from harm, to preach what I believe, to worship as I feel, to speak out when social ills threaten my safety and security, and do I have a right to be free from government infringment on my life, my liberty and my pursuit to happiness? If the answer to this question, or any portion thereof is "NO" then I say, "Senator, please vote against this appointee." I, like Grover Norquest, want the government off my back, out of my wallet and away from my family's happiness.

To you left-wing idiots out there I ask, what's wrong with my request? I don't want to hear or read the words, "You don't know what you ask and you won't know how to handle your freedoms." Because the government has proven it certainly can't do a better job at it than me.

tj
You are right. However, your act would only hang that one jury - and only if it was a criminal case, not a civil one. Only a majority if required in most civil cases. It would not declare the law illegal - it would only hang the case and require a new trial.

There are sometimes good reasons for this to happen though, particularly if you can get the rest of the jury to agree. I know of a case where a husband shot his wife and was tried for murder. His argument was that she was a B@t@h and deserved it. He had plenty of witnesses to prove it. The verdict? Guilty of murder - sentenced to a one day suspended sentence. The prosecutor almost had a heart attack.

45 Caliber, speaking of treaties...
Treaties do not supersede the Constitution. Article VI of the Constitution says that the Constitution, laws made pursuant to the Constitution, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States are the supreme law of the land.

So any treaties that the USA has signed is equal in authority to the Constitution itself. The Constitution says so.

So when the USA joins a treaty, that treaty becomes law.

45 Caliber, you said...
..."The Founding Fathers did not trust government and politicians with good reason."

Well, many of them were politicians and worked in government themselves. Eight of the men who attended the Constitutional Convention were professional politicians, and 35 were lawyers.

"They wrote the Constitution as simply as possible to prevent anyone from misunderstanding it."

The Constitution was intended merely as a framework. It was not designed to address every possible situation that might arise. That's why they created a Judicial Branch of government. The whole point of the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary is that it is meant to decide how existing law applies to situations that are not specifically addressed.

The Founders knew what they were doing.

J Corson
Incidently, my own belief about treaties is that if a treaty is signed that tries to make illegal any item in the Constitution, the treaty is illegal, not the Constitution. But then the ruling is made by the government only to get around the Constitution in the first place.

Back to Stimulus
http://www.PresidentialBalls.com

J Corson
I don't remember if it was you or someone else who said that the government was trying to come up with a way to get around the Constitution.

They already have.

The government is ruling that any treaty, particularly with the UN, overrules all our own laws including the Constitution because it is a treaty between different nations with different laws. Since all nations who are a member of the treaty must give up some laws to be a member, we must give up ours.

This is one of the main reasons that the government likes treaties and wants to be involved in them. One treaty, for instance, calls for an international court that can try any person from any country (including soldiers) for war crimes. If they have that right then they overrule our own laws and therefore our government. But the same treaty insists that there shall be NO civilian ownership of weapons. Every country except the US has signed it. Guess what one of Obama's goals is to be?

(Incidently, there is a court in Madrid that insists that they have that right already. In 1985, I think it was, the US voted to go to war with any group or country that insisted that they had that right and tried to actually bring one of our soldiers to trial.)

Not one comment or question about

jim Location: CA
Reply # 38
Date: Feb 9, 2009 - 11:50 AM EST


read it and weap

Obama's Litmus Test...
In an interview with ABC's George Stephanopolis, (This Week, Sunday, November 18, 2007), Stephanopolis asked Obama why he did not support or vote for either of Bush's two SCOTUS appointees and then asked who he would appoint to the bench if he were to be elected President. Obama told his host nearly the same thing he told Rick Warren in his Saddleback Forum last October) that he believes Living Constitutionalists like Stevens, Breyer and Ginsburg were in line with his beliefs for appropriate SCOTUS jurists. He told Stephanopolis, "I believe Ruth Bader Ginsburg has one of the finest Hagelian minds on any Federal Court." Stephanopolis then asked if he (Obama) would find jurist of the mold of Ginsburg when making appointments and Obama's response was "I wouldn't mind using her rulings as a litmus test when interviewing prospects for the Supreme Court."

One notes that Ginsburg is truly Hegalian in her opinions (i.e. Dialectical), using the Constitution as the thesis, changing times as the antithesis and legislating (read dictating) from the bench as the synthesis. So, the Constitution will change its meaning with appointees like her.

Donovan:
You said that the Contitution if the foundation of our system. I agree. But you also said it needed to be interputed correctly.

When you say that, you are saying that it should be "interputed" your way. Not as it was intended to be. The Founding Fathers did not trust government and politicians with good reason. They wrote the Constitution as simply as possible to prevent anyone from misunderstanding it. But our politicians are constantly trying to infringe on those rights as writen. For instance, the government has the right to enter any low-rent-housing unit and search it without a search warrant because they have ruled that the manager, as the owner's representative, can give permission to the police to search your apartment. And, to get in to begin with, one of the papers you have to sign says that you agree with that.

The problem is that you, and too many other liberals, want the rights to be limited or taken completely away. Your argument that you want to keep and protect the Constitution is a lie. The argument that it needs to be "interputed" is a lie. It means that you want to throw it away.

J Corson, I think you got my example...
...reversed. I said that no one could sue you to perform a gay wedding any more than someone could sue a Muslim mosque to perform a Catholic wedding. Not the other way around.

But that doesn't really matter; you could substitute Jewish temple and Hindu wedding or Baptist Church and Buddhist wedding...the point is the same.

And as far as the whole orphanage thing...I don't know what to tell you. Public services can't discriminate. I applaud the Catholic Church for running orphanages, but they need to obey the law.

But again, my point remains the same: no one can force you to perform any ceremony that goes against your beliefs.

And no one would need to, because there are plenty of other pastors who have no problems doing it instead.

A "fully informed jury" . . .
is the ONE thing that can help make unconstitutional laws "null and void". Although court "officers" (judges and lawyers) insist that you must judge the "facts" and NOT the law, they are incorrect. Ever since our first "drug war" (prohibition) and further back from that, courts have been attempting to keep juries from judging the law itself by getting laws passed that PROHIBIT "court officers" from informing jurors of their real power.
If you serve on a jury, DO NOT inform court officials of your knowledge of a jury's power to rule on the "law" itself; instead, save your rule on the law for for your own decision in the jury room. It only takes ONE juror to "hang" a jury. I for one would NEVER convict on a simple "drug possession case" as I consider ALL laws against possession of ANY substance unconstitutional. The same goes for many other "federal" laws that are on their face, unconstitutional.
For more information on jury nullification:
http://www.fija.org

J Corson
I'm not concerned with a jury or a prosecutor finding a jury to satisfy him. Most trials are NOT decided at jury level; they are appealed. Some trials never get to jury level; they are decided by a judge. And a prosecutor can find a sympathetic judge. (Check the CPS problem with the polygamic sect here in Texas.)

If ONE of the Bill of Rights is taken away, then all are taken away. The Bill of Rights states rights that the people reserve for themselves and are not given (and therefore cannot be taken away) by the government. If the government takes one away - any one - then it proves it has the right to take all away. And if it has that right, then it will do so.

J Corson
you say this

"It's the litmus test he said he will use to appoint judges and the judges themselves I have a problem with. His litmus is Ginsburg and she is for striking down DOMA and same-sex marriages as a right! "

please document where obama said he would use a litmus test to appoint judges.

Actions speak louder than words!
Actions speak louder than words, sataniclib!

As a State senator in Illinois, Der Fuhrer Obama voted to ban law abiding citizens from defending themselves in their own homes from criminals.

Bottom line, Der Fuhrer Obama would say ANYTHING to get elected. He CLAIMED no lobbyists would be working in his administration before he was elected. Now that he has office, practically EVERY one of his nominees have been lobbyists. Similarly, he CLAIMED he's all for the second amendment. I'll bet ANYONE HERE that we don't get through year number one without Der Fuhrer Obama following in his idol's footsteps and moving to outlaw guns.

replacing Ginsburg
There is not too much to fear from President Obama in replacing Justice Ginsburg with another liberal, even if is a more rabid liberal than Ginsburg, which could be quite a trick. Reason: Justices Kennedy and O’Connor appointed by President Reagan had turned out to be a bit of a disappointment. Both had been a vital swing vote for both the Liberal and Conservative schools of thought. The change from O’Connor to Alito and Rehnquist to Roberts reinforced, though not guaranteed, Kennedy voting conservatively more consistently. Rehnquist, nominated by Nixon and appointed Chief Justice by President Reagan, was a conservative judge. Chief Justice John Roberts was a better manager and has been able to keep the more conservative opinions of Scalia and Thomas from scaring off Kennedy’s conservative leanings. We can only hope that only Ginsburg and Stevens leave the Supreme Court. Even Souter (69) could leave; he seems to be bored with Washington and longs for New Hampshire. The real worries are Kennedy and Scalia (both 72) that would be a real and serious loss for the conservative school of thought.

Thomas:
About thirty years ago, Readers Digest was anti-gun. They hired a think tank to prove that the places with the most guns had the most crime.

They found it was just opposite. RD refused to pay their fee since the data didn't support their theory. The think tank sold the info to a newspaper chain to recover part of their costs. (RD sued on the grounds that they couldn't release the data because RD had commissioned it. The judge ruled that since RD didn't pay for it, the think tank could sell it wherever they wanted.)

The info showed that the places with the MOST guns had the LEAST crime and vice versa. Guess where the least guns were? Inner city areas. And the place where they had the most guns? The Ozark mountains in Arkansas. Hillbilly country - where I grew up! They found not only did they have the most guns there (2.5 guns per person) but that five year olds knew how to load and fire a rifle.

I know I learned to shoot a .22 when I was five. I also know that until I moved away when I was 26 most left their doors unlocked at all times because no one was worried about crime. Many homes didn't even have locks.

Donovan & christianlib...
Apples for Oranges, i.e. a Musleim coming to a Catholic Priest to ask him to perform his marriage. It would never happen as it violates the Koran and he wouldn't be a true Muslim if he (or her) were to come to the priest.

Second, please call the registrar's office at the U of C for confirmation as to me being in the Constitutional Law Seminar (two week Intersesson Course (May, 1994). You will need my real name, of course, but an intelligent individual such as yourself can ascertain a portion of my name through this thread.

Finally, the orphanage in question was owned by the Catholic Church and it's Articles of Incorporation included the words that its practices adhere to canon law, the laws and practices of the Roman Catholic Faith and the laws of Scripture, i.e. that homosexuality is not recognized as a Christian "virtue" (much less "Christian") and that committing the life of an individual such as a child into the hands of said couple violates the teaching of the church, its canons, its belief system and Christianity as a whole.

As for your question christianlib...yes, I am ordained and I never said that Mr. Obama believed in same-sex marriage or supports it. It's the litmus test he said he will use to appoint judges and the judges themselves I have a problem with. His litmus is Ginsburg and she is for striking down DOMA and same-sex marriages as a right!

Founding Fathers
If the Founding Fathers meant that the Second Amendment only applied to militia's, why say this...

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it is not needed until they try to take it away."
Thomas Jefferson

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on whats for lunch, Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." Ben Franklin

"What part of "shall not be infringed", do you not understand" True Modern Day American Patriots

Ron
Inside and out. Butt-ugly.

a & Donovan
your ignorance on what can clearly be seen as an attack on individual rights does not amaze me.

It’s the pride you display in your ignorance, people like you are no more than sheep waiting to be herded.

Rowly #29
You might have missed it when it happened. Around 1959, SCOTUS ruled that criminals do not have to register their guns because registration laws violate their 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Buzzy is an ugly b**ch, isn't she?

j corson
as a Christian i am disappointed in you. are you an ordained minister or a lay minister?

you say this

"As a pastor, I know that down the pike lies supreme court decisions that will force me either to leave the ministry or perform same-sex marriages. As a former law student I know that failing to do so would result in lawsuits against me and my church as well as a host of criminal charges against me based on discrimination against "protected" classes and possibly violation of anti-hate crimes laws."

at best, you are being disingenuous.

first, obama has never said he supports same sex marriage but even in the states which do have same sex marriage, the scenario you lay out has not been an issue.

there will always be separation of church and state in this country when it comes to situations like this.


J Corson, first, I don't believe...
...that you were ever in a class taught by Barack Obama.

Second, when a religious organization runs a public service such as an orphanage or owns facilities that can be rented for various purposes, they must do so without discrimination. You're not allowed to offer a public service to one person but deny it to another.

Matters of doctrine, however, are not public services and are therefore beyond the government's purview. When a court rules against an orphanage run by a religious organization, that isn't a ruling against the religion; it's a ruling against the orphanage.

And as far as that same-sex ceremony; you will notice that no Catholic clergy was involved in the ceremony itself. No one can force a religion to perform a ceremony against its will. Besides, there are plenty of churches that already perform same-sex weddings, so no one would need to force you.

No one could sue you to force you to perform a same-sex wedding, any more than someone could sue a Muslim mosque to perform a Catholic wedding.

45caliber...
Your memory is correct and she also stated that if a Republican won in 2008 she would hang on indefinitely! (ACLU Convention, Washington, DC., September, 2005).

Correction...
My post of 12:54 PM EST should read "adopt" instead of "adapt" in both instances. Also "same-sex couple" should be made plural. This is my bad as I failed to proof-read before sending the text. This merely indicates a rising blood-pressure caused by the ignorance that must be quickly addressed.

Ginsburg
If I remember correctly, about four years ago she stated that she wanted to retire but couldn't because Bush was in office and would replace her with a conservative. Therefore she would wait until there was a liberal President who could replace her with another liberal.

If my memory is correct, I suspect she will soon announce retirement.

By The Way Donovan,
I was in Professor Obama's seminar and so were thirteen other students!

Donovan...
if the government can take away my guns, it can take away my right and a religious institution's right to deny certain "privileges" based on personal beliefs. The government has already told the Catholic church running orphanages in Massachusettes that it cannot discriminate against same-sex couple who want to adapt and ruled that religious beliefs and practices infringe upon the rights of individuals who want to adapt. The New Jersey high court ruled against a Methodist diocese for refusing the allow a same-sex couple to have a commitment ceremony on its camp properties near the Ocean.

If the courts can do that (and by the way these are just two of over 20 court cases in the last three years which have been ruled against religious organizations), then what's to stop them from taking away my church's 501-C-3, or suing my trustees, or throwing me in jail? DON'T SAY IT CAN'T HAPPEN!

Horiuchi the scumbag
who murdered Mrs. Weaver not only got a promotion he was also under heavy guard for a long time because a LOT of citizens wanted his HEAD!!

Some company that makes triggers used by most American firearms company gave him an endorsement deal. The shytestorm that followed caused them to drop him like a flaming ember. The companies that bought from the firm also dropped the trigger maker.

Good Riddance to both!!!!!!!!

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!

The "Unspoken" Problem...
I have read and heard of many "behind-the-scenes" comments on the Obama presidency. Especially the so-called "Unspoken" problem that a few Die-Hard Americans are not ready for a black president. We all know that there are those "nut cases" out there.

Could it be that the real issue of "gun control" in an Obama presidency is due to the fear that those "nut cases" who stock-pile assault rifles, semi-automatics and other hardware are possibly out to "get him"? We all know that over 40,000 persons were employed to protect the new president on inaguaration day (which is over 22,000 more than any other inaguartion event ever). We all know that there are more secret service agents on the new president than any other president before him. Are we in general, and government officials in particular, trying to thwart something they know and we fear is a possibility? Do we need gun control to stave it off? Better yet, can gun control stave it off?

I can only say that my right to a firearm will be needed in case something does happen to my president. The real "unspoken" problem lies in the probability that if something happens to Mr. Obama we will see the biggest race war this country has ever known. I pray to God that never happens but the "nut cases" scare me far worse and I suspect they scare the President too.

Schumer's gonna need Depends!!!!!
He's secretly wetting himself in eager anticipation of "The Call" from O'Vomit to take Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsberg's place and "preserve the balance". The other scary thing is WHO would replace HIM? Carolyn Maloney? Andrew "Evil Eyes" Cuomo? Shudder!!!

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!

obama believes in second amendment
Chrisitanlib,
You know I almost trust pres Obama with your post topic BUT I do NOT trust the Pelossi Posse as far as I can spit them and Obama could feel he needs to go thier way depending on what time of the month a bill to ban guns went through.

Its a fact that next to NO violent crimes are committed by educated, registered gun owners. I believe stats also show that where gun ownership laws are the softest, the violent crime is the lowest. (I have not checked this one in yrs though)

As long as Obama keeps his head on straight with this issue I have faith that he will make the right decisions. He might try something crazy in his 2nd term IF he gets one though.

The technology argument doesn't hold!!!!
If you base a Constitutional guarantee on 18th century technology then the government CAN take over and regulate radio, TV and the Internet to death legally. That didn't exist in the 18th century anymore than cartridge firing much less repeating firearms.

Other than a hand-cranked press you had NO means of communication beyond a distance of about 50 feet. Mass communication was a creature of the mid 19th century that matured over 150 years. Same with firearms. Most of the 600,000 men killed on both sides in the Civil War were killed with MUZZLELOADERS!!!

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!

J Corson, no one can force you
to perform a same-sex marriage. The government absolutely cannot force a religious organization to do anything whatsoever.

Saying that someone might sue you for not performing a same-sex wedding is like saying that someone might sue a Catholic church for not performing a Jewish wedding. Can't be done. Makes no sense at all.

And where did those "notes" you just quoted come from? Sounds like someone just made up some nonsense and claimed it came from Obama. No law professor would ever claim that the Supreme Court can "change" the Constitution.

45caliber...
And I agree with you in your assessment about having to endure many trials (at least one criminal and one civil) when the government (read Courts) take away your rights to gun ownership or for personal protection. However, it's up to the prosecution to find twelve sympathetic jurors to its case and that would be hard to come by.

Case in point, the General Assembly of Virginia last year passed a law which would levy $3000.00 fees (not fines) against a driver who was considered wreckless and excessively speeding on highways. A group of "high priced attorneys" in northern Virginia (very much against the fees) decided to test the law with a few to see if the state could come up with at least twelve sympathetic jurors. The results: a poll that indicated 92 percent of the population against the excessive fees and a pool of over 3900 potential jurors without at least twelve agreeing that the law was fair. The General Assembly reversed the law quicker than any ever placed on the books in the history of the Commonwealth.

The real problem for the federal courts would be to circumvent the U.S. Constitution in such away as to take away a defendant rights to a jury trial. That would ultimately mean saying goodbye to the entire "Bill of Rights."

KATZ, I agree with you!
Sorry that I don't have time to read all the other comments, but I have no respect or sympathy for this woman that has used the Constitution to wipe her feet on for too many decades.

This article is almost useless, trying to engender sympathy for the devil's handmaiden and scare tactics about judicial appointments. One, the ones retiring are all liberal nutjobs anyway and replacing them with the same won't tip the balance yet. It will place younger anti-American moonbats on the bench and still the place for this arguement was before the election. I know we tried to warn the people what voting for the "One" would do to our Constitution, but just as the masses fell for Hitler, they are swooning over the "One".

We are in deep do do and it is too late to do anything at the ballot box about it.

The Bone In The Throat

Private firearms ownership is the bone stuck in the throat of the social engineer. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot all strove to disarm their opponents. The love, attention, and resources lavished by totalitarians on their police forces have been well documented. This investment has always proven to be justified when the enemies of the state have no recourse but to wait helplessly for their roundup and special handling. History also shows that when “civil authority” is met with an armed determined citizenry it soon melts away. The municipal and secret police forces of the former Warsaw Countries evaporated over night when military armories were thrown open and the general populace became armed. In this country municipal law enforcement agencies stand ready to administer the fiat and edict of their political machine masters. This is as long as the demands are limited to mediating domestic disturbances with burp guns. When faced with days of house to house fighting, twenty years and a fat pension may lose its allure.

gun rights
Democrats, the party that coddles terrorists and criminals and wishes to criminalize law-abiding gun owners.

Obama and his crew do NOT believe in the individual-rights view of the 2nd Amendment. If you believe that then you probably still believe in Santa Claus.

And, yes, Ruby Ridge was an overstepping of bounds by the federal government. How can you condone the shooting murder of Weaver's wife by an FBI sniper?

This crew is now back in power.

Donovan...
I am about as excited for Obama to appoint judges as I am about having root canal on nine teeth simultaneously. As a pastor, I know that down the pike lies supreme court decisions that will force me either to leave the ministry or perform same-sex marriages. As a former law student I know that failing to do so would result in lawsuits against me and my church as well as a host of criminal charges against me based on discrimination against "protected" classes and possibly violation of anti-hate crimes laws.

For you to say that Obama's appointees would be "able to correct the judicial mistakes of the recent past, and ensure a Court that will properly interpret the Constitution and ensure that American law makes sense in the 21st Century global community" is idiotic at best and asinine at least. Your view is one for a "living Constitution" which is a misleading phrase in and of itself. I believe the Constitution is living but not in the sense of Professor Obama who once noted: "The Constitution must change over time to adapt to the times. If two-thirds of the congress and three-fourths of the states won't adapt change when it is called for, then the courts need to change it to fit the times, circumvent it for the good of society in general and justice in particular." (notes from a lecture on Constitutional Law, University of Chicago Law School, spring 1994).

For a man who just swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, his real intentions are to "change, thwart and redefine the Constitution."

this article meant to fire up the base
notice blackwell says this

"Each of them could argue anti-gun views in our federal courts, and if any of them end up on the bench, could enshrine those views in the law books."

"could argue" or "could enshrine" means that he has no factual evidence that they will but since obama believes in the 2nd amendment blackwell could be wrong.

LuLu . . .
Randy Weaver was NOT a "racist". He was a "racial separatist" who wanted to be left alone. He was approached by "federal agents" who wanted him to spy on a nearby "aryan nations" camp. They tried to force the issue by clandestinely convincing him to saw off two shotgun barrels ONE QUARTER INCH below the legal minimum. They then charged him with violating "federal firearms" laws. He was given a court date; it was changed by the "feds"; he was NOT notified. The "feds" wanted to make sure that he would not show up for his court date. This made him an absconder and was all that the "feds" needed to go after him. The subsequent raid, (the criminal bahavior by the "feds") and the tragic consequences that followed were clearly the result of criminals running the "federal" agencies that went after him. The federal criminals are still in power and have been given awards, promotions and recognition for their "good work" at Ruby Ridge and Waco.
A pox on all three "branches" of government.

Well Said
Tanglelad; Well spoken, well said. Sums it up.

hail to the chief
Folks, Mr. President made it very clear, when he said the Constitution was flawed. Look for a complete change when the Supreme court Justices are appointed. The only criteria he was interested in. They Be fair.

45Caliber, I don't know what makes you
think that the Constitution should be thrown out. It's the framework for our system of government.

It simply needs to be interpreted correctly. That's what the Court's job is. And the President will nominate justices who will do just that.

Bobby in Florida
Yes. It is time to bring back the militia's. The last time they were around....let's see that would be the last democratic administration, they grew is membership rapidly due to the policies of that administration, frankly killing people before they even had a trial, Waco. Then Oklahoma City conveniently happened to put the blame on the militia's. Lets not let that happen this time around. It is time to organize gun owners once again into militia's to preserve our union. The current group in the White House is the no different then the Clinton Admin....wait.... they are in fact all back. Some change.
Fredick Douglas said it well back at a time very similar to what we are going through now;
"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle! Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
Frederick Douglass 08/04/1857
More Americans then every are arming themselves right now. Guns and amunition are flying off the shelves.
It is time to make a stand.

As for the Constitution, “OBEY OR AMEND”

There are rules of language

If you don’t like the way the Constitution is written, amend it.

A language consists of words and punctuation, and words and punctuation have meanings. A sentence expresses a complete thought, a phrase by itself does not. A period means the thought is complete, a comma means it is not yet complete.

The Second Amendment to our Constitution reads, “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.”

That tells me that, “People who are members of a well regulated Militia, have the right to keep and bear arms.” Those are commas after the words Militia, State, and Arms, not periods! You cannot ignore the first two phrases, and read only the last two. The Second Amendment is one complete sentence, and it contains one complete thought.

I once asked my Uncle, the Superintendent of schools for one of the largest cities in the US to read the Second Ad as if he was an English teacher rather than a gun owner. You should have seen the look on his face.

Is there an English Prof. who could comment, please?


J Corson
I agree as far as you go. But there are several cases that go beyond it. For instance, it says that you cannot be tried for the same crime twice. The Marine who was patrolling along the border and fired back at a Mexican shooting at them was tried THREE TIMES. Once in military court, once in civil court in Texas, and once in Federal Court. The government insisted he needed to be found guilty because we needed to appease Mexico.

I know of several other cases that are similar. If a law is passed banning self defense you can bet that it will also ignore juries.

Donavan
So you are saying that the Constitution should be thrown out? That people really don't have any rights at all? (Except for you and a few of your friends, I assume)

That is what is going to bring the U.S. up to the standards of the world? Making us slaves of the govnerment just like most of the world's population already are?

I hope you have a high established place in the government or you are going to be just as bad off as the rest of us will be.

Gun Registration
I have always said gun registration was the first step in gun confiscation. Else,why would it be fair for honest gunowners to register their guns but criminals do not?

It has been on the back burner for years,but continuing to percolate slowly. Now with a totalitarian in office and the administration made up of left-wing lawbreakers,the time is right.

Expect this power-grabbing cabal to begin doing anything they please to gain control of the masses. Karl Marx would be so proud.

Christian lib...
Ha Ha

Thanks

Remember 1 Thing About Being on Trial...
Should SCOTUS ever rule against the ownership or the right to carry-concealed or even the right to defend oneself against a perpetrator bent on killing, the right of the one using a gun to defend him/herself will still be left up to a jury of peers. Remember one thing - "Tis better to be tried by twelve than to be carried by six." Juries will be more sympathetic than Obama liberals.

Gun Confiscation
Some years ago, New Jersey passed a bill and the govenor signed it into law. It banned all semi-automatic weapons in the state and required that they be turned in or the owners would get jail time. It was estimated that there were at least 300,000 such guns in the state. Just over 500 were turned in.

My boss at the time had grown up in New Jersey but had left the state nearly twenty years before this happened. He received a letter telling him that he had purchased a .22 rifle in the state 20 years before and had to turn it in. (Interesting to me, how did they know since it was illegal for them to keep records?)

The next election was the biggest turnover of elected officials in the entire history of the U.S. When the governor was up for reelection, he lost by a large percentage.

I think it would be advisable for our Congress to consider the results of that election and consider whether they want to be on the unemployment lines too before they consider such legislation.

A line in the sand
What I can never understand about these liberals is they keep missing mark. When all is said and done; the question is really not about the gun issue in and of itself, liberals have no tolerance for those who think differently than they do.

Until these socialists can find a way to legislate free thinking; the danger to their little Styrofoam world will always and forever be looming in front of their collective faces, and that is what they really hate.

Eighty to ninety million Americans, including many in the military do NOT share their socialist, world vision for America.
So the question becomes for the socialists; what are you going to do about us? Clearly, we have already rejected the leftist propaganda of the main-stream media and your so called "officials", whom most of us hold in contempt.

It seems to me; this circus of traders, socialists, and Bolsheviks had better find a way to legislate free thinking instead of guns.
History has shown us that determined people will kill with bows, knives, clubs, rocks, and whatever happens to be available. Also, you can bet that their will be millions of guns stashed away, that is happening now, if a line is drawn in the sand by this bogus government.

This is not the collaborating, socialist EU, Briton, or Australia, this is the last bastion of individualism and we have no intention of letting slip away.


tj
since you didn't capitalize your own nickname i can only surmise you have no respect for yourself either.

I am very excited...
...about President Obama nominating federal judges, including Supreme Court justices.

He will be able to correct the judicial mistakes of the recent past, and ensure a Court that will properly interpret the Constitution and ensure that American law makes sense in the 21st Century global community.

America will regain its rightful place in the world.

obama believes in second amendment
here is his statement

"The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."

It's a stand that the senator from Illinois says means that he supports an individual's right to bear arms and agrees with this summer's Supreme Court decision that a District of Columbia ban on handguns went too far.

But Obama asserted that Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion also acknowledged, "This right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe." Obama added that he supports "common-sense laws, like closing the gun-show loophole and improving our background-check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals

What Awaits

The history of the last century clearly demonstrates the only success of the different socialist ideologies is the murder and or enslavement of their own citizenry. Governments which only appeal to the permanent underclass or a limited elite always have to resort to brute force to survive. Those who heard Senator Stabenow’s comments last week on the “Fairness Doctrine” have no doubt we now are living in a new political era. With network television co-opted by our ruling socialist overlords and government financed news papers looming on the horizon, the only impediment to complete socialist domination of American society are the arms reposing in the hands of the general population. Thus, gun owners and supporters of the Second Amendment are now the number one ‘class enemies” of the politics of change. The coming fight over the basic freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights will dominate the political dialogue for the next four years. Those who value the freedom and heritage of our nation need to support the Second Amendment with all the strength and enthusiasm they can muster. Please join one of the many groups supporting the Second Amendment, even if you have never owned, or even contemplated owning a firearm.

Ginsburg Ranked THE MOST LIBERAL!
According to research at the Brookings Institute, the rulings of Ruth Bader Ginsburg from 1993 to 2008 rank as the most liberal on ALL social and political issues from gun control, the private rights; from immigration to minority rights; and from labor unions to trial lawyers. Her record is considered farther to the left than those of John Paul Stevens, Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun, Thurgood Marchall and William Brennan. If we were to go back to Franklin Roosevelt's extreme liberal picks she is considered more to the left than Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas and Robert Jackson. She has the distinction of being the only justice ever to serve on the Supreme Court who's opinions are 100 percent liberal.

Her stepping down from the bench (or her death) only signals that a liberal will replace a liberal. Stevens will soon turn 89 and he is considered the 6th most liberal in the Court's history (behind Ginsburg, Warren, Douglas, Black and Marshall).

Obama's challenge will be to pick someone more to the left of Ginsburg and at least as liberal as Stevens. That may be hard to do but I am willing to wager that Obama will wait until he can find someone who is that far to the left before he announces him (or her).

Tyranny in Government
Thomas Jefferson wrote: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." We have a "Representative Republic" and not an "Oligarchy", and I believe a vast number of Americans have reached their limit on tolerance.

Jefferson also wrote: "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." I stand for liberty; how do you stand?

Ron, good observation . . .
It seems that those who thind that the second amendment only applied to the weapon of the day (flintlock) are boxing themselves in. If the same rationalization applied to the first amendment, constitutional protection would only apply to those who used "printing presses" of the type that Benjamin Franklin used. Those who use offset rotary and other modern printing presses would not be covered.
It is time to use the oppositions own arguments against them.

barack hussein obama ...
complained that the Constitution was "too limiting. I wonder what he has in store for us. Look at bill clinton's "bending the Constitution" statement to justify clearly unconstitutional behavior.
I do not capitalize the names of individuals that I do not respect.

Didn't work the first time
Some people say that the Militia part of the Second Amendment of the Constitution refers only to flintlock rifles because that was all that was available at the time the Constitution was written. These people are incorrect, because at the time when our Militiamen had flintlocks, that is what the enemy had as state-of-the-art weapons.

When we are attacked now by terrorists, the enemy carries fully-a