I'm a Libertarian living in Humboldt County, CA. I've lived here in Eureka since 1973 and joined the Libertarian Party in 1992. This blog will mostly focus on local political issues, but I may stray into state and national issues as well, when I can't help myself. Please post your comments by clicking on the "comments" link at the bottom of each post. Although I do moderate comments, you need not be a registered user to post them.
My internet buddy, Tom Knapp, over at the Garrison Center, makes what I think is good case that the 2nd Amendment- the right to keep and bear arms- does protect the right of people to own military weapons, or so- called assault weapons.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 9:35 AM
25 comments
25 Comments:
like it says , 4 th court said no , i kant spel circut
there will be lots of that heading to supreme court this summer and beyond as all the law suits from california prop 63 make it thru the courts
I have a feeling there's going to be a lot of judges having to retire for bad behavior.
That was a great article btw.
The Forth Circuit Court is wrong. Good stuff Fred.
The Second Amendment gave the states the right to maintain armed forces, militia. This has been expanded by the Supreme Court to allow individuals to own firearms.
The Second Amendment says nothing about not limiting the types of firearms that individuals can own. At the time the Second Amendment was written firearms meant muzzle loading flintlocks.
I support gun ownership - within reason. I own a shotgun.
I don't support ownership of firearms which are designed to efficiently kill large numbers of people. I can find no rational argument for allowing people to possess large capacity, rapid fire weapons.
Work out guidelines that allow people to protect their household against realistic threat. (Not a home invasion by three dozen armed bad guys.) Work out reasonable guidelines for hunting guns.
Stop this crazy-assed walking around armed.
It's time to make our country safe from knuckleheads living some fantasy while armed to the teeth.
Extrajudicial con artists on the bench to make the appearance of a judical process.........
Bob plagiarizes Democrat Dave Kirby from a SoHum Parlance post "Boom"......
Nothing in the USC limits the best boom stick from being used either.....by anyone....
If firearms meant muzzle loading ball bearing projectile shooting weapons, then the writers of the Constitution would have stated as such...... instead they wrote firearms because preceding up to the muzzle ball-bearing projectile shooting instruments of warfare are other types of firearms...... that signals that there was never to be a ban on any type or style of firearm.......as the rules of violence never really change, and so does protection desire the best.
Democrats are always and have always been kooks reading into something that does not exist.
Writes knucklehead Bob, a Democrat catch and release type, illegal criminal on social welfare enabler....ya, Bob lives in a meek world of hope.
Bob's definition of Knucklehead is the Eureka Police Department, where over 30 bullets are discharged, erratically sprayed around through several city blocks and a special investigative team has to do the best job they can to retrieve all the spent bullets...... yeah that's knucklehead bob's solution.... his solution is to put guns into the hands of knuckleheads....... Bob votes for taxation to put more Knuckleheads in Uniforms on the streets to spray bullets all around which hit anything that is not a suspect.......great gazoo, er Bob.
The writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not address private ownership of fully armed fighter jets and nerve gas. They said nothing about private ownership of nuclear weapons.
My assumption is that the issue of private firearms ownership was not an issue in the mid-1700s. Britain did not start regulating gun ownership until the early 1900s.
Wallace, the BOR is an EXAMPLE listof Rights NOT to be tread upon. The Framers were wise enough to know that bafoons riding thunderous agendas fueled by putrid gasses would twist it out of meaning, so they wisely added a redundancy, called the NINTH AMENDMENT. The Ninth reassures the people as it AGAIN warns the bafoons, that just because a Right is not listed in the e ample list, does not mean it can be puked on.
This page might help bafoons to learn a thing or two, it's written for little kids to understand.
http://kids.laws.com/ninth-amendment
Perhaps you should read your own link.
"The Ninth Amendment, or Amendment IX of the United States Constitution is the section of the Bill of Rights that states that there are other rights that may exist aside from the ones explicitly mentioned, and even though they are not listed, it does not mean they can be violated."
The 9th does not forbid the federal government from creating any laws. There's nothing that prohibits the federal government from establishing laws that protect citizens.
Do you really want to argue that private citizens have the right to possess weapons of mass destruction?
Well that just says it all then because what you explained in writing describes exactly what's going on with middle-class America....... eliminate the middle of society and its uses but keep the extremes.
So if we look at it as an income level of the poor middle-class the rich:
The poor get to use stones and sticks the middle class get to use actual firearms that are single shot semi auto auto it could be handguns or it could be military style (hence the word style doesn't mean that it's actually a militarized capable weapon) then the rich will get the fighter jets to have the air to surface missiles or can drop bombs or become a kamikaze yeah it really does explain the kooks of democratic socio politics.
Granted the fighter jets will be stripped down models without military capabilities but that doesn't mean a private citizen in the know isn't going to be able to retrofit. And no retrofitting is needed for Kamikaze, just jet fuel.
9-1-1, the conspiracy that won't ever go away.........
Firearm regulation only occurred when the leaders in control with the power to control decided that the guns were powerful enough to overthrow their power.
As far as regulation on behalf of victims and Society to crimes where guns are used Firearms are used that's just politics or politicians and lawmakers who never have experienced the victimization themself and when you go speak with those who have been victims of events with Firearms you'd be surprised at how many still will not propose more regulation except for politicians or X politicians like Brady.
Gun regulation does not work in the fold of it all it is just politics and makes people feel good while pissing most people off.
1:59, that protect citizens? The Constitution doesn't protect citizens, it forbids governments from treading on the Rights of citizens.
The people created all the governments, local, state and Fed.
The people restricted the governments from treading on the Rights of the citizens.
Weapons of mass destruction are not delegated to the government. Yet the government has them. The Right to bear arms is for the people to protect themselves against tyrannical governments, citizens, or foreigners, against all enemies foreign or domestic.
The people have the right to fight fire with fire. The Right of the people is never limited. The Right of the people goes without saying.
Any person, whether elected official or citizen, documented or undocumented, found guilty of betraying the Constitution, face consequences. Traitors & tyrants, foreign countries, do not want the Constitution defended, they want it destroyed. Those are the ones who have no rights.
It is tyrannical governments that are in violation of the Constitution.
The people do not want weapons of mass destruction. The people want peace.
It is not the "equal protection" that is in question, it is the "intent".
One more thing, 1:59. The Framers also included the common sense term of "well regulated" which means WELL TRAINED.
They could not imagine the future, the innovative progress of genius inventors. They covered all scenarios with that one catch-all phrase. Well trained.
If the people desire equal protection against tyrants, the people reserve the Rights of the people to form highly skilled, well trained, ways & means to do so. Top notch in every way, as set forth under US code of safety, practice, and settings. Having the funds, the training, the facilities, the mandated codes on hand to follow, is the difficult part to achieve. Any government, any person at all, not qualified by the strictest of codes made law by CONGRESS itself in keeping within the constraints of their delegated duties enumerated within the Constitution, are forbidden from exercising their perceived right.
To put it bluntly, neither government or civilian can partake in the holding of or building of weapons of mass destruction, that do not follow protocol.
Are there non-governmental labs utilizing the proper protocol? This silly question is an EASY one to answer, by asking another question. Are there NON-GOVERNMENTAL governments governing the U.S.A?
Touche'.
Seconding what Bob said. It's laughable to suggest the second amendment says anything about modern military-grade weapons being owned by private citizens. "What's reasonable?" should be the question.
It's laughable to suggest a Second Amendment says anything about "what is reasonable for firearms as well"...... so that's not a thought that needs to be analysed other than it's already been refuted.
1:59, did you mean the 10th amendment when you said the 9th does not forbid any laws? The 10th assures that delegated roles of Government cannot be infringed on by the States, & that the Federal govt cannot be infringed by the states. Neither of which have any authority or power to infringe upon the Rights of the People that the 9th reaffirms.
Edit: The 10th forbids states from interfering with Delegated duties of the Govt. The 10th forbids the Govt from interfering with the States. Neither Fed nor State may intrude upon the Rights of the people, covered in the 9th amendment. All of the above, must be constitutionally respected, or there will be consequences.
2:30, what is laughable, is assuming that no other generation ever lived in a "modern" time.
The 2nd was written in the modern times of the day. Modern weapons, including machine guns and cannons were part of the then "modern day".
4:17: Exactly, the black powder musket was the state of the art weaponry of the day. If I want to defend my property with AK-47 it is a right given me by the second amendment.
" It's laughable to suggest the second amendment says anything about modern military-grade weapons being owned by private citizens."
The firearms they protected at the time were the military weapons owned at the time and commonly owned by the citizenry.
The BOR is an example list of what Individual Rights of the People are. They wrote this example list to:
1. Assure the people that Government has absolutely no authority to invade the people's rights to privacy, beliefs, press, private property in all it's forms from thoughts to beliefs to businesses to home & land.
2. Affirm to the Governments, local & fed, that they have ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY delegated to them to tread upon the rights of the people.
The general welfare clause specifies that the foregoing ... NOT the absent... Powers delegated to the government are ONLY for the general necessities needed in order to fulfill the delegated duties. Nothing more, nothing less.
Government was CREATED BY THE PEOPLE TO PRESERVE, PROTECT & DEFEND THE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS OF THE SMALLEST MINORITY OF ALL, THE INDIVIDUAL. They were NOT created to micro manage people.
Clean air? If you require cleane air than your neighbor, then that is YOUR responsibility, not theirs. YoU have the power & the right to invent or purchase air cleaning systems that suit your needs. You do NOT have the right to force your neighbors to clean YOUR air according to YOUR specifications.
Potential harm? YOU have the piwer & the Right to educate self & others about potential harms. You do NOT have the authority or the Right to force others to accept YOUR definition of potential harm. It is an individual decision to make.
Post a Comment
<< Home