[Ken]

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/7034674.htm

[geekWithA.45]

I believe the right to keep and bear arms is a fiction. Legal experts I respect -- including Departments of Justice previous to the current one -- have all held that the Second Amendment confers no right of individual gun ownership.

Well, if respecting the opinions of people who manipulate facts and history for their own purposes comforts you, go right ahead.

Meanwhile, I'm off to the range.

[GSB]

I might "believe" that the NSA is tracking my thoughts through the fillings in my teeth. Doesn't mean it's true.

[Hkmp5sd]

This guy's just PO'ed because he is such a nobody, he didn't make the NRA's list of anti-gun journalists. And since the moron happens to live in Miami, even of he was correct about the 2nd Amendment, Florida's Constitution does guarantee an individual right to keep and bear firearms.

[Baba Louie]

I believe the right to keep and bear arms is a fiction. Legal experts I respect -- including Departments of Justice previous to the current one -- have all held that the Second Amendment confers no right of individual gun ownership.
I always thought it meant that Congress shall make no laws infringing on that right... silly me.
The last administration's legal beagles made some statement that even the National Guard had no right to keep and bear arms didn't they? Wasn't that part of the argument made in the Emerson case to which the judges were slightly taken aback?

Adios

[sm]

We'll also never have it so long as gun owners' interests are represented by an organization that sets new standards for crazy

Pot can't call the Kettle black.
Bunch of mis-information, fiddlin with figures,, and mis-interpretation to alter perception or try to out there...

[Bruce H]

I don't believe he has the right to be a journalist either. Oh wait he isn't a journalist. He is a lie spouting dimwit posing as a journalist.

[BowStreetRunner]

aaaaaawwwwwwwww
the iddy biddy liberal columist got left off the NRA's enemy list and his feelings are hurt
does he want a bottle?
:rolleyes:

[RobW]

Lenin called such people "Useful Idiots"

[Henry]

You can let the "reporter" that wrote this article for the Herald know how you feel about his opinions by e-mailing him at lpitts@herald.com. Have fun.

[Spark]

Loser. I sent him an email saying he should be ashamed of himself for supporting the racism of gun-control.

[JDSlack]

Leonard Pitts is a hack, starting doing an entertainment column, IIRC, which stressed the "importance" of rap music. I also recall he was particuarly adamant about the "value" of the song "Cop-Killer", and stressing Ice-T's 1st Amendment right to bleat that stuff. I guess some rights are more important than others. Now he is deemed significant and writes an opinion piece every so often. Since he writes (?) for the Herald of course he loved Janet Reno, thus the comment below.

"I believe the right to keep and bear arms is a fiction. Legal experts I respect -- including Departments of Justice previous to the current one -- have all held that the Second Amendment confers no right of individual gun ownership."

The quote nicely ignores the legal opinion of other experts such as Federal judges that the 2nd Amenment does involve an individual right.

[feedthehogs]

I never understood how a member of any unarmed race that was persecuted, tortured and murdered by armed thugs could be against firearms ownership.
Mr. Pitts, who is black, seems to forget this country's laws at one time were designed to keep arms out of the hands of blacks. So quickly they forget.
No, never understood why any Black or Jew would be against firearms ownership.

[grampster]

If I wasn't such a computer moron, I could have put my e mail to him on here. Well.......I gave him a piece of my mind, mostly about evidently he didn't need a reading comprehension ability to be a writer because then he would be able to understand the 2A without someone telling him what it said. Told him he was lazy to take someone elses word about it. Why didn't he spend some time finding out for himself by doing a little historical background checking etc etc sigh........I feel
better now.

grampster

[Porter Glockwell]

My emailed reply:

I don't care what you belive you nitwit...

I have a gun + You don't = I get to keep my guns and do what I want (see freedom in websters)

"Belief" don't enter into it... moron.

Porter

[feedthehogs]

When replying to anti 2nd amendment people, name calling serves no purpose other than to make yourself look childish.

Any well informed individual on any topic can hold his own without lowering themselves to name calling. It does our cause no good.

[WonderNine]

The Constitution says:

1st Amendment: "...the right of the people..."

2nd Amendment: "...the right of the people..."

4th Amendment: "...the right of the people..."

9th Amendment: "...retained by the people..."

10th Amendment: "...reserved...to the people..."

Notice the similarity and yet ONLY in the 2nd Amendment do some people claim that "the people" means a group and yet in all other uses of the term, it is undeniably an individual right. The Founders knew that words meant something and were VERY careful in the use and consistency in meaning of those words. The 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right just as the right to speak freely is an individual right or an individual's right against illegal search and seizure.

[Standing Wolf]

I believe the right to keep and bear arms is a fiction.

He's entitled to his irrational, completely unrealistic belief; if he wants to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, the tooth faerie, and the corrigibility of criminals, he's well within his rights.

I believe in the .357 magnum, and that's my right.

[Classified00]

If only I had paid more attention in school.....

I seem to recall that the Bill Of Rights were added to the constitution after Jefferson, returning from a trip abroad, reviewed the constitution and concluded that there was nothing specifically written into it to protect individual freedom and limit the power of the government.

Jefferson made a big enough stink to convice many leading statesmen that restrictions to the powers of the government needed to be specifically spelled out in the constitution. The first 10 amendments, "The Bill of Rights", were the result. The purpose of the "Bill of Rights" was to grant the people protection, from the government, of those rights covered in the first 10 amendments.

http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia

Brent...
:scrutiny:

[Nightfall]

"I believe" is commonly said in place of "I have no real facts supporting my position, but I feel..."

[Tamara]

I believe the right to keep and bear arms is a fiction.

I wonder if he believes he can pick up a rock or a stick, no matter what laws are passed? I wonder if he can think through the implications of that?

[madmike]

Ah, the privileges of being a peer of such fools. He received exactly what you see below, including the sig:

SCOTUS has mentioned the 2nd Amendment 76 times in decisions.

In all 76, they have upheld it as an individual right, including in the oft-misquoted Miller case.

Consider yourself fortunate there's no 5-day waiting period on publication while the government checks your facts for accuracy.

BTW: Florida's state constitution also confers a specific, individual right.

It appears we both write fiction for a living. I, however, research mine and openly admit it is simply entertainment.

Cheers,

Mike
--
FREEHOLD by Michael Z. Williamson, January 2004 from Baen Books
THE WEAPON, pending
HERO with John Ringo, June 2004 from Baen Books
THE SCOPE OF JUSTICE, July 2004 from Avon (HarperCollins)
TARGET: TERROR series, 2004 from Avon (HarperCollins)

http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com
http://www.SharpPointyThings.com Custom knives and historical costumes
--
Education has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading.
--G.M. Trevelyan

And, dammit, I let two typos sneak in (corrected here). Sigh. Well, he probably won't read it.

[MaterDei]

If the second ammendment is fiction, then, by extension, so is the first. Therefore this bozo should shut his :cuss: pie hole.

[Tomac]

Dear Mr. Pitts,
You are welcome to your beliefs and opinions and even to voice them. However, I would like to ask you a question:
Should a government become tyrannical and unresponsive to the will of the people, do the people have the right to use force *as a last resort* to remove such a government?
If "yes" then what tools would be used to effect such a removal if not firearms?
If "no" then was the American Revolution an illegal act of armed insurrection requiring our return to subject status in the United Kingdom?
Sincerely,
Thomas C. McClimans

[greyhound]

Nonsense like this was what I thought would cease after 9/11. Obviously, I was wrong - there's a strong desire in some of us to go back to the 9/10 liberal/conservative battles.

I would like to see a poll on whether or not people believe, 2 years later, that 9/11 was an isolated incident or an act of ongoing war. I have a suspicion that the former is gaining steam....

[Doug S]

It comes as no surprise that to me that an individual in today's political climate might hold such an ignorant view. The anti-gun (anti-freedom) propaganda has been around long enough now that a segment of our population (especially the 30 something & under) often hold to such views. Having been exposed to these new ideological beliefs long enough, many know nothing else. After all it would seem to reason (to the simple minded) that less guns would equal less crime, right). Also (unfortunately) our public schools overcome with political correctness, no longer teach American History & Civics as they once did. We are no longer taught that our country is unique (& something to be proud of) in its individual & economic freedoms. Instead we are told that our system discriminates against those less fortunate than we. This new ideology (straight out of the Communist Manifesto) teaches that we should all live in the same type of homes, and allow the government to make our choices for us. Everyone should labor be for the benefit of someone less fortunate & that we can never be forgiven for the sins of our past. I've strayed a bit from my intended purpose in posting, but I'm find this new age ignorance appalling. It is something out of a bad science fiction movie. And unfortunately our youth so inclined continue to march along believing that their sexuality & feelings of self-worth are more important than the freedoms that their forefathers fought & bled for. The very freedoms which allow the form of self-expression. But unfortunately Political Correctness does not seem to be very equal either, what is good for the goose doesn't seem to be acceptable for the gander. We you express views contrary to the mainstream, it is called radical. We you desire to own something that they PC's deem unnecessary or evil they attempt to pass laws against our freedoms. They will decide what is acceptable for everyone else. Only they have the freedom & the intellectual ability to choose what is good & right. No God, No Country, No Freedom, but boy they feel good about themselves & their state of higher enlightenment. I hope I've made myself clear in this post. I didn't intend to preach, it just bothers me to see our freedoms so dearly bought eroded by people who think know better. Political correctness & real freedom of expression/thought are a contradiction in terms.

[MagKnightX]

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.

Okay, fine. Even if, with the same wording that makes the other amendments individual rights here only extends to the militia, then still:

According to Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13, Section 311:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So, everybody 17 to 45 has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, ASSUMING THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT APPLIES ONLY TO THE MILITIA. However. It DOES say, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

[Travis McGee]

His "legal opinion" is an Rx for a CW.

http://matthewbracken.web.aplus.net/bookcover.jpg

[MAKOwner]

I have absolutely no respect for anyone who can read the 2nd Amendment and seriously sit there and dream up these bullsh*t ways for it to mean anything other than what it obviously does and try to pass that off as the educated "duh, what's wrong with you peasants" reading of it. I mean for crying out loud, it is not confusing, it is not cryptic. ***!?! It takes a real freakin idiot to garble the thing that badly... How some supposedly smart, educated people can be completely thrown off by the mention of the Militia, and sit there justifying how it only covers the Militia (while ignoring what the militia is defined as...) peddling some "collective right" BS that is obviously pulled out of their a$$es, and then go on to ignore "the right of the people" is just incredible. They're either incredibly biased or just plain freakin' stupid, no other explanations really cover what it would take to reach these decisions...