Huffington Post: No Right to Bear Arms

[SoCalShooter]

Communitarian Policy Studies

Says it all.

 

[Cosmoline]

Boy, that's weak even by anti standards. Did the author even graduate from law school? Citing Miller as authority against Heller is like citing Plessy v. Ferguson as authority against Brown.

 

[tpaw]

George Soros is one, if not the biggest problem in this country today. The multi billionaire funds every cause and group that wants to destroy America.
He throws millions out the window like pocket change to tear this country down.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Their opinion is about as relevant and true as saying the world is flat. If it's just not true, it's just not true. Wanting it to be true really really hard with your fingers crossed doesn't conjure falsehood into reality. We have the right to keep and bear arms. It just is.

 

[AndyC]

But when I wrote previously about this subject I received a storm of critical emails. Many of the responses were composed merely of cuss words strung together, of the kind one would expect to find in a poorly kept public toilet.

And the author's writing would be more useful if it were published on the roll kept on that very wall.

 

[jonmerritt]

I keep my guns locked up, so they don't jump out and just start shooting at people randomly!!!

 

[mbt2001]

The relevant Supreme Court cases are United States v. Cruikshank (1875); Presser v. Illinois (1886); Miller v. Texas (1894); United States v. Miller (1939); Lewis v. United States (1980); Quilici v. The Village of Morton Grove (1983); Higgins v. Farmer (1991); and Printz v. United States (1997). Though the details of these cases vary, and like all such cases they are subject to different readings, the decisions reached in all of them fundamentally affirm that the Constitution does not limit the states' ability to restrict private gun ownership.

So... even though they are subject to different "readings" they are actually only subject to THEIR readings...

NO SOUP FOR YOU!

 

[ServiceSoon]

Read the opinion's for crying-out-loud! Even a 10 year old can comprehend the decision. Even the minority said the second amendment is an individual right.

 

[JackBurtonJr]

Second, are people who live in homes more likely to be shot than people who live in homes without guns.

I honestly don't know the answers to these questions, but they are brought up often enough. How would you respond if someone asked you that? While a gun may be safe in _your_ house, what if, in fact, homes with guns were more likely to be the site of gun injury or death than homes without guns. And if so, could one not make an argument that simply by not having a gun in the home one is - statistically at least - less likely to be shot.

Not trying to play a devil's advocate here. I own nine (or is it ten?) guns, have my CCW, and support the Heller decision.

Logically, one can apply that line of reasoning to almost anything since it is a fairly universal principle.

Homes with screwdrivers are statisically more likely to have a screwdriver accident than homes without screwdrivers.

Since homes without screwdrivers have a zero chance of having an accident with one, then even if only one out of ten million homes with screwdrivers have an accident, that is "statistically more."

People with who own cars are more likely to have auto accidents than those who don't'

People who own ladders are more likely to fall of from them than people who don't own ladders.

You can keep this up probably for infinity.

Once you point out how inately "pointless" that argument is it usually goes away.

 

[ChrisVV]

Why do we even need the Supreme Court anyway? The Huffington Post obviously has it all figured out.

 

[P90shooter]

Gotta love the anti's. Statistics are good for one purpose only, making YOUR point look like the most logical one. Give me a situation and I can take any number and put a good "SPIN" on it.

Isn't this scary, we let our children go to school where these people teach. Children are very impressionable and these quacks get to mold their minds.:banghead:

 

[IA_farmboy]

Second, are people who live in homes more likely to be shot than people who live in homes without guns.

Assuming that it is true that there is a correlation in gun ownership and getting shot I'll point to another plausible correlation, stores with bars on the windows tend to get robbed.

A bit too subtle, perhaps? Some people may be confused by my analogy, those tend to be the people I would rather not try to explain it to.

 

[dalepres]

You see, people? THAT IS THE REASON why I think the 1st Amendment should be reworded.

I appreciate the responses from that defunct LEGAL thread regarding the Constitution, but I don't appreciate how rewording the 1st Amendment can be called "communism".

You say everybody has the right to free speech? Well, look what powers it gave to our political enemies.

American Rifleman featured an article where two young women were raped for hours in their house, unable to defend themselves because of DC's atrocious gun control laws.

People being murdered or assaulted every day by criminals who have nothing to fear from their victims, knowing that the law have already disarmed them.

Leftist extremist organizations such as Brady and VPC, with millions of embezzled and extorted dollars being used against us.

Newspapers such as Huffpo and NY Times, exercising their "right to free speech" to attack America and strip the people of their civil liberties, one by one.

People like Mr. Dick Heller, having to sue the DC government ONCE AGAIN, because the government simply pretended the Supreme Court doesn't exist.

Leftist elitist columnists in Chicago saying that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed If anything is to be repealed, it is their 1st Amendment rights allowing them to spew such rhetoric. The Bill Of Rights is a package! UNDERSTAND? Want to take away the 2nd Amendment? Then you better take away everything else. Otherwise, leave the Bill Of Rights ALONE!

Want me to say more? All because of the 1st Amendment and how it is worded, the above mentioned things happened today.

If the 2nd Amendment is destroyed in a grim future, it will be because of leftist extremists using the 1st Amendment to tear the 2nd Amendment apart.

I'll need case numbers, law journal notations, PDF copies of trascripts, etc. to back up any of that. Please provide forthwith.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

If I read correctly this person's comments on quotes of authors of the Bill of Rights he is saying that their opinion of why they wrote the Bill of Rights is unimportant because he's decided what they really meant no matter what they thought they meant...

Huh?

 

[M203Sniper]

Amitai Etzioni is University Professor and director of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies at George Washington University.

was all you had to say



Liberal's like this couldn't make $0.50 if them gave him four dimes and two nickels, much less interpret the meaning of a simple phrase, "Shall not be infringed" for example makes them stutter and spurt like a model A.

 

[Kevin3824]

Ok he has his opinion let me point out another way of reading the same thing stated.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The terms of the time defined militia as everyone first off.

There right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I looking at that statement and the fact that Thomas Jefferson himself indicated it was every mans right and OBLIGATION to keep and bear arms at all times.

These things indicate that these are unalienable rights not to be infringed upon or otherwise restricted by any government state, federal, or local.

Now if the government wants to have increased penalties for crimes committed through the use of a firearm that is their choice. However, the words of the bill of rights says that the people meaning all the citizens (including people with previous criminal records) have a right to keep and bear arms.

Now obviously people in prisons cannot vote while they are incarcerated so they may not really be citizens however once they are released they should be given back all their rights as their time is served.

I am sure this line of thought will have a bunch of people upset or in disagreement here but it is only an opinion.

BTW while we are at it lets also look at the idea it is the responsibility of the state to prove you guilty beyond any shadow of a doubt and not the responsibility of the defendant to prove their innocence.

Lets get back to the original constitution and bill of rights before the lawyers changed its interpretation beyond recognition.

 

[divemedic]

Miller could not prove that his shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

That isn't what Miller said. What it said was that:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

 

[Deanimator]

The segregationists urinated in the wind the same way after Brown v. Board of Ed. Let them whine. The law is the law.

 

[goon]

The segregationists urinated in the wind the same way after Brown v. Board of Ed. Let them whine. The law is the law.

What he said.