In this columnist's opinion, "[T]he right to keep and bear arms is a fiction."
- Thread starter Ken
- Start date
- Status
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
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.
Hkmp5sd
Member
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
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
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
member
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...
BowStreetRunner
Member
aaaaaawwwwwwwww
the iddy biddy liberal columist got left off the NRA's enemy list and his feelings are hurt
does he want a bottle?
the iddy biddy liberal columist got left off the NRA's enemy list and his feelings are hurt
does he want a bottle?
RobW
Member
Lenin called such people "Useful Idiots"
Henry
Member
You can let the "reporter" that wrote this article for the Herald know how you feel about his opinions by e-mailing him at [email protected]. Have fun.
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.
"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
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
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.
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
Member
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
better now.
grampster
Last edited:
Porter Glockwell
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 39
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
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
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
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.
Any well informed individual on any topic can hold his own without lowering themselves to name calling. It does our cause no good.
WonderNine
member
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.
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
Member in memoriam
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
Member
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...
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...
Last edited:
Tamara
Senior Member
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
Member
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.
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
Member
If the second ammendment is fiction, then, by extension, so is the first. Therefore this bozo should shut his 
pie hole.
pie hole.Tomac
Member
My Email to Mr. Pitts
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
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
Member
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....
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....
- Status
