Latest gun ruling a case of conservative judicial activism

The right for an individual has been clearly stated by our Founding Fathers. Any law-abiding citizen should be able to obtain and use a firearm for personal protection. I do not see how the second amendment can be interpreted otherwise. Use your same argument against the 1st amendment and see how that sits with yourself.

• Link
• Report this comment

Poor Jay.
First Byrd just had a “dalliance” with the KKK.
And now, the court reaffirming a right spelled forth in the constitution is “activism”.
Please try again Jay. Even for you this is weak.

• Link
• Report this comment

For every ONE time someone claims to have used a firearm to successfully defend their person, there are SEVENTEEN accidental deaths resulting from firearms – many of which involve children finding them in the closet of the parent retard who put it there unsecured.

With the N* word no longer socially acceptable, the right takes every measure to ensure that the streets of our inner-cities remain saturated with fire-power.

• Link
• Report this comment

Sorry Jay. Upholding the Constitution and the rights that it affords individuals is not “activism”.

Good try though. I understand the pain that it must be causing so many liberals that they are finding it more and more difficult to advance through the Judiciary an agenda that they could never gain legislatively.

-SD

• Link
• Report this comment

“Upholding the Constitution and the rights that it affords individuals is not “activism”. ”

I don’t know…maybe Jay will come back and clarify his uses of that word, but *I* read it as sarcasm. As in: when the court makes a decision you don’t like, it’s “activism” but when they make a decision you DO like it “following the constitution”

• Link
• Report this comment

The Supreme Court — [...] ostensibly conservative, anti-activist, pro-states’ rights

ha ha. Jay make a funny.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dang it, Jay!! I made it thru the first thread without losing my cool. I don’t think I can make it thru two as I know there will be some ludicrous (not to be confused with Ludacris) stuff said here. I’m gone to go play Madden football. I think that would be more productive than sitting through this one.

See y’all later.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well you could beat your chest like Tarzan, but why look or act like a fool.

• Link
• Report this comment

TW…i’m having a hard time connecting that last paragraph with the “right”,the number of firearms in the inner cities,that would be due to a number of things,icluding those law abiding inner city dwellers who choose to be armed, ahd what in the world does that have to do with the N* word?

• Link
• Report this comment

One just knew the leftist would have fits over the latest 2nd amendment ruling by SCOTUS. They think only freedom of the press is an individual right. Wrong again. They also think that any ruling against them is always judicial activism. What a bunch of losers.

• Link
• Report this comment

Did they say anything about my right to carry the anti-tank weapon and the two machine guns I use for hunting and self-defense? If I can carry those into a restaurant or a bar, I’ll be looked on as the biggest, baddest mutha in the whole state. I’ll outgun any cops they can put up against me.

Anyhow, this just goes to show how slick Alito and Roberts and Scalia were in not answering the librul Democrats questions straight up during their hearings. We got a good solid Conservative SC now and I can’t hardly wait till they strike down all this Equal Rights junk. And that’s why we got to hold Tea Party rallys against this Kagan woman the Kenyan wants to put on the court.

See what happens when you get rid of Activists and put Strict Constructionists on the courts?

Have a good p.m. everybody. And don’t you dare get in my way from now on.

• Link
• Report this comment

decibles

Yes, I do…

• Link
• Report this comment

Who needs an escort to the clinic Saturday morning? Little Smiffy and I are ready to protect you from the oppressors of your rights.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hell, bring back the “Old West” mentality. Everybody wears sidearms and if someone disses you, gun ‘em down. We’d become a nation of good manners, I betcha.

Oh, and Peadawg,
From downstairs. We’ve argued about this a hundred times, but Afghanistan was the “war” that needed fighting to bring OBL to heel. President Bush had other “Priorities (political gain)” and didn’t finish the job. President Obama inherited it and tried, is trying to fix the unfixable. This is why I say, if he escalates or stays much longer, then he is doing so at his own political peril and he won’t be forgiven. It’s way past time to bring our people home.

• Link
• Report this comment

Yes, I do…

5 to 4, with the usual suspects voting against–Stevens, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer. We got us a conservative Supreme Court, jnix, so don’t count on getting any rulings in your favor any time soon.

• Link
• Report this comment

Q. Why not amend the constitution to ban private gun ownership?
A. The vast majority of voters know better than stateist totalitarians like you. Ask yourself if I hate the American way so much why hav’nt I moved to France?

• Link
• Report this comment

Glock and 357. They are mine and you can’t have them.

• Link
• Report this comment

Disgusted..
And what makes you think I disagree with this decision?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Everybody wears sidearms and if someone disses you, gun ‘em down.”

Isnt that being tried in S Dekalb, S Fulton and Atlanta? Well they dont wear them outside their clothing but…

• Link
• Report this comment

I’d take the SCOTUS ruling more seriously if they practiced what they preached.

Those conservative activist Judges won’t let a gun be carried into their place of business now will they?

• Link
• Report this comment

Judicial activism is interpreting the constitution differently than it is written, and intended by our founders. Since this was written, and has been consistently interpreted in much the same way, this is a court doing their job.

Now if Bookman defines judicial activism as ruling in a fashion with witch he disagrees, i supposed his contention is correct.

• Link
• Report this comment

And when you have your degree and passed the Bar exam and have a few years under your belt in Constitutional law, Cornell Law Student, hopefully you’ll be able to understand distinctions.

For a good example of that, you may want to read here:

http://libertymaven.com/2010/06/28/supreme-court-says-2nd-amendment-applies-to-the-states-in-a-5-4-decision/10097/

Here are the results according to the SCOTUS blog:

* Alito announces McDonald v. Chicago: reversed and remanded
* Gun rights prevail
* The opinion concludes that the 14th Amendment does incorporate the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller to keep and bear arms in self defense
* Stevens dissents for himself. Breyer dissents, joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor.
* The majority seems divided, presumably on the precise standard
* The majority Justices do not support all parts of the Alito opinion, but all five agree that the 2d Amendment applies to state and local government.
* Alito, in the part of the opinion joined by three Justices, concludes that the 2d Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process Clause.
* Thomas thinks the Amendment is incorporated, but not under Due Process. He appears to base incorporation on Privileges or Immunities.
* The difference between the majority and Justice Thomas doesn’t affect the fact that the Second Amendment now applies to state and local regulation.
* Full Opinion is here.
* It should be noted that, in the guns case, the Court says explicitly in Alito’s opinion that it would not reconsider the Slaughterhouse cases, which almost completely deprive the Privileges or Immunities Clause of any constitutional meaning.
* The opinion leaves the fate of the Chicago gun ordinance in the hands of the 7th Circuit on remand.

• Link
• Report this comment

If states and/or municipalities cannot legislate what type of guns can be owned by their citizens, then they should legislate mandatory registration of all firearms and make possession of an unregistered weapon a felony punishable by: 1) mandatory jail time and 2) loss of the right to own a weapon.

• Link
• Report this comment

Re-affirming our Constitutional rights is not activism. If they had re-affirmed our right to free speech, you wouldn’t have said a word.

Wipe your chin off, Jay. The Democratic Party left a little something on it.

• Link
• Report this comment

What I’m interested in in the aftermath of this decision is how it affects NRA contributions and what tactics they’ll use to frighten people into donating more. There’ll likely be more cases dealing with the issues not addressed, so those coffers may not show much of a reduction. Then again, neither will LaPierre’s salary or expense account or the other top NRA officials -

• Link
• Report this comment

Good suggestion, N-GA.

A little on the light side as far as penalties go, but a good suggestion nonetheless -

• Link
• Report this comment

Imagine the nerve of the Supreme Court in upholding the Constitution! What were they thinking?
They sure aren’t like the left-wing liberal administration that Jay adores. Obama the Magnificent just ignores the Constitution, like it never existed. On the other hand, it sure didn’t look like he had much success in convincing the rest of the G-20 attendees that they need to spend their way out of the recession. Obama grasp of the world economy makes Bush look like a genius. (Sorry, Jay, someone has to tell the truth.)

• Link
• Report this comment

Expected decision based on what the Court did in the Heller decision. And the strong resemblance to the words of Heller were expected. Those lovers of the 14th Amendment’s “Due Process Clause” just received another vase of roses.

You 10th Amendment lovers just took another hit.

But we 2nd Amendment lovers need to look closely at Justice Alito’s words just as we looked closely at Justice Scalia’s words in Heller.
Alito’s words: “In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense….We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as ‘prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,’ laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,’… We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.”

Note the words “…the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense.” Whether I can carry a .38 under my armpit to a UGA football game is still open to debate.

But the bottom line is that after 219 years the Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to the States. And although expected, it is still great news.

But Goodman is correct on one point; the Federal judiciary is a gonna be real busy for a few years.

• Link
• Report this comment

md

June 28th, 2010
12:34 pm

Well I would assume you are okay with a criminal keeping his “Right” to bear arms, since the Constitution doesn’t have any exceptions to it.

The constitution doesn’t say you have the “right” to vote; unless you are an ex felon; but many states have decided to make it part of their mantra.

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny hates America.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The Supreme Court — the ostensibly conservative, anti-activist, pro-states’ rights Roberts court — has taken those decisions out of the hands of legislatures and city councils and placed them in the hands of its colleagues in the federal judiciary.”

……………and that’s why we have the Bill of Rights (especially the 2nd Amendment as it protects all others) when the courts, the President, the Congress, State Legislatures or city governments/councils try to violate them.

This is a win FOR THE PEOPLE ……….. “the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms” !

Ooo Rah !!!

• Link
• Report this comment

The supreme courts decision on gunrights today wasnt judicial activism it was simply athe only reading that the constitution allows Militias are not organized militarys but the citizens themselves.
The only reason You on the left want to take gun rights away is so that you can reenslave everyone. Yoiu on the left have not once been on the right side of any issue during slavery you were pro slavery and then after the civil war you backed segregation and discrimination It was president wilson for example that segregated the military for example and he was a leftist progressive. also it was the criminals that were running the ny police department in the early 20th century that passed the sullivan act requiring concealed weapons permits that only they could afford. on roe v wade you turned women into murderers even though real women like Susan B Anthony knew that someonone who has one is damned to hell and the person who forces her to it is thrice damned.

• Link
• Report this comment

Disgusted: 5 to 4, with the usual suspects voting against–Stevens, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer. We got us a conservative Supreme Court, jnix, so don’t count on getting any rulings in your favor any time soon.

I’m waiting patiently for Clarice Thomas to die of shame and humiliation, (for being white only on the inside) — THEN by golly we’d have an opening!!

• Link
• Report this comment

If what this looney lefty writes is true, and courts cannot rule against local or state laws that disagree with a federal law or right.

Then there is no reason to complain about Arizona having a law about illegals eh? Its a local or state law, and the feds have a law but don’t enforce it.

In fact since states rights trump federal law or rights, then the Civil War was illegal and slavery should be legal! Oh wait….that cant be.

AMIRITE? YES!

Tip to the writer, find another job.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The only reason You on the left want to take gun rights away is so that you can reenslave everyone.”

IGNORANT POST OF THE DAY!!

• Link
• Report this comment

“Judicial Activism” is the court granting powers or responsibilities to the government that are not granted by the Constitution. It is _not_ the court saying “the Constitution means what it says”. It is _not_ the court saying “the Constitution does not grant the government that power, or assign it that responsibility.”

It’s not a matter of whether or not a law is wise or evenhanded or balances costs and benefits properly, it’s whether or not the legislature has been granted the power to pass any laws on that topic in the first place. When it comes to bearing arms, the Second Amendment is clear.

What’s tragic is that the decision was 5:4 rather than unanimous.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Well I would assume you are okay with a criminal keeping his “Right” to bear arms, since the Constitution doesn’t have any exceptions to it.”

Since criminals follow their own law, they will assign their own rights regardless of what any court says, so their right to bear arms will never be taken away.

• Link
• Report this comment

I personally don’t think gun control laws are un-American. I think total bans unconstitutional. But after all, the Second Amendment never mentions guns. It says arms. And carried to its extreme, it could mean we all have a right to own a nuclear bomb.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I for one applaud the decision that keeps only the criminals from possessing.”

And exactly how is that being accomplished?

How many of the thugs that shot 29 people in Chicago over the weekend had legally obtained guns?”

Huh??

Gun control, such as in Chicago and DC, allows only the criminals possession – it only removes the right from law abiding citizens of which those thugs you reference were not.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I have not yet begun to defile myself. It’s true, you are a good woman. Then again, you may be the antichrist”.

• Link
• Report this comment

So, Mr. Bookman, you have adequately demonstrated you have no idea what judicial activism is. Congratulations.

P.S., incorporating an enumerated right through the 14th Amendment is “activist” in your mind. What say you of non-enumerated rights (abortion, unenumerated “privacy,” etc.)? Do you believe Roe and its progeny to be activist? Griswold? Where does “activist” end in your book? What is the dividing line? Or are you trying to draw a parallel between Roe and Heller/McDonald which is easily severed by the distinction I make between enumerated/unenumerated rights?

• Link
• Report this comment

So… was this a blow for “states’ rights?” Does this mean local jurisdictions need to cut out this BS of banning things that are permitted by federal law? Excellent! To what other local attempts to take away a woman’s rights can we apply this logic?

• Link
• Report this comment

“And you must be Ringo. Look, darling, Johnny Ringo. The deadliest pistoleer since Wild Bill, they say. What do you think, darling? Should I hate him? Yes, but there’s just something about him. Something around the eyes, I don’t know, reminds me of… me. No. I’m sure of it, I hate him.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Hey Granny!! Hey Paul!!

Granny: Those conservative activist Judges won’t let a gun be carried into their place of business now will they?

Why Granny, of course not….

Bubba – there were less people in those days. Trying shooting as many bullets in Dodge City now and see how many people will be accidentally shot.

OGK – U R UnAmerican…..AND u look like a troll to me……

Andre: The only reason You on the left want to take gun rights away is so that you can reenslave everyone. Yoiu on the left have not once been on the right side of any issue during slavery you were pro slavery and then after the civil war you backed segregation and discrimination It was president wilson for example that segregated the military for example and he was a leftist progressive.

Andre….(sigh)……..a mind really IS a terrible thing to waste….

• Link
• Report this comment

@ Jay
The conservative majority might have ditched principles. They’ve done it before, like when Scalia decided to throw state’s rights under the bus in order to make marijuana illegal on a federal level. The question is whether they ditched the law. Substantive due process, with all of Blackmun’s emanations of penumbras, Roe, Lawrence, etc, IS the law of the land. The majority followed it because it suited them, but they still followed it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Who is Clarice Thomas?

The girly girl that’s one the Supreme Court…. DUH!!

• Link
• Report this comment

KagMAN confirmations begin.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hello, DDR!

Normal

It’s a nice start….

• Link
• Report this comment

Ah, only in America would a people be proud of their “gun rights”. Only in America can we have a gun lobby, the NRA, that is deemed worthy of an exemption from finance reform. Only in America can we celebrate something like a Second Amendment and the so called wisdom of the Founding Fathers, as if the founding fathers could envision twenty first century America.

Something for the moment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6nzA5gtBUY

• Link
• Report this comment

I am shocked they ruled against tobacco companies.

• Link
• Report this comment

Agree with md- this ruling simply clarifies that the states cannot ban something the federal government allows. The Heller ruling was crafted to address only that issue, so Bookman takes the liberty of using the absence of language to support his theory of judicial activism? I guess we should be used to this column doing that by now.

Hand guns can still be regulated and the sales monitored. Only 2 all-out bans still exist so only those places are truly affected by this ruling.

People should have the right to choose whether they want a handgun or not. Anyone who argues this keeps guns out of criminal hands believes the criminals buy them….and that is what is truly crazy.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hello, DoggoneGA

Here’s a not bad summary of the Harvard controversy.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/16/jeff-sessions/sessions-says-kagan-violated-us-law-regarding-mili/

For the purposes of this blog, I find it much more fun to say she violated the law – specifically in regards to her stance that a school has the right to enforce certain federal laws against the military. The entire Court – 8-0, rejected her idea. The law was in force, some say she merely ‘tested’ it. I like “violated.”

Tells us a lot about her view of principle when she really backed down when the military said ‘okay, you wanna do that? We’ll follow the law and yank your federal funding.”

• Link
• Report this comment

DebbieDoRight

June 28th, 2010
1:06 pm
Hey Granny!! Hey Paul!!

Granny: Those conservative activist Judges won’t let a gun be carried into their place of business now will they?

Why Granny, of course not….

I guess that is kind of like forcing healthcare upon the masses, say for example Obamacare, but excluding yourself, you know, like Obama did.

Right?

• Link
• Report this comment

For all those in favor of gun control, look no further than Mexico, which has strict gun control laws. The cartels sure are abiding by those laws – aren’t they?? And are the police protecting their citizens?? Uh, that would be a big no, as the police are out gunned.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay Bookman= Anti-American d0uchebag!

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay

June 28th, 2010
12:54 pm

Gun control may have been the “way” of it, but it was not the reason. Politics and power was the reason.

• Link
• Report this comment

CW. “For the children” is the lefts way of legitimizing damn near anything. If we do it for the poor defenseless children then we are doing a good deed.

All smoke and mirrors.

• Link
• Report this comment

The “Constitution” is a federal document, so let’s do away with “state” laws all together and see how fast the conservatives throw a fit.

• Link
• Report this comment

So following the constitution is “conservative activism”??? How stupid can you get???

• Link
• Report this comment

TW writes at 11:57 am

“For every ONE time someone claims to have used a firearm to successfully defend their person, there are SEVENTEEN accidental deaths resulting from firearms”

Source? Data? Any support?

• Link
• Report this comment

All I knows is that ifin I thinks that I needs a tank to properly defend myself, then I ought to be able to git one at the army surplus store. Right along with all the other regular supplies like mortars and grenades and such… as long as they ain’t sellin’ no nooclear, or is it newkleer, weapons to terrierists, it is all right by me. Yesirreeee.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, I frequently disagree with you…but usually can at least understand the logic behind your arguments. But to pretend that it is “judicial activism” when the Supreme Court rules that the Constitution means EXACTLY what it says, and must be followed throughout the ENTIRE nation? Come on…you’re just saying that “tongue in cheek” to get us riled up a little, right?

• Link
• Report this comment

Skin that smokewagon and see what happens.

All the sausage falls out?

• Link
• Report this comment

The states are oppressing us. Why can’t we even VOTE on whether it should be legal to purchase alcohol from a store on Sundays, when the Constitution clearly states “secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves?” If you don’t think cold beer on a hot Sunday is a blessing of liberty, ask a thirsty inmate. Let’s revolt against this tyranny!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

With this new ruling, it won’t be long before we will be reading, and making a movie about “The gunfight on K Street.”

• Link
• Report this comment

…or “The Congress war”…

• Link
• Report this comment

He gonna take it. And yur ammo two.

• Link
• Report this comment

jewcowboy

June 28th, 2010
1:46 pm

Right, like your computer printer and the ink cartridges….

• Link
• Report this comment

eyeshaveit

Germany? Japan? England? You really think those countries make a better comparison to US society than, say…. Mexico?!!?

jewcowboy

I still think that’s a great idea.

____________________________

Sen Graham’s just got Kagan to smile!

• Link
• Report this comment

Yeah…one less attempt at taking away our rights by the government. I applaud the S. Court’s decision. If our gov’t cant even handle security our borders, how can trust them to keep our fundamental rights in place? Lib gov’t will eventually try to take away the freedoms that make the USA great.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Japan, with the strictest gun control in the world, experiences a murder rate of about 1.1 per 100,000 people. Germany has a rate of 3.9, Britain a rate of 9.1, and the gun loving U.S. is 8.7 per 100,000 people”

Hmmm…………….Britain 9.1. And they HAVE gun control. So what is your point??

• Link
• Report this comment

md, theyes, you might want to check those murder rate stats.

see also:

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

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay,

Why are you so afraid of citizens having the right to bear arms?

• Link
• Report this comment

Judicial Activism – a now useless term because it has come to mean simply anything that the writer does not agree with.

• Link
• Report this comment

“OFF TOPIC #1″

Headline: “Obama on War: ‘I Don’t Have a Crystal Ball’

You did during the campaign ! What happened to it ?

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay is right.
We must take guns away from citizens.
Who knows what kind of mischief the common man may cause.
No one should be allowed to have a firearm.
We must repeal the 4th amendment.

• Link
• Report this comment

I love watching the emasculated cons get their panties in a wad over this stuff.

Better go out and buys lots more guns and ammo, cons. Cuz for sure, the Uppity Muslim is gonna take them away form you! Besides, you just never know when one of them terrists is hiding in a bush outside your front door. BOO!

The constantly tripping-over-their-tongue cons believe in a living, breathing document. And love their activist judges.

And when it suits them, their goofball mantra of “States Rights!” disappears quicker than a shot from .30-..30.

Hysterical…

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay,

Are there any other parts of the Constitution you would like to repeal?

• Link
• Report this comment

This is not complicated. All those rights not specifically enumerated to the federal governement are left for the states to decide.

The 2nd amendment is enumerated to the federal government.

The founding fathers wanted us to have guns to protect us not only from each other but from the government itself.

That’s what “militias” are for. This ruling correctly interprets the Constitution.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Nick in that case, it’s always been useless then”

Of course it has. The best example *I* can think of is the decision that corporations have the “right” to spend money on campaign ads. THAT shot down nearly a century of precedent…aka: ESTABLISHED LAW.

If ANYthink was “judicial activism” or “legistlating from the bench” THAT was.

• Link
• Report this comment

Scout

June 28th, 2010
2:10 pm

No man! He said he had crystal balls, balls, man! Get your facts straight!

• Link
• Report this comment

Class of 98

“The founding fathers wanted us to have guns to protect us not only from each other but from the government itself.

That’s what “militias” are for. This ruling correctly interprets the Constitution.”

So, the National Guard, under control of the state’s governor (when it hasn’t been called into federal service) exists to protect the citizens from the government?!!?

• Link
• Report this comment

The constitution states that you have a right to bear arms, but does not say that there can not be legislation. Thats why you need a permit. As long as it does not infringe on your right to “bear” arms then it is a states issue as to how they are legislated.

• Link
• Report this comment

Scout,
I think a better bumper sticker would be…”neuter your congressman.”

• Link
• Report this comment

…or just plain old “neuter Congress”…

• Link
• Report this comment

“…or just plain old “neuter Congress”…”

Not really necessary…given the decision on the Iraq invasion, they’re doing a really good job of neutering Congress themselves.

• Link
• Report this comment

Idiot. Being able to read equals “judicial activism”?

• Link
• Report this comment

I wonder how Justice Bryer will rule on the state’s right question when the Arizona law comes before the Court. Another one of Bookman’s selective indignation stands to object when it goes against his opinion.

• Link
• Report this comment

so Jay, is your beef with “conservatives” or “judicial activism”? seems to me the very term judicial activism is a conservative talking point when the SCOTUS or other Federal Court rules against their interests. I can understand this from a political or ideological standpoint, but whose “interests” are protected/effected by the 2nd Amendment?

• Link
• Report this comment

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” George Washington

• Link
• Report this comment

Lol please excuse my spelling, I’m driving on the garden state parkway and I’m just passing where the Nj state trooper shot and killed himself in his patrol car last week, Who do gun laws protect?

• Link
• Report this comment

The first act of every dictatorship is to outlaw gun ownership by its citizens. Citizens without guns are slaves to the tyranny of the State. The Constitution of the United States recognized that government was the source of tyranny and guaranteed the right of citizens to bear arms. At the time the Constitution was written, a militia was a spontanious gathering of armed citizens such as the “miniutemen” at Lexington and Concord to resist the tyranny of King George’s government.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The federal government has laws restricting possession and use of automatic weapons, but a state/municipality cannot restrict possession and use of handguns. Is the federal law illegal (un-Constitutional)?”

I can see the possibility of it shaking out something like this: that regulation and control of guns must be done at the Federal level. That the federal laws and regulations can restrict what guns can be owned, and even who can own them (i.e. I can see convicted felons losing their right to own guns) and that any government lower than the federal level cannot restrict or regulate guns at all.

• Link
• Report this comment

Greg Bruce:

Excellents points that will fall on deaf ears (symbolically speadking of course).

“If the 2nd Amendment meant only flintlocks, then the 1st Amendment meant only quills and ink.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Hillbilly Deluxe :

You are basically correct.

States can grant more rights but they can’t restrict what the U.S. Constitution grants.

• Link
• Report this comment

Lock & Load !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE888XOS12U

• Link
• Report this comment

I am not a lawyer but it seems that the Constitution is pretty clear about the reasons that we have a right to arm ourselves. “Necessary to the security of a free State” is not too hard to understand. Seems like the Amendment is meant to protect the citizens of these free States from their government with a “well regulated Militia”. That being the case, why is Brewer criticized for protecting the border of Arizona against foreign invaders? Seems like her “well regulated Militia” aka, the National Guard and the State Police have every right to protect the citizens of Arizona from those who would elect to do harm, ie, drug dealers, illegal felons and the government of the United States if,as is the case, they are not doing their job. What are the people of Arizona to do in the face of blind incompetence from Bozo and his gang?…. sit by and watch their state go into the bucket?

• Link
• Report this comment

TW @ 11:57
The N word seems to be just fine when blacks want to use it amongst one another. So it does seem to be socially acceptable in that context.

Amazingly, as much as I drive through the streets of Atlanta, I’ve yet to see a GOP van parked anywhere handing out automatic weapons to the locals. Please point me in the direction, I could use a good AK47.

• Link
• Report this comment

kayaker 71

“Seems like the Amendment is meant to protect the citizens of these free States from their government with a “well regulated Militia”.”

Isn’t the modern National Guard what the 18th-century ‘militias’ morphed into?

• Link
• Report this comment

kayaker 71

From the National Guard website at http://www.ng.mil/About/default.aspx

“About the National Guard

The National Guard, the oldest component of the Armed Forces of the United States and one of the nation’s longest-enduring institutions, celebrated its 370th birthday on December 13, 2006. The National Guard traces its history back to the earliest English colonies in North America. Responsible for their own defense, the colonists drew on English military tradition and organized their able-bodied male citizens into militias.

The colonial militias protected their fellow citizens from Indian attack, foreign invaders, and later helped to win the Revolutionary War. Following independence, the authors of the Constitution empowered Congress to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia.” However, recognizing the militia’s state role, the Founding Fathers reserved the appointment of officers and training of the militia to the states. Today’s National Guard still remains a dual state-Federal force.”

• Link
• Report this comment

I think if you will go back and read the 2008 SCOTUS decision you will find that “a well regulated Militia” is considered a subordinate clause to “the right of the people shall not be infringed.”

Translation …………. a well regulated militia is only “one” reason the founders gave for the 2nd Amendment. Others are hunting, collecting, personal protection, etc., etc.

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone,

It has everything to do with protecting our citizens in each of the states when our government drops the ball. The state of Arizona is being forced to do the government’s job and being severely criticized from the left for doing what our government should be doing. Brewer is doing nothing but protecting her citizens from the incompetence of the Bozo gang and it’s do nothing attitude. The main function of government is to protect it’s citizens. Bozo is doing a piss poor job of it.

• Link
• Report this comment

R toons allowed to own firearms?

Y doesn’t someone rehash the old crime statistic comparisons that show how handgun bans don’t influence crime rates. or homicides. In fact, some spin the data to suggest that gun bans increase homicides and vice versa. How about we have a OK Corral reality show where all the contestants are armed and are forced to read each other’s comments on blogs, (or witness each other’s driving skills).

Preview: “Try spellcheck, moron”. BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! “Quit tailgating, loser.” BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Scout

I believe some say it was the extraordinary way – was is Scalia? – went round and round to establish that introductory phrase as a subordinate clause illustrates how the decision was ‘activist.’

• Link
• Report this comment

Go to statehealthfacts.org.

According to Kaiser Family statehealthfacts.org, the number of deaths due to Injury by firearms per 100,000 population in 2006 was 10.6. Interestingly enough, the highest rate (20.6) was the District of Columbia which attempted to ban gun ownership. Go figure.

Causes of death attributable to firearm mortality include accidental discharge of firearm, intentional self-harm by firearm, assault by firearm, undetermined firearm discharge, and legal intervention involving firearm discharge.

Additionally, according to statehealthfacts.org, the number of deaths due to motor vehicle accidents per 100,000 population in 2006 was 15. Where’s the push to ban or severely restrict vehicle ownership in this country?

One final note, statehealthfacts.org identifies the number of deaths due to firearms per 100,000 population by race/ethnicity in 2006 as follows:

Black – 20.1
White – 8.8
Other – 4.1

Now, it doesn’t specify WHO is doing the killing, just who is dying. But still, the numbers are sobering. Perhaps, given DC’s rate and the racial breakdown, it might be in our best interest to find some other basis for restricting gun ownership.

• Link
• Report this comment

I personally prefer a rocket launcher when hunting for bear. A direct hit skins the critter while also blowing the meat into perfectly tenderized bitesize morsels.

• Link
• Report this comment

stands for decibels :

You need to read that case carefully. The school could do that to the particular Christian student group because the policy applied to all of the other student groups as well. In other words, a Muslim student group can’t keep a Christian or gay member from joining either. As long as the school is consistent they can do that just like a high school can bar Christian groups from meeting on their campus after school hours “only” if they bar all other groups.

In other words, if a university allows “some student” groups to pick and choose who are members then they must allow Christian student groups to do the same.

Nothing really changed here.

• Link
• Report this comment

Somebody explain to me the reasoning for a woman’s “right” to have an abortion. Because I believe such reasoning would probably apply to my “right” to defend myself.

• Link
• Report this comment

” well regulated militia is only “one” reason the founders gave for the 2nd Amendment. Others are hunting, collecting, personal protection, etc., etc”

That is how I would read it also.

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone/GA :

……… and you would be correct. Thank you.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Free Men Don’t Need Constitutional Rights”

And that is about as wrong as it can be

• Link
• Report this comment

stands for decibels :

I would like to see recruiters set up on public sidewalks (not interfering with pedestrian travel) ringing the campus and see what happens.

• Link
• Report this comment

It is truly amazing that liberals are to stupid to understand the right to bear arms….

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone/GA:

I just saw it ……… not defending it. Depends on how you interpret it.

One could say a “right” granted by a humanly written document could be taken “away” but FREE MEN won’t stand for that …………………

• Link
• Report this comment

“One could say a “right” granted by a humanly written document could be taken “away” but FREE MEN won’t stand for that ”

You could SAY that…but the Constitution does NOT “grant” rights…it PROTECTS them.

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone/GA:

Ultimately a piece of paper can do nothing !

MEN must rise up and protect themselves.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay is really laying low on this one today. He must be depressed.

• Link
• Report this comment

md – You’ve made my point for me. If the federal government restricts possession of automatic weapons, that would also be at odds with the US Constitution. After all, the Supreme Court just ruled that Chicago cannot ban handguns (a TYPE of gun). Shoot! (no pun….), Chicago didn’t say you couldn’t bear arms, just no handguns. You could carry around a shotgun or rifle all day long….no problemo!

• Link
• Report this comment

TW writes, “Your delusional ‘rights’ are not worth the 5-7 children who will blow their own heads off today by accident.”

Again, I ask you to provide a source for your comment. I did. Can you?

• Link
• Report this comment

Scout 3:05

Thanks for that and your earlier explanation of the case.

sfd

We discussed this summary earlier.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/16/jeff-sessions/sessions-says-kagan-violated-us-law-regarding-mili/

The decision was 8-0 against one of her positions. What I found most telling was how quick she was to back off principle when $$$ were at stake.

• Link
• Report this comment

Irony.

A lot of conservatives, me included, are applauding the McDonald decision. But it has not been that long since a big portion of the conservative movement, me not included, wanted to ditch the 14th Amendment just because of the Courts application of the “due process clause”.

Constitutional law is never as simple as it seems.

What the Court did today was say that the “due process clause” of the 14th Amendment makes the 2nd Amendment applicable to the states. The Court DID NOT say that the 2nd Amendment applied to the states on its on merits.

And yes, that is legislating from the bench. Always has been and always will be. That is what makes it a “living Constitution” even though many “proclaimed conservatives” shutter at the term.

• Link
• Report this comment

“How about women having the “right” to be drafted in times of war”

Women should be equally subject to any legal draft.

• Link
• Report this comment

“just like this 5-4 decision ”

Nope can’t go with that, unless *I* have the 5 vote!

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone/GA:

I agree with you but the Supreme Court doesn’t and that is what counts.

• Link
• Report this comment

And Big Nose Kate, Doc Holliday’s sometime companion and family feud partner when she wasn’t prostituting herself or running a boarding house, though born Mary Catherine Moroney in Hungary, would take on the name Kate Elder, as in the sons of Katie Elder.

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone/GA:

I would rather be “King” just for one day with no right to appeal or future alteration of my decrees ……………..

• Link
• Report this comment

“I would like to see recruiters set up on public sidewalks (not interfering with pedestrian travel) ringing the campus and see what happens.”

If it happened in Athens, all the pro-war UGA Young Republicans would just cross the street…

• Link
• Report this comment

mm is just so lost.

• Link
• Report this comment

mm:

There are more vehicle fatalities in American than firearm fatalities. Check my earlier post. DC had a ban on handguns and they had the highest firearm fatality rate in America. How do you substantiate your comment?

• Link
• Report this comment

whats the world coming to? sigh dang that supreme court.. then you have those conservatives rioting and getting arrested at the g-20 conference.. glad ctucker and jbookman spent so much time writing about those violent and dangerous tea party ppl.. thanks for the warning!

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, the Democratic senators sure have their talking points down for this hearing. Kagan’s needed to protect the average consumer from the activist, pro-corporate conservative majority on the Court that disregards centuries of precedent and law to craft its rulings to serve corporations.

And the conspiracy kooks have moved from the right to the left -

• Link
• Report this comment

Matti:

Nice dodge !

• Link
• Report this comment

Georgia law was changed in recent weeks to specifically list places guns are not allowed. The change in the law removed the ban on guns at “public gatherings” but said firearms are not allowed on school property, at nuclear plants, in bars without the owner’s permission, in government buildings, at state mental health hospitals or in churches, temples or mosques.

And that just ain’t right. A person needs to have his right to bear arms, of whatever make and model, wherever and whenever he or she wants. It’s just the conservative thing to do. Blessed is the Alpha-Omega series.

• Link
• Report this comment

I have a gun. I don’t want to use it. But if an occasion comes where it is use the gun or trust in the guy who just broke into my home to be “nice”, I will definitely use it. I sleep a lot better knowing it is there.

• Link
• Report this comment

We should ban wars. That would be, clearly, safer… and much more affordable.

• Link
• Report this comment

joan

“I sleep a lot better knowing it is there.”

Maybe it’s just me, but I wouldn’t be all that comfortable with a gun that can be readily accessed and fired if I had grandkiddies staying over -

• Link
• Report this comment

TaxPayer:

I agree with your 3:40 post in principle and would add banning all violent crime.

However ……………

“When civilized man can no longer stand the horror of war and refuses to fight, then he will surely be killed or enslaved by the uncivlized who can.” Author Unknown.

• Link
• Report this comment

Scout, one of my best girlfriends was a Marine. What’s your point? Men aren’t being drafted now, are they? She enlisted same as the rest of the guys in her unit, and there are still men in the military who whine about women being there. Wah wah wah, why don’t you do something useful like fetch some ice cream for yourself and Lt. Dan? ICE CREEEAAAAM!

• Link
• Report this comment

On July 27, 2008, a politically motivated fatal shooting took place at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee, United States.

It’s not especially on-topic, amvet.

That said, everyone should have to read his Adkisson’s suicide note/screed at least once.

http://web.knoxnews.com/pdf/021009church-manifesto.pdf

• Link
• Report this comment

Now Miss Matti:

I said “in time of war” ! I know there is no draft (but men must register).

Have you ever heard of “equal protection under the law”? I guess the Supreme Court didn’t either the day they heard that case.

When are you women going to step up and shed blood for your country in the same numbers as men? Do you realize how far you have to catch up since 1776?

• Link
• Report this comment

“When civilized man can no longer stand the horror of war and refuses to fight, then he will surely be killed or enslaved by the uncivlized who can.” Author Unknown. they hire others to do it for them.

• Link
• Report this comment

It is impossible, even with the most basic understanding of the philosophies of the founding fathers, to interpret the 2nd Amendment as anything but a protection of the people to raise arms against an oppressive government. That means a right of the individual to stockpile evil rifles and ammunition so that if the government becomes too overpowering the PEOPLE may rise up and remove the regime from power.

Today is most certainly a VICTORY for all Americans that the Supreme Court upheld the original intent of the law. It is, however, a troubling sign of where our country has gone when it takes Supreme Court decision to make ownership of a firearm legal for law-abiding US citizens in certain oppressive cities in the nation.

Even more troubling is the biased reporting. The headlines that read “Supreme Court EXPANDS gun rights” is very telling to the complete apathy towards liberty in the media. The high court did not EXPAND anything- they protected a fundamental RIGHT that is inherent to ALL men and women in a FREE society.

Remember the original intent of the Bill of Rights- it in now way “grants” us our rights- it PROTECTS the fundamental rights of nature that should NEVER be infringed upon by any government.

• Link
• Report this comment

Maybe it’s just me, but I wouldn’t be all that comfortable with a gun that can be readily accessed and fired if I had grandkiddies staying over -

That’s where teaching, discipline and training comes in. I was raised in a house where there were always firearms and they were always loaded. Daddy made sure we always knew where they were and we also knew we would get our asses blistered if we messed with them. He taught me to shoot when I was 5 and I was never allowed to shoot unsupervised until I was well in my teens. Most people who are accidentally shot were never taught proper gun respect and safety. If you were to hand me a gun today and say “It’s not loaded”, I’d immediately check it anyway. First thing I was taught is that all guns are to be treated as loaded.

If somebody doesn’t want a firearm, that’s fine by me but I’ve always had them and I’m always going to.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oh come on folks, I’m too tired to read yur long cut’n'pasties. Don’t you have a short opinion of your own to present? One little dingleberry of delight we can enjoy in all its concise content??

• Link
• Report this comment

TaxPayer:

So ban “war” and “crime” (we hire police to fight that) and you won’t have to worry about it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Yum yum

Apparently there are thousands and thousands of gun owners who aren’t all that responsible leading to the deaths of thousands of children.

“HE STATISTICS are astounding. In 1991 alone, 3,247 children and teenagers were murdered and 1,436 committed suicide with guns, and 551 died in unintentional shootings, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Gun mishaps were the fifth-leading cause of accidental death in 1992 for children aged 14 and under, reports the National Safety Council. Firearms are too readily accessible and youngsters are finding them and killing or wounding themselves and others.

These tragedies have become so common that support groups are springing up around the country such as Zero Accidental Killings (ZAK)-Texans for Gun Safety and Gun Responsibility in Every Family (GRIEF). ZAK was created in direct response to the unprecedented and disturbing number of children killed or injured by guns. The founding directors, Dianne Clements and Paula Reyes, are mothers whose sons were casualties of accidental firearm discharges. Both boys were playing with children when shot by another youngster. In each case, the weapons were loaded and left easily accessible.”

From USA Today – http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_n2584_v122/ai_14741862/

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul,

My point is regarding personal responsibility. It would be irresponsible to leave your keys in the car all the time, gas in the kitchen or poison out in the open. Same with a weapon.

Come on now; you can grasp the concept. Can’t you?

• Link
• Report this comment

LJ

June 28th, 2010
3:49 pm
It is impossible, even with the most basic understanding of the philosophies of the founding fathers, to interpret the 2nd Amendment as anything but a protection of the people to raise arms against an oppressive government.

Nope. Historical context is everything. At the time of the drafting of the Constitution and its amendments, there were no national armies intended to stand. Militias were the only way states could defend themselves from invaders. It was a militia, not a national army, that fought the British in Massachusetts. The idea of a militia as a defense against a national government was unthinkable. It was only in the 1850s that the South came up with that nonsense. Your Confederate forbears would no doubt be delighted that you are carrying on their thinking.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hey Paul, you got it!

Kerry=Democratic senators=Kagan=zeroes=muck it up=Obama’s lil’ mudhen for Supreme Court nestings.

• Link
• Report this comment

TaxPayer”

“……….. and there was war in heaven.”

Hummmmm ………………..

• Link
• Report this comment

Women have a right to bear readily accessible arms too.

• Link
• Report this comment

I don’t know about you Dusty, but I understand dingleberry’s are not pleasant.

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul: Just in case you didn’t see A private sector employee’s earlier post.

June 28th, 2010

3:33 pm

Let’s see, TW:

In 2000, 174 children (0-18) in the United States died from unintentional firearm-related injuries

In 2000, 1,242 children in the United States died from intentional firearm-related injuries. Homicides of children are most often murders of teens by other teens.

In the United States, 1,236 children (0-18) died from drowning in 2000.

In the United States, 1,946 children (0-18) died in fires in 2000

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of unintentional deaths to children. In the United States in 2000, 6,466 children (0-18) were killed in motor vehicle crashes

In 2000, there were 1,580 suffocations,

In 1997, 225 children ages 14 and under died in bicycle-related crashes. Motor vehicles were involved in more than 200 of these deaths. In 1998, nearly 362,000 children ages 14 and under were treated in hospital emergency rooms for bicycle-related injuries.

In terms of ACCIDENTAL deaths, drownings, fires, automobiles, bicycles, and suffocation rank higher than firearms, which usually comes in at 12 or 13th on most lists. Once you throw in disease, accidental deaths from firearms falls to about the 30th most numerous cause.

Should we ban pools, bathtubs, riding in autos, bicycles and plastic bags? Clearly, no pools, showers, walking and paper would be safer.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Should we ban pools, bathtubs, riding in autos, bicycles and plastic bags? Clearly, no pools, showers, walking and paper would be safer.”

When a child blows their head off at the cost of your insecurity, the gun works as it’s supposed to.

Pools are for swimming, autos for transportation, and bags for storage.

Moron.

• Link
• Report this comment

HillBilly Deluxe,

Keep those guns handy! There are liberals around!! Just kidding!

If everybody handled guns like you, there wouldn’t be anybody fussing over this.

May I ask a favor of you? You listed some music the other day by a master guitar player who performed on his own on a stage. He was so good and the music beautiful. I meant to keep track of that but didn’t. Now I can’t find it. Would you mind repeating that? I don’t even remember his name, just his music.

• Link
• Report this comment

Is TW short for TWit?

• Link
• Report this comment

Hootinanny: “Should we ban pools, bathtubs, riding in autos, bicycles and plastic bags?”

If we apply Hootinanny’s logic, murder should be legalized since it leads to fewer deaths (and fewer ACCIDENTAL deaths) than cars and bathtubs.

• Link
• Report this comment

williebkind writes, “After wwII, Stalin killed more than 52 million of his countrymen–including women and children. Is that more that died than your said causes?”

Not sure what your point is, but isn’t this the perfect argument for an armed citizenry?

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m for extreme conservatives having as many loaded guns as they like, preferably with hair triggers for those barrel-cleaning episodes.

• Link
• Report this comment

Disgusted, you wrote:Nope. Historical context is everything. At the time of the drafting of the Constitution and its amendments, there were no national armies intended to stand. Militias were the only way states could defend themselves from invaders. It was a militia, not a national army, that fought the British in Massachusetts. The idea of a militia as a defense against a national government was unthinkable. It was only in the 1850s that the South came up with that nonsense. Your Confederate forbears would no doubt be delighted that you are carrying on their thinking.

You have a twisted view of history. Are you aware of the events that took place leading up to and during the Revolution? Let me refresh your spotted memory…

The “Shot hear ’round the world” was fired on Lexington green in 1775. This marked the beginning of armed revolt against the British crown by BRITISH SUBJECTS(note that there was no “America” yet. There was no “American” army or militia- these were British subjects firing on British soldiers).

Are you aware of what the whole PURPOSE was of the British march to Concord(Lexington was on the way there)? It was to SEIZE the arms that the PEOPLE had stockpiled. General Gage feared that an uprising was imminent after numerous “incidents” in Boston and he sent his troops to seize the weapons and powder that was presumed to be stored in Concord. A rough plan was formulated for how to react to a march on Concord after the Boston powder keg had been seized by the military.

The moral of the story is that we PROTESTED when they taxed us without representation. We REBELLED when they came for our guns.

So I ask you now, and be honest, why would the founding fathers have written the 2nd Amendment? It has nothing to do with self defense, policing, sporting, or hunting purposes. It has EVERYTHING to do with enabling the population to rise up if needed.

These men had fought a long war that began with the refusal to allow the military to confiscate private weapons. They knew EXACTLY what they were protecting. Apparently you don’t.

• Link
• Report this comment

Secessionist fever is at an all-time high. Gun shops can’t get used guns because folks’r holding on to them expecting some sort of armed conflict to counter what’s comin’. They really believe Obama want’s to foster socialism. Nearly every POTUS utterance has become fightin’ words. If the economy doesn’t rally big and fast……..

• Link
• Report this comment

LJ

June 28th, 2010
4:21 pm
Progressive liberals do not know American history. I mean it has not been taught in schools for decades unless it is about progressive liberals saving the world through unions, providing human rights, and abortions.

• Link
• Report this comment

I am not a conservative, but your crazy if you think hand guns will ever be outlawed. And I for one hope they never will be. It didn’t work on drugs, it will not work on guns.

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul, I don’t have grandkids, but I know how to shoot. I won’t shoot unless I see who I am shooting at.

• Link
• Report this comment

Yes. Why are we even having this discussion? Have you not read any of my posts?

• Link
• Report this comment

Enter your comments here

• Link
• Report this comment

By the way, don’t any of you ever remember the Manson murders, the Speck killings of 11 nurses, one after the other, the bloody slaughter of the Clutter family in a Kansas farm? Slaughters like that happen to people who either don’t have guns or aren’t willing to use them when people break into their homes. My bet is that anyone who breaks in my home is there to do me bodily harm. If they aren’t, well then oops my mistake, but too bad for them.

• Link
• Report this comment

So, Bookman, the position of the amendment as second means nothing, does it? And there should be no uniformity of rights as there is with the First and Third, and others incorporated (all but the Seventh)?

I’d be you’d approve a reading that left the First Amendment non-uniform in its application and allow the state legislatures and local governments to pass laws to regulate exercise of the right of speech, wouldn’t you?

The dissenting opinions make no sense and hold no water upon closer scrutiny.

Bookman, you are a typically, know nothing liberal that knows absolutely nothing and therefore stand on the sidelines all of your life.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dusty 4:24

You don’t want to go there. Trust me. My education came from one unfortunate decision to watch and episode of The Man Show.

Hello joan

As you likely surmised from the other posts, people read a lot into a post. I said nothing about guns’ legality, whether or not people are responsible (except in answer to a post), whether it’s effective or not. I merely noted if I had a gun so accessible that I could take out a guy busting into the house that I’d want to think about the accessibility issue if little kids were visiting.

It’s not about you hitting what you aim at. It’s about kids hitting whatever the gun’s pointing at.

• Link
• Report this comment

LJ;

This is an erroneous statement:

So I ask you now, and be honest, why would the founding fathers have written the 2nd Amendment? It has nothing to do with self defense, policing, sporting, or hunting purposes. It has EVERYTHING to do with enabling the population to rise up if needed.

I’d agree that maintaining the balance of power in favor of the people was the overarching purpose of the Second. However, to say that is has nothing to do with self defense, hunting, etc. is erroneous, and I’d suggest further reading. Jefferson was the primary proponent of the Bill Of Right, and coincidentally, the Second. He and George Mason wrote on the issue of possessing guns and having the right to hunt. Their legislative endeavors in VA were a thumb to the nose in response to English law that had for centuries proclaimed wild game as property of the crown and forbid commoners from hunting stag, roebucks, etc.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

What part of “well regulated” and “security of a free State” don’t you understand, LJ? The “well regulated” phrase specifically rules out a Wild West type of insurrection–any weapons bearers are to be under the regulation of a state. And most militias did not have storage locations for their weapons. Militia members took their weapons home with them after undertaking periodic drills–thus, it was essential for the weapons to be in their possession. And “security of a free State” has nothing to do with defending yourself in your home. Rather, it specifically addresses the need for a state to defend itself against aggressors–and the forefathers never considered a federal government as a potential aggressor or else the states would never have ratified the Constitution.

There were state and county militias in the South (and a lot of northern states) right up to the outbreak of the Civil War. Five of them were in my home county, and all were called up to serve in the newly formed Confederate army. My great, great grandfathers and my great, great uncles were members of those militias. I don’t see the point you’re trying to make.

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul:
No, the National Guard is not equivalent (nor a morphed version) of the Militia. Do some research. But at a very basic understanding, ask yourself how our Federal government could call them to active Federal service and send them to Iraq or Afghanistan (or Korea in the 50’s or Europe in the 40’s). They are inherently linked to the Federal government by the legislation which created them.
But not to worry, your error is a very common misunderstanding.

Gay Blade 5 : Why should anyone be allowed to have a gun?
So the poor guy who is accosted by a pick-up of gay-bashers has the only equilizer capable of defending his right to self-defense.

On machineguns and the 2nd: Again, do some research. They are “illegal” due to Interstate Commerce and taxed for revenue. Some states are actively pursuing (Montana and others) that a machinegun built and used within their state is not restricted by the Federal legislation. Court cases are progressing.

Other thoughts:
A person can only lose a right upon conviction of a crime if a person had the right before conviction. Hence, if an individual can lose his right “to bear arms,” he must possess such a right. (Spencer v. Kemna )

Should you chose to not exercise your right to self defense (to keep and bear arms), then that is your choice. You have an inalienable right (whether you consider it God-given, or just written into our animal DNA), it is your right and not our Government’s to “give” you. In our mechanical age, firearms have largely rendered irrelevant male-female (gay-bashers/gay, criminal/law-abider, felon-victim) differences in strength.

Lastly, from a partisan perspective. If your party or political ideology has you discard your firearms or forbid them from your fellow citizens, then your future is indeed bleak. All that will remain is an armed government and those you have made criminals (who will not give up their guns). Your liberal agenda will become irrelevant. Liz Michael is much more eloquent in her open letter to Liberals (www.lizmichael.com/openlett.htm).

And don’t forget to watch the documentary “No Guns for Negroes” at http://www.jpfo.org. It is free for download and distribution by the fine race (Jews) who were disarmed by the their government. Nothing bad happened from that; right?

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, the right to bear arms is rather moot without the right to bear drones, etc. I mean, it’s like bringing a slingshot to a goliath match but with goliath wearing protective armor. Flintlock versus tank just won’t cut it here in the pampered state of america. It’s not like we can live off the land, in the caves. We’re not taliban. We’re civilized. We’d have to find us some hessians.

• Link
• Report this comment

Rick
“… race (Jews) who were disarmed by the their government. Nothing bad happened from that; right?”

I wasn’t going to bring it up, but this is the best case for a well-armed citizenry I can think of. Once they got a few arms in Warsaw, things didn’t proceed quite so smoothly for the authorities…

• Link
• Report this comment

“Today, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, it ruled 5-4 that state and local governments are as bound by that interpretation as the federal government, a step that greatly restricts their ability to legislate in that arena.” — Bookman.

This means states can’t choose what parts of the Constitution they want to enforce or ignore.

Duh…. The states can make their own laws as long as they do not interfere with personals liberties granted in the Constitution and subsequent amendments.

This is a no brainer….

Gun ownership is a settled matter of law.

Off Topic:
Bill Clinton said, “The Navy go should deep and and blow up the well. No nukes, but it can be done.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Rick

Or stands for decibels’ earlier post about how the majority opinion had to make the point that the well regulated militia phrase had to be construed as a subservient clause to make the gun rights ownership work. Which means the militia is not all people. Subservient to – a subset – militia was comprised of commoners, but not all commoners with a gun constitute a militia. Especially today.

• Link
• Report this comment

A little history on the Georgia Militia. Your polling precinct may well be the remnant of an old Militia District. Mine is.

http://sos.georgia.gov/archives/what_do_we_have/GeorgiaMilitiaDistricts.htm

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul:
One article does not make the truth. That should be very evident by reading the article at the beginning of this thread.

They may have a common genesis (although that is debatable). But the point of my comment was not their origin, but: The National Guard is part of the Federal Government. It was created by Federal Legislation and can be called up by the Executive.

It is not equivalent to a cilvilian militia, which was to protect us from the government.

• Link
• Report this comment

I believe that the Founding Fathers would have found the thought of a home without a firearm, especially on the frontier, as unthinkable. A gun-free society wouldn’t have occurred to them. It would be as alien to them as a home without electricity would be to the vast majority of us.

• Link
• Report this comment

Rick

So…. are you saying we have a civilian militia today, as we did in the 1700s? And that it is not the Guard?

• Link
• Report this comment

Flabby liberal men in nighties should cede their right to continuously blow hot air.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I believe that the Founding Fathers would have found the thought of a home without a firearm, especially on the frontier, as unthinkable”

That might be truer than you think. People of the “class” that a lot of the founding Fathers came from might agree with you, but the majority of average citizens didn’t even own a gun…most particularly, those in the cities. Gun ownership in those days was not as widespread as most would like to think.

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul,

Well, I never heard of The Man Show and Miss Manners has never mentioned the aforemention subject. But I will be more knowledgable and only say …psssttt—>raspberry!! … while I sniff delicately into my hankie!!

HillBilly,

Thanks but that is not the music I had in mind. The one I liked sat on a lighted stage by himself without distinctly western shirt but casual coat. Don’t remember seeing any of the audience. His music sounded almost classical. Hope you can find him.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dusty

I tried to warn you….

TaxPayer

Some of those drones fit in backpacks and can land on a suburban lawn. Only trouble is, they have an awful lot of trouble getting off the ground when the militia guys try to attach a Hellfire to them -

• Link
• Report this comment

The right to bear arms but doesn’t SPECIFICALLY mention bullets.

• Link
• Report this comment

So, none of the progressives here like my idea of identifying themselves as against guns by marking themselves and their property?

• Link
• Report this comment

Dusty

Help me out a little. Do you remember when I posted it? The ol’ brain ain’t what it used to be.

Doggone @ 5:06

I wouldn’t disagree with you about gun ownership in cities of the time but on the frontier it was a necessity. You had no one but yourself to depend on for defense but much more importantly, it was essential in feeding yourself and family.

I can remember my Grandpa talking about being about 6 years old (1890’s), and his mother, who was all of about 22 or 23, telling him to take his little brother and go kill some squirrels for supper.

• Link
• Report this comment

Inconvenient

I believe the Court said their ruling was restricted to handguns in the home. Period.

Didn’t mention shotguns. Or rifles.

“Issue: Whether the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the States, thereby invalidating ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the home. “

• Link
• Report this comment

Ah yes…. Nancy Pelosi’s bullet restriction methodology.

Micro serial numbers and limits on types and quantities that can be purchased……

Thank you lovelyliz. However you’ll be thrilled to know that this has also been decided by the courts….. Except for the “micro serial numbers” issue.

I don’t have an issue with serial numbers.

Ammunition limits are ludicrous because anybody can make their own.

Besides… Most people who shoot a lot “reload” their casings or sell their brass for scrap because it’s a fraction of the price of new stuff.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dusty

Come, come now…. you’re not saying you’ve never, ever in you life had something go into your brain you wished hadn’t gone? Never heard a new, rude word? Never heard a new takeover of a previously-thought nice word?

I was wonderin’ about Bosch myself. Hopefully he’s just drowning his sorrows.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I wouldn’t disagree with you about gun ownership in cities of the time but on the frontier it was a necessity”

Certainly…but the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution weren’t written by backwoodsmen. They were written by highly educated men, of a generally wealthier class. Gun ownership, to them, was not a matter of life or death, but WAS a matter of national security.

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul,

I just don’t know if there would be much market, outside the CIA, etc., for drones that cannot rain down some Hellfire.

• Link
• Report this comment

I carry a gun. Because I need to carry a gun. That need does not apply to 80% of the drooling goons of the NRA and other assorted uneducated weak thugs who call themselves “patriots” and “Murcuhns.”
A pathetic lot to be sure.

• Link
• Report this comment

I need the government to tell me how to act. Ineed the government to dictate all aspects of my life. They are doing such a good job in all area’s. Myself and all of the rest of the sheep…..I mean people of the dependant class are so gratefull.

• Link
• Report this comment

Although ruling that the 2nd amendment is an individual right does restrict state and local governments that in of itself doesn’t seem to be ‘judicial activism’. Governments can still restrict aspects of gun ownership but that can no longer just pass blanket bans on handguns.

I don’t see the 2nd amendment as a collective right, are any other of the original 10 besides the 10th amendment considered collective? Reading the other 8, they all seem to deal with ‘people’, ‘persons’ and ‘accused’.

• Link
• Report this comment

What amazes me is that a document written over 200 years ago, by a number of men who thought they were providing a guidance for future generations to remain completely independent/free, could cause such chaos. They probably didn’t see the waves of attorneys coming to make our lives much easier.

• Link
• Report this comment

Matt —

The Hell with the “collective”.

Marxism is evil.

In the USA, we believe in, and will never surrender our Liberty to the Collective.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, the Ten Commandments included coverage regarding one’s right to use arms. Bear them if you will. Seems like such a waste though unless one intends to ignore the prime directives via mis-interpretation of the New Testament.

• Link
• Report this comment

typed too fast cuz Matt the Marxist is poisonous.

My Liberty trumps your collective good.

Marxism is evil, corrupt and on display in Toronto at the G20.

ULTIMATE FAIL !!!

• Link
• Report this comment

The recent history is unequivocal and damning. Activist Republican judges are threatening to destroy our nation’s judicial system. many cases in environmental, civil procedure, discrimination, and political law clearly demonstrate this.

They and their unread hypocritical enablers treat the United States Constitution as though it were a living breathing document.

The neo-cons only deem judges “activists” when they don’t rule on behalf of their paymasters in corporate America.

• Link
• Report this comment

TW

June 28th, 2010
11:57 am
For every ONE time someone claims to have used a firearm to successfully defend their person, there are SEVENTEEN accidental deaths resulting from firearms – many of which involve children finding them in the closet of the parent retard who put it there unsecured
That’s pure BS!
If you check the National Safety Council statistics you will find gun related accidents, including hunting is way down on the list of children accident causes, behind auto-accidents, skateboarding, cheerleading, bikeriding, football, and 20 some-odd activities.

• Link
• Report this comment

Obama should hit “The Internet Kill Switch”.

He (Or any other POTUS) can now activate the control for 4 months without any Congressional authority.

Do you really like this idea?

Can you speak today?
Will The US Government allow you to speak next week?

TERMINATE THE KILL SWITCH NOW !!!

• Link
• Report this comment

It’s in the Constitution, Bookman. States cannot deny my rights under the Constitution. It’s the supreme law of the land. Why do you support breaking the law by taking away my rights, no matter where in the U.S. I live? A locality that says I cannot bear arms is restricting my Constitutional rights. Justify it how you like, but this isn’t activism, it making local governments abide by the Bill of Rights.

Also, when are you and Cynthia going to have a column condemning Obama for letting those Black Panthers intimidate voters with baseball bats in Philadelphia? Or is that ok to you because they are black?

Personally, I think it’s sickening that Obama is letting them get away with it, but his entire Justice Department has been instructed NOT to pursue cases of voter intimidation by black people. I guess Obama is a racist, unwilling to apply the law equally to all races and creeds.

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul – Please drink some warm milk.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hey, when is Cynthia Tucker’s histrionic, hand wringing column going to be published?

Blood in the streets! Mayhem!

• Link
• Report this comment

AmVet — I disagree with your postings about almost everything.

You and I have found common ground.

This is good.

Free Speech is critical and non-negotiable?

No Kill Switch?

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny G re:sauce for the goose notsauce for the gander ..Indeed,indeedThat is what it seems we are allabout..Somejust got there fastbeing born withsilverspoons tie to their u cords and hold tight to theright to do what the h***they please

• Link
• Report this comment

Line Item Veto is bad.

Congress should get it right or it gets sent back for modification to get passed some other way.

This has worked for centuries. Keep it.

• Link
• Report this comment

I recall an old SNL skit- show us your guns. Pretty funny. I have a Para .45 and an XD40.

• Link
• Report this comment

DUSTY

Ma’am it will be my honor to defend your rep*tation!

• Link
• Report this comment

AmVet — I disagree with your postings about almost everything.

Presuming you are one of those in the Moniker of the Day camp, I have no idea what yours are. And given that fact, likely care even less. Without some shred of information to go on, I’ll take it as a compliment though.

Free Speech is not some throw away concept that the conned love to give lip service to while they try to pass idiotic Flag Desecration Amendments.

As I’ve said before, keep your filthy hands off of that sacred document neo-cons…

• Link
• Report this comment

left for chicks…

“This is my rifle,
this is my gun.
This one’s for shooting
and this one’s for fun.”

• Link
• Report this comment

PAUL
The bilingual Blue-Nosed B*tch, Moderator, does not like P-U-T-A…

But Dusty reptilian…nanh, she’s hot-blooded!

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul, I hope you have a GOOD battery backup.

• Link
• Report this comment

Robert Byrd, the former Klansman, has passed away. Rest his soul.

The Senate Financial Reform Bill is one vote short…. West VA will appoint someone temporarily but…….

The November 2nd election is 127 days away.

• Link
• Report this comment

josef nix

Unfortunately, none of us gets converted until we’ve gone through a fiasco!

• Link
• Report this comment

The big government libs must be livid.

Huh? This ruling, from this court? that’d be like being livid at the sun rising in the East.

We knew as soon as they took the case more or less how they’d rule. Sounds as if they’ve left plenty of wiggle room to regulate gun ownership, so… eh.

Mostly, though, I feel more or less what Jay had expressed earlier–it reveals the folly of believing in Roberts’ silliness about how he’s just like an umpire, just calling balls and strikes. Our SCROTUS are overturning long standing legal precedent here, they are doing it because they are ideologically bound to do this, but… it’s not judicial activism because it just isn’t that when republicans do it so stop saying that!

• Link
• Report this comment

Dusty….Dingleberries, and now strap-ons?

Whoo girl … What’s next in your little perverse mind?

• Link
• Report this comment

Only criminals and cops should have guns.

Anybody who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime should get life in prison.

Mandatory because they used a gun.

Cops should be armed with machine guns and grenades.

The American people should just trust their government to protect them…. Especially in the border states.

• Link
• Report this comment

We got random internet kill switches up here. We also call them lightning strikes.

• Link
• Report this comment

http://www.tnugent.com saw Ted at HOB in Myrtle Beach Saturday. He had Machine guns on stage to keep the liberals in line! Great decision for gun rights and Cynthia Tucker must be reeling from this loss. She should pay homage to Boortz and the pro-liberty folks!

• Link
• Report this comment

Conservative judicial activism verses liberal judicial activism.

Whats the difference – where you stand on the issue.

No more – no less.

• Link
• Report this comment

Atlanta 1

Yep.

• Link
• Report this comment

As I told generations of students, sloppy writing will get you in trouble every time. And this amendment, regardless of its author, is sloppily written.

Yeah, I’ve made that point more than a few times myself. Horribly written, probably by design, because the people behind it were being weasels (didn’t want to commit to a standing army, but needed to have something in there that’d make something more or less like one possible.)

• Link
• Report this comment

RW

Hey! How long before we can quote our great populist hero?

• Link
• Report this comment

Professor,

You can mind fu** it to death but it still says the same thing.

• Link
• Report this comment

REAL NAME

You won’t get an argument out of me against any of your points…

• Link
• Report this comment

“Seal the borders” is such a strong phrase. Can’t we simply shut the border doors but allow for seepage.

• Link
• Report this comment

josef,

The funny thing is that if you google that quote you get exactly one hit.

• Link
• Report this comment

“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.”

Per National Guard as militia:

Technically, the fed military is the “people”, yet the 2nd allows for the people to bear to counter the feds. As the NG is also controlled by the “gov’t”, I would think the same applies.

• Link
• Report this comment

PEOPLE ASK WHY?

Why Carry a Gun?

My old grandpa said to me ‘Son, there comes a time in every man’s life when he stops bustin’ knuckles and starts bustin’ caps and
usually it’s when he becomes too old to take an ass whoopin.’

I don’t carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don’t carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry.
I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy.
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don’t carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

Police protection is an oxymoron.
Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I’m too young to die and too old to take an ass whoopin’…..author unknown (but obviously brilliant)

**********************************************
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. >From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————

China established gun control in 1935. >From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—- ————- ————-

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————–

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
——————————

You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are ‘citizens’. Without them, we are ’subjects’.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti gun-control message to all of your friends.

The purpose of fighting is to win.
There is no possible victory in defense.
The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either.
The final weapon is the brain.
All else is supplemental.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND’S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

IT’S A NO BRAINER!
DON’T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

I’m a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

• Link
• Report this comment

Neither Democrats or Republicans will give you what we are offering….

Think America…..

Eff them!

We aren’t stupid.

Pay Attention. Vote for candidates you understand.

It’s easy….

• Link
• Report this comment

Scout

my hero

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Anielevich.html

• Link
• Report this comment

Jim DeMint is running against Alvin Greene for Senate in South Carolina.

Just sayin’……..

• Link
• Report this comment

Off Topic:

Is the oil still gushing into the gulf?

• Link
• Report this comment

Bawney-luv ur name-You are incorrect on the jap invasion thing.That is a myth. Also proly not fair to say all those people died because of gun control. Some may have survived if armed-not all of em.

That said-why would ANYONE, except weenies and chicks, favor gun control? The hardcore stuff I mean.

SNL first season, google-utube show us ur guns vid. funny stuff.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ahhhh — But AmVet….

“stock and currency speculation”?

This is how those who pay attention make money…

Money and wealth is good. “Collectivism” is bad.

Pay attention and make smart decisions = make money.

Welcome to America.

• Link
• Report this comment

Scout – Old Testament: Thou shalt not kill.

• Link
• Report this comment

kayaker71 re:Brewer protecting us against these ‘illegal’ invaders with their death dealing WMD’s murdering thousands of our innocent men, women children and babies and devastating this land . So many of our citizens have had to flee to other countries and in addition they are also stealing our oil and enriching their elite!!! Hmmm they are a bad lot!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Old Testament..
Hebrew…thou shalt not MURDER…

• Link
• Report this comment

Hillbilly:

“Kilmer is no more a bad boy than he is a choir boy”, but he was THE BEST Doc Holliday.

You woke up this morning
Got yourself a gun,
Mama always said you’d be
The Chosen One.

I’ve been taking my guns to the gym.

• Link
• Report this comment

jonix, I’ll reply concerning one of the proposals – term limits.

I am NOT a big fan of screwing with the US Constitution. And as much as I’d like to try to stop the entrenched enthronement of career politicians with vast amounts of dirty slush and campaign money, I’m not sure term limits are the answer.

An engaged, informed and empowered electorate seems more likely to implement change. I would mandate that the corporate owned media allow political ads and open, free debates at no charge. Not these closed-off parallel interviews as adjudicated by the American Politburo, aka the media owned Commission on Presidential Debates. After all, those airwaves belong to us – we the people. And an emasculated Uncle Sam doesn’t even collect rent for us!

I would allow for Instant Runoff Voting which allows all votes to count.

I would advocate for increased voting (not less like some of the cons want) via weekend and holiday Election Days. Currently between 40% and 80% of eligible voters stay home.

Therfore, I would implement a binding None Of The Above on all ballots. If NOTA takes a plurality or majority of votes, that election would be canceled or invalidated, along with the dismissal of the candidates, and a new election would be called.

I also advocate for the National Initiative.

Comments?

• Link
• Report this comment

“The law doesn’t matter anymore……
We’ll just choose what we want to do” —– Liberals

• Link
• Report this comment

Go back to sleep America.

“You will be assimilated. Do not resist. We are here to help and protect you.”

HELL NO !

HELL NO AGAIN !!!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

AmVet is sad.

• Link
• Report this comment

The truth doesn’t matter, I’ll just say whatever I want. — An Inconvenient Constitution

• Link
• Report this comment

The con activist judges are overturning laws but the worst we have seen so far was the citizens united rw crap.

A direct assault on our democracy and nothing from the tea party.

Franken nailed them on that bs today.

• Link
• Report this comment

jonix, I have also considered that. And to some extent there is no stopping anyone from running until they finally win. Look at how many serial losers like Nixon and Reagan did. But it would seem that is only going to be harder, not easier, to run on the exact same platform that you lost on two or four or six years ago.

And i believe that the NOTA ballot option puts one helluva hit on the currently unstoppable lesser of two evils. Or the evil of the two lessers.

• Link
• Report this comment

left

“Defiance” is historically very accurate. For general readers, Leon Uris’ “Mila 18″ does a good job of presenting the Warsaw Ghetto situation. We are only just now beginning to deal with the subject of resistance since the Russian archives are just now being opened and it was in the Soviet areas that the Jewish partisans were the most active. The survival rates there were considerably higher, though the statistics are not yet collated and analyzed. My own area of research deals with Hungary. There the highly limited “success” outside of the Budapest situation (which had its own characteristics) was relative to the degree of support of the local population and its own resistance. In the eastern areas of Transylvania, the Jewish resistance saved thousands and was armed. As I said, it’s just now beginning to be analyzed and that analysis has to proceed district by district…

• Link
• Report this comment

Saw one lefty cryin bout kids-teens being shot. HEY STUPID- those numbers are inflated by young gang bangers killing each other for fun. Stupid. Three year old gets shot- front page news-cause it is RARE!

• Link
• Report this comment

Just saw a movie-my research-haha- about armed jews hiding in the forest, and kicking some German butt. Defiance was the title. Claims to b true story.

The Jews were fierce fighters within German lines in Eastern Europe, jnix. For a fictitious account based on actual history, read Herman Wouk’s War and Remembrance, if you haven’t already. Jewish partisans lived in holes in the ground in the forests and inflicted great casualties and materiel losses on the Germans during their invasion of Russia. Wouk knew whereof he wrote. Nobody else in war history would have gone to the trouble of digging up the names of the downed torpedo plane pilots and their enlisted gunners at the Battle of Midway. The history of the Jewish resistance goes well beyond Warsaw. My hat’s off to Wouk for his meticulous research.

• Link
• Report this comment