Posted on 07/05/2008 10:20:41 AM PDT by FocusNexus
The landmark decision of the Supreme Court on the Washington handgun law yielded two eye-opening revelations of critical importance to Americans ("Justices back gun owners," June 27).
The first is the majority opinion that the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment does give gun rights to individuals.
But the second revelation is that the reasoning behind the opinions of the dissenting justices should send cold shivers down the spines of freedom-loving Americans.
In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens suggests that the Second Amendment should not interfere with legislators' intent. The majority opinion, he says, "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons. ... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent."
I fear for our freedoms if our next president nominates a person to fill a Supreme Court vacancy who thinks the way that the dissenting justices in District of Columbia v. Heller do or the majority of justices in the Kelo v. New London ruling do.
I believe that had President Bush not nominated Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., a Kelo v. New London-style Supreme Court would have, in effect, struck down the Second Amendment in last week's ruling - and there is no appeal beyond the Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
Remember this in November.
Hold your nose, grit your teeth, and vote for McShamnesty.
MAYBE we’ll get better Supremes.
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.
Congress shall make no law ...
shall not be violated ...
shall not be required ...
These rights are yours, the BOR clarifies that the government cannot take them away.
schu
[”In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens suggests that the Second Amendment should not interfere with legislators’ intent.”]
Nah, he didn’t mean that...
[”The majority opinion, he says, “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials ...”]
What? He said it again!
Where did this guy go to law school? Libya?
Earl didn’t get a lot of things.
Like learning patience with veteran pitchers and allowing them to get out of jams instead of lifting them after the first high outside fastball......
It is ironic that the only way I could possibly consider voting for McCain is the fact that "progressives" have so abused and twisted the constitution through their court appointees that I may vote for a president that I believe would be terrible?
“and there is no appeal beyond the Supreme Court.”
Yeah, there is, I say while sitting in my gunshop.
Oh really?
Ballot Box, jury box, BULLET BOX.
Yea, there is another layer of appeal.
The American Revolution began when the British tried to take the colonists guns.
“The first is the majority opinion that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment does give gun rights to individuals.”
???????????????????????
The U.S. Constitution DOES NOT GIVE RIGHTS. It can only affirm, in writing, rights that are inherent to our humanity, our personhood. It is in our defense of our rights, and of the Constitution that affirms them, that our rights are made objectively real.
McCain supported Ruth Bader Ginsburg. McCain opposed President Bush's appellate nominees.
What would Obama do?
Support Ruth Bader Ginsburg and oppose President Bush’s appellate nominees, I’d suppose.
I believe that had President Bush not nominated Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., a Kelo v. New London-style Supreme Court would have, in effect, struck down the Second Amendment in last week's ruling - and there is no appeal beyond the Supreme Court.uh ... well yeah, actually there is...
"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."No one would have turned in there guns in spite of Di-Fi, Schumer, Bloomie, Rooty, Daley, or Durbin's© Thomas Jefferson
July 4, 1776
Not without a fight anyway.
The scene of the JBT's house-to-house gun grabbing during the chaos of Katrina will never happen again. And THAT'S a fact.
Molon Labe baby!
What about the “intent” of those who authored the Bill of Rights?
[snip]
These rights are yours, the BOR clarifies that the government cannot take them away.
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech
Ever hear of McCain/Feingold? The simple fact is that the Constitution means what ever the nine guys in black says it means. And if we disagree, the only appeal would be to compose a new "Declaration of Independence."
Remember, you and I might be convinced we're right on the matter, but they're the ones with the guys authorized to use deadly force.
Mark
There will come a time when some of the guys authorized to use deadly force will refuse to obey illegal orders. This may cause other government actors to either (1) use force against then, (2) join them in refusing the orders, or (3) try to pretend that the defiance didn't happen. Chain reactions can happen quickly, and it's hard to predict what will actually happen. Ideally, the people giving the illegitimate order will find themselves instantly overwhelmed by those who refuse to obey it, and will thus surrender bloodlessly. If those who support the illegal orders are evenly matched with those who support the law, however, the result can be a long and bloody civil war.
IMHO, one redeeming aspect of Obama is that he'd be more likely than McCain to overreach sufficiently to trigger an overwhelming, but relatively bloodless, response. McCain would be more likely to let things simmer until they barely reach the breaking point, resulting in a much nastier situation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.