McCain weighs in on gun case at Supreme Court

John McCain's to-do list:

Pander to the NRA??

Done.

Whoops... was he actually taking the Constitution text literally? silly him...

Should we be forever bound by what was written by the Founding Fathers? Could they foresee how the country and the world would change over the coming centuries? Of course not.

That is why The Constitution was intended as a "Living Document" capable of changing with the times. This ability to adapt is what has allowed us to change the laws regarding slavery and suffrage. These were changes that were necessary to adapt to the changing times.

This ability to change is what has kept the constitution relevant. They made it relevant to their times and built in the mechanism for updating it and keeping it relevant.

However when it comes to guns we stick to the “letter” of the constitution. How is it possible for us to understand their “intent”? And even if we could their intent would be driven by the times they lived in. Not by what the future could possible hold. They could not have foreseen assault weapons in the hands of teenagers or “sportmen” buying cop killer bullets.

This is just more pandering by Mc Cain.

The Pander Bear speaks. He will say anything to win. No principles whatsoever.

John McCain says it is clear what the founding fathers meant. The reason the gun issue is being discussed in the Supreme Court is because the Constitution is not clear.

The focus has always been on phrase "right to bear arms." If that was taken literally then every juvenile and everybody who is a citizen can have a gun. Gun rights advocates apply the all or none law when it comes to regulation and ownership of guns. Any regulation or control of guns is wrong.

McCain should have a "one to one" with the victims of random gun shootings.
I don't want another Cheney (think like) at the White House for the next 8 years!

“clear intent of our Founding Fathers” is to allow individuals the right to keep firearms.

Yes, for militias. How many militias do Republicans think we need? Do they not think our military is good enough to defend the nation? How unpatriotic.

The argument that ANY right in the Bill of Rights is anything but an individual right is just silly. I can't wait until the Supreme Court delivers the smackdown that stupid argument so richly deserves.

McCain is entirely right to defend our individual rights. Once the government is allowed to take the right to bear arms away, you can expect the rest of them to fall one by one.

Whoo Hoo!! John McCain says I have the right to a flamethrower with a sawed off shotgun attachment. Suck it liberals!!

Senator McCain is for the right of self-protection, therefore, I'll vote for him comes November.

Hey Carl L
We have a procedure in place to change the Constitution. They are called AMENDMENTS. This process has been used successfully in the past. In fact one amendment (the 21st) repealed another (the 18th). The whole point of this system is to prevent people like yourself from making up random crap and calling it the Constitution. By forcing a lengthly amendment procedure, we are assured the rule of law rather than the random rule of men (such as yourself).

One, this page seems to be a bit one sided. For you all to be speaking of "herd metality" in regards to McCain, should read over your own comments.
Two, this country was built due to a government telling us what we could and could not do. We are a country that is built on the principle of individualism and freedom (which is earned not free by the way) and for you all to outwardly want to give that freedom away is beyond comprehension. We've done this on a lessor note once before (ban on drinking) and our mistakes were marked in the constitution for all to see, as we quickly resended and issued a new ammendment. Point blank this issue truely remains that those who are law abiding citizens will follow a no gun law and be shot in their homes by those that are not law abiding citizens. Criminals will always find drugs, moonshine, and guns. Why, tell me why I cannot protect my family from an invader in my own home!!

"Sen. John McCain, who is traveling overseas this week as part of an Armed Services congressional delegation, issued a statement calling District of Columbia v. Heller “a landmark case for all Americans who believe as I do that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.”"

Even if that is the case, what types of "arms"? Hand guns, rifles, uzies, surface to air missles?

You know, republicans, there is that little word "regulated", that you all conveniently leave out.

If you want to have a hand gun to give you the option to murder someone in the name of protection, o.k.

For those hunters who need to prove their manhood by blowing Bambi's brains out, go right ahead.

But all firearms owners shoud be required to get a license showing they know how to handle a gun. And all guns should be registered. Just like carrs.

We should also consider mandatory insurance for firearm owners, so that, when the inevitable accidents occur, a victim or their family can receive some restiution.

No, the Constitution is not, and should not be a living document, free to be interperted to mean whatever some activist judge wants it to mean. The founders put in place a method the change to constitution, the ammendment process, which has been used when needed to change things like slavery and suffrage.

Let me see if I got this right, Carl. As a US Army tank commander I am perfectly trustworthy to have all manner of guns to protect you, but when I go home at night I am too dangerous to have a simple pistol to protect my family if I am assigned to the Military District of Washington. And watch how you answer that, if an active duty soldier doesn't satisfy the 'militia' clause, then who does? Explain to me how I have the right to bear arms to protect you, but not to protect myself? How much of that stuff did you smoke in college??

Correction, the reason the Supreme Court is deciding is because DC law is unconstitutional per the Circuit Ct. in that it violated the 2nd Amendment.

The Constitution is not a Living Document as a previous ignorant commentator says. This document is the basis of our Federal Government and country. If the States that make up the Union decide to amend the Constitution then they can do via a convention or their federal representatives can promote a bill to amend the Bill of Rights. Since 44 states have 2nd amendment enshrined in their constitutions, this is very unlikely.

Criminals will always find drugs, moonshine, and guns. Why, tell me why I cannot protect my family from an invader in my own home!!

Posted by: Bruce | March 18, 2008 12:44 PM

Wow, Bruce wants to legalize heroin!

In all of our history we have not tampered with the first 10 amendments. These are collectively known as the Bill of Rights and were added before the Constitution was ratified. As such I consider them sacrosanct. I guess that if you have such strong feelings about the first 10 amendments there are other countries that you may find more appealing for your residence and citizenship.

i could care less about this case. what difference will it make? NONE.

Of course the REAL story they won't cover is, why can't we watch the argument live on CNN (or whatever)? Did people forget that these aging, out of touch "judges" REFUSE to allow videotaping of their so called "important" and "historic" arguments? Where is Congress on this? When will these dino-jurists be dragged into the 21 century?

If you people think the second amendment should go away then why don't you just get rid of the entire constitution.I bet it would make you folks extremely happy to live in a socialist society that fits your Idea of a perfect world that will never exist.If one freedom goes down then lets start at the first amendment and start taking them all away.

The top five baseless and subversive arguments against the Second Amedment... http://truthalert.net/Top%20Five%20Baseless%20and%20Subversive%20Arguments%20Against%20the%20Second%20Amendment.htm

Economy--In the toilet

War--Hopeless and never-ending

Health care--unaffordable, unattainable

Infrastructure--crumbling

Time for Republicans to pull out the Rove playbook again.

1.Orrin Hatch re-introduces for the tenth time a flag-burning amendment

2.Broke, Jobless Americans reminded by Republicans that anti-gay legislation is their only salvation

3.Iran is next in the "wag the dog" cross-hairs. Hey, it worked for Dubya

4.Gun lovers everywhere warned that the government wants to take away your assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons so you can't hunt them varmints no more.

5.Americans reminded that it's their patriotic duty to shop, shop, shop. Sell your children if you have to, but keep those registers ringing.

I thought that Republican party was for local control? Not big goverment control.

I thought that Republican party was for local control? Not big goverment control.

"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

People are individuals.

The first amendment uses the word people, but should we assume that means the state? The fourth amendment has the word people, should we assume that means the state? etc.

No one should be surprised at the financial and military mess our country has become in the last 7 1/2 years, afterall, look at the clowns who have been running things and look at the clown (McCain) who want's to continue doing those very same things all over again.

Here's what Republican Prez Chimpy McFlightsuit was doing during Vietnam:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushcheerleader.htm

Did Cheney Dodge
The Draft Five Times?

You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried:
This quote comes from a Saturday NYTimes article --
It is apparent from the piece that Richard Cheney did everything humanly possible -- short of fleeing to Canada -- to avoid military conscription: He applied for and recieved 5 student deferments, a number described as "incredible" by professor David Curry of the University of Missouri in St. Louis. Curry has written extensively about the draft, including a 1985 book, "Sunshine Patriots: Punishment and the Vietnam Offender." The Times quotes Mr. Curry as observing: "That's a lot of times for the draft board to say O.K."

full story:
http://www.rense.com/general52/chenn.htm

John McCain: Unfit to serve as Commander-In-Chief:

"The spoiled son of military privilege got a free ride throughout his military career despite repeated instances of scandals and screw-ups"

McCain Lost Five Military Aircraft

McCain, the "below par" pilot, eventually lost 5 military aircraft, the first during a training flight in 1958 when he plunged into Corpus Christi Bay while trying to land. The Navy ignored the crash and graduated McCain in 1960.

While deployed in the Mediterranean, the hard partying McCain lost a second aircraft. Timberg described the crash: "Flying too low over the Iberian Peninsula, he took out some power lines which led to a spate of newspaper stories in which he was predictably identified as the son of an admiral."

Unscathed, McCain returned to Pensacola Station where he was promoted to flight instructor for Naval Air Station Meridian in Mississippi. The airfield at Meridian, McCain Field, was named in honor of McCain's grandfather.

Flight instructor McCain lost a third aircraft while flying a Navy trainer solo to Philadelphia for an Army-Navy football game. Timberg wrote that McCain radioed, "I've got a flameout" before ejecting at one thousand feet. McCain parachuted onto a beach moments before his plane slammed into a clump of trees.

The Navy dismissed the crash as "unavoidable" and assigned McCain to the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal in December 1966, which was patrolling the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean. In Spring 1967, the Forrestal was assigned to join the Operation Rolling Thunder bombing campaign against North Vietnam.

McCain lost his fourth plane on board the Forrestal on July 29, 1967 when a rocket inadvertently slammed into his bomb laden jet. McCain escaped, but the explosions that followed killed 134 sailors. McCain was transferred from the badly damaged Forrestal to the USS Oriskany. Shortly afterwards, on Oct. 26, 1967, he was shot down and captured by the Vietnamese.

full story:
http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan08/mccain_military_record.htm

No one should be surprised at the financial and military mess our country has become in the last 7 1/2 years, afterall, look at the clowns who have been running things and look at the clown (McCain) who want's to continue doing those very same things all over again.

Here's what Republican Prez Chimpy McFlightsuit was doing during Vietnam:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushcheerleader.htm

Did Cheney Dodge
The Draft Five Times?

You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried:
This quote comes from a Saturday NYTimes article --
It is apparent from the piece that Richard Cheney did everything humanly possible -- short of fleeing to Canada -- to avoid military conscription: He applied for and recieved 5 student deferments, a number described as "incredible" by professor David Curry of the University of Missouri in St. Louis. Curry has written extensively about the draft, including a 1985 book, "Sunshine Patriots: Punishment and the Vietnam Offender." The Times quotes Mr. Curry as observing: "That's a lot of times for the draft board to say O.K."

full story:
http://www.rense.com/general52/chenn.htm

John McCain: Unfit to serve as Commander-In-Chief:

"The spoiled son of military privilege got a free ride throughout his military career despite repeated instances of scandals and screw-ups"

McCain Lost Five Military Aircraft

McCain, the "below par" pilot, eventually lost 5 military aircraft, the first during a training flight in 1958 when he plunged into Corpus Christi Bay while trying to land. The Navy ignored the crash and graduated McCain in 1960.

While deployed in the Mediterranean, the hard partying McCain lost a second aircraft. Timberg described the crash: "Flying too low over the Iberian Peninsula, he took out some power lines which led to a spate of newspaper stories in which he was predictably identified as the son of an admiral."

Unscathed, McCain returned to Pensacola Station where he was promoted to flight instructor for Naval Air Station Meridian in Mississippi. The airfield at Meridian, McCain Field, was named in honor of McCain's grandfather.

Flight instructor McCain lost a third aircraft while flying a Navy trainer solo to Philadelphia for an Army-Navy football game. Timberg wrote that McCain radioed, "I've got a flameout" before ejecting at one thousand feet. McCain parachuted onto a beach moments before his plane slammed into a clump of trees.

The Navy dismissed the crash as "unavoidable" and assigned McCain to the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal in December 1966, which was patrolling the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean. In Spring 1967, the Forrestal was assigned to join the Operation Rolling Thunder bombing campaign against North Vietnam.

McCain lost his fourth plane on board the Forrestal on July 29, 1967 when a rocket inadvertently slammed into his bomb laden jet. McCain escaped, but the explosions that followed killed 134 sailors. McCain was transferred from the badly damaged Forrestal to the USS Oriskany. Shortly afterwards, on Oct. 26, 1967, he was shot down and captured by the Vietnamese.

full story:
http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan08/mccain_military_record.htm

d hussein t... you're point is really lost in your blabbering. over half of what you said didn't make any sense.

just polarizing comments like always.

It was also the clear intent of the founding fathers not to have a standing army, yet that doesn't stop McCain from being a schill for the Military Industrial Complex.

The right to bear arms still works today. Just look at all the US States that the Brady campaign rates highly for having the most strict gun control laws - they have the highest violent crime rates. The inverse is also true: the States with the strongest rights to bear arms have the lowest violent crime rates.

It amazes me that Republicans will fight tooth and nail to keep the Second Amendment because it's a sacrosanct part of the Bill of Rights, but they LOVE to chip away at the Fourth because it inconveniences their ability to get around those nasty old warrants when they want to tap people's phone lines, and the First because it allows people to express themselves in ways that make Republicans nervous and jittery. Lucky for all of us THEY don't EVER indulge in hypocrisy.

Me? I'm all for ALL 10 AMENDMENTS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS being left alone.

CARL WISELY SAID:
"Should we be forever bound by what was written by the Founding Fathers? Could they foresee how the country and the world would change over the coming centuries? Of course not.
That is why The Constitution was intended as a "Living Document" capable of changing with the times."

WAY TO GO CARL!
THERE WERE NO TERRORISTS INFILTRATING OUR LAND, NOR WERE THERE AS MANY GANGS OR SERIAL KILLERS BACK WHEN. TIMES HAVE CHANGE!
CHECK OUT HOW "THE PATRIOT ACT" CHALLENGES THE CONSTITUTION.
THE CAPACITY FOR ADAPTATION IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT SURVIVING TOOLS FOR HUMANITY.

Why, tell me why I cannot protect my family from an invader in my own home!!

Posted by: Bruce | March 18, 2008 12:44 PM

Nobody is saying this. Way to distort facts. The argument is whether you can carry weapons in public spaces without restrictions.

So much for being a "straight-talker"!!!!

WASHINGTON — Senator John McCain likes to present himself as the candidate of the "Straight Talk Express" who does not pander to voters or change his positions with the political breeze. But the fine print of his record in the Senate indicates that he has been a lot less consistent on some of his signature issues than he has presented himself to be so far in his presidential campaign.

Mr. McCain, who derided his onetime Republican competitor Mitt Romney for his political mutability, has himself meandered over the years from position to position on some topics, particularly as he has tried to court the conservatives who have long distrusted him. His most striking turnaround has been on the Bush tax cuts, which he voted against twice but now wants to make permanent. Mr. McCain has also expressed varying positions on immigration, torture, abortion and Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary.
The article points out that McCain has reversed course on several key issues as he has tried to gain the support of the Republican base. To summarize the article:

On tax cuts...

In 2001, McCain voted against Bush's tax cuts, saying "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief." He also voted against additional tax cuts in 2003, later saying that "I just thought it was too tilted to the wealthy, and I still do."
Today, McCain wants to make those tax cuts permanent.

On immigration...

In 2005, McCain supported comprehensive immigration reform, which included a pathway to citizenship.
Now, he claims that "if his original proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, he would not vote for it."

On abortion and Roe v. Wade...

In 1999, McCain said that he would not support overturning Roe v. Wafe "int he sort term, or even the long term," because that would "force X number of women in America" to undergo "illegal and dangerous operations."
Today, McCain has campaigned on overturning Roe v. Wade.

On his revisionist history regarding Donald Rumsfeld...

In 2004, McCain refused to call for Rumsfeld's resignation, saying that Bush "can have the team around him that he wants around him." In 2006, retired generals called for Rumseld's resignation, but McCain did not.
Now, while running for president, McCain has claimed that "I’m the only one that said that Rumsfeld had to go." The article notes that "[t]he campaign has since acknowledged that Mr. McCain was incorrect, and more recently the senator has stopped short of claiming he called for the defense secretary’s ouster."

On torture...

McCain has traditionally been against torture, citing his experience as a POW for his decision.
Now, McCain voted last month "against a bill that would require the Central Intelligence Agency to abide by the restrictions on interrogating prisoners outlined in the Army Field Manual."

In his decades in office, McCain has an average party unity score in the low 80s. Since he has campaigned for president, his party unity score has skyrocketed (link, link).

2005: 81%
2006: 76%
2007: 90%

It's refreshing to see members of the press taking a closer look at John McCain's disparate record instead of taking his "maverickness" at face value. And while it was expected that McCain would pander to the right to get the GOP nomination, the sharp turns on the "Straight Talk Express" listed above are sure to be a problem for him in the general election.

I believe Republican Robots have their talking points confused and/or they are not on the same page. Half of you say you need guns to protect your family and the other half are saying you need guns to protect you from and overthrow the government if you need to ala Mike Huckabee. Weirdos.

Here is an interesting parallel. Maybe we should permanently take away all vehicles and driving privelages from any yuppi-scum gun hating liberal that decides they want to drive home drunk from their "save the whales and trees foundation fundraiser" just in case they might get the urge to kill an innocent family with a 4000 lb. deadly weapon. Oh wait, that would be crazy talk. Potato, pototo.

We are a country that is built on the principle of individualism and freedom (which is earned not free by the way)
Posted by: Bruce | March 18, 2008 12:44 PM

Wrong. Rights, individualism and freedom are "given". You can lose your rights or freedoms by committing a crime or other similar activity. But we are "born" free. That has been a principle of our country since it's inception.

Now, sometimes you have to "fight" for your rights. When someone is trying to take them away. But that doesn't mean you didn't have them in the first place.

Try taking a step back from the Constitution for a minute a read the Declaration of Independence.

The part that says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This statement clearly implies rights are "given". I don't see how you can see it any other way.

Here is an interesting parallel. Maybe we should permanently take away all vehicles and driving privileges from any yuppie-scum gun hating liberal that decides they want to drive home drunk from their "save the whales and trees foundation fundraiser" just in case they might get the urge to kill an innocent family with a 4000 lb. deadly weapon. Oh wait, that would be crazy talk. Potato, pototo.

It is a FACT which LIBERALS cannot accept. MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME. Just look at Iraq. Prior to our invasion, Saddam Hussein had some of the strictest gun control regulations on the books and terrorism and crime were rampant. After the invasion, CRIME AND TERRORISM ARE SIMPLY RELICS OF THE PAST. Just some more FACTS that LIBERALS CAN'T swallow. Our troops are safer because there are more guns in Iraq. This cannot be denied. If I could go back in time I would make sure there were more roadside bombs to make passage thru roadways more safe.

I can not understand why the liberals who expouse absolute freedom want to take away the right to bear firearms by law abiding citizens. Can someone please explain that to me?

I can not understand why the liberals who expouse absolute freedom want to take away the right to bear firearms by law abiding citizens. Can someone please explain that to me?

It's a shame how many people posting here are ignorant of history. The whole reason the militia clause was included was because it was the militia, not the standing army, that allowed the Colonists to overthrow the oppressive British government.

If we are to protect ourselves from a possible future government like that of the British in 1776, our citizens need to remain armed. Otherwise we'll end up like Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia.

Steve, how can government "give" you something you're endowed with by your creator? Or born with as in the constitution?

The second amendment was put in place to protect the citizens of the United States of America from foriegn and DOMESTIC threats. With the second amendment gone so do you lose the first amendment. The "living document" interpretation removes ALL rights set forth by the constitution.
Are we free men or must we drop our defenses and don the chains of servitude?

How about we leave this to the Supreme Court? It is their responsibility - that is, unless you want howling mob rule.

So if we take the Constitution exactly as it was written at the time then the right to bear arms is limited to white males. They were the only ones guaranteed the other rights.

Aaron M,
Any chance you could pick 3 states from each category of restrictive and non-restrictive gun rights and tell us how their urban populations compare to each other?

i would gladly get rid of the constitution, it's LONG overdue for a rewrite. the new one should indicate that gun owners are 3/5ths of a person.

How can you idiots say that the constitution is NOT a living document and then in the same breath admit that there is a process built in for changing it? Hello!!! that is what is meant by the term "living document".

JPC... Nice partial quote on the second amendment. maybe you should read the whole thing. It says that "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."

One last comment... The rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not absolute. All have limits. If you don't believe me go to the airport and make a "joke" about having a bomb... then claim you freedom of speech. See where that gets you.

Even the law today 2008 says every male from 17 to 45 is part of the unorganized militia. The gov has the right to call anyone in this group. That is why we have draft registration. The laws in the past say that when called you must show up with your own weapon and ammuniation. techanically a judge today in 2008 could charge you for not owning a gun. No one ever list these laws though. Everyone should honor
US Code title 10(A)I sec 311 this is a modern law.

Even the law today 2008 says every male from 17 to 45 is part of the unorganized militia. The gov has the right to call anyone in this group. That is why we have draft registration. The laws in the past say that when called you must show up with your own weapon and ammuniation. techanically a judge today in 2008 could charge you for not owning a gun. No one ever list these laws though. Everyone should honor
US Code title 10(A)I sec 311 this is a modern law.

Passing thoughts:
'A well REGULATED militia'-forget everything else, remember REGULATED. Chris Cox of the NRA hates that word.
If half the people carrying guns are as nit-witted as half of our drivers, watch out!
The states with stringent 'may issue' laws and states not allowing concealed carry have fewer gun deaths per 100,000 than the 'shall issue' states, on average. There are a couple of exceptions which makes one wonder if people from states like Iowa are more stable than Wyoming for example.
I've been a gun owner for years and have never felt a need to carry a handgun around. That includes the 30 years I lived in Chicago.

Maybe an enterprising reporter could ask Barack Obama what he believes the court should decide in this case. Obama has, after all, ended the conversation on Rev. Wright. So we need to return to issues. Or are those only the issues he wants to talk about -- you know, the only ones that are important to America.

How can you idiots say that the constitution is NOT a living document and then in the same breath admit that there is a process built in for changing it? Hello!!! that is what is meant by the term "living document".

JPC... Nice partial quote on the second amendment. maybe you should read the whole thing. It says that "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."

One last comment... The rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not absolute. All have limits. If you don't believe me go to the airport and make a "joke" about having a bomb... then claim you freedom of speech. See where that gets you.

How can you idiots say that the constitution is NOT a living document and then in the same breath admit that there is a process built in for changing it? Hello!!! that is what is meant by the term "living document".

JPC... Nice partial quote on the second amendment. maybe you should read the whole thing. It says that "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."

One last comment... The rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not absolute. All have limits. If you don't believe me go to the airport and make a "joke" about having a bomb... then claim you freedom of speech. See where that gets you.

i would gladly get rid of the constitution, it's LONG overdue for a rewrite. the new one should indicate that gun owners are 3/5ths of a person.

Posted by: Concerned | March 18, 2008 1:59 PM

now THATS the best idea I've ever heard on these posts. How tolerant and just!!! bawk bawk bawk bawk

Steve,

Polarizing comments? Oh really? During six years of total Republican rule did conservatives address immigration?, health care?, stagnant wages? No, they wasted our time with Schiavo, gay-marriage amendments, flag-burning amendments, abortion issues. Did any of this help the average American? All these issues were red-meat for the republican base that divided and distracted the country from its immediate and growing needs.

Is that clear enough for you Steve?

The "right to bear arms" is a wedge issue (i.e. polarizing), pure and simple. However it's ruled, it will not help our economy, it will not improve our standard of living, it won't fund our schools, it won't fix our government. Are you still with me, Steve?

This is why Republicans can't govern, they refuse to address the real needs of the country and it's citizens.

it was the militia, not the standing army, that allowed the Colonists to overthrow the oppressive British government.

Stepphen, you need to go back to school and study History. It was the standing army lead by Washington (Father of the country...) that defeated the british. Not the militia.

Thanks for brining in the Hitler and Stalin reference though, I was wondering how long it would take.

Steve, how can government "give" you something you're endowed with by your creator? Or born with as in the constitution?

Posted by: Jeff | March 18, 2008 1:54 PM

Maybe I did not express myself correctly. "Rights" are "endowed" by a "creator". Man cannot arbitralily give them or take them.

I wasn't saying "man" or a gov't can give them to us. I'm saying the founding fathers implied those rights "already existed" that they do not need to be "earned" but they should be "protecetd".

And, when necessary, fought for.

I hope that makes sense.

d Jones, liberals do not espouse freedom, but they do espouse a government that is all powerful, one thst is cradle to grave.
Liberals believe the government should determine what we have and what we don't have, how much we should be paid and how much we should have taken away.
The comments from the Loons on the Left to get rid of the Constitution is proof that these folks are nothing more than Little Hugo Chavezes. They are not for freedom, they are not for America, they are not for Americans. They are against us and their lapdogs in the media are there to enable their cause to destruct the U.S. Plain and simple.

The military reports to the government. The Government reports to the people. "Militia" is the citizenry, not the military.

Well regulated means well practiced.

So in todays terms it'd read like this:

"All citizens must maintian their marksmanship skills, So that the elected keep their a$$ in line; therefore every individual citizens right to posses and use any weapon shall not be infringed"

I can not understand why the liberals who expouse absolute freedom want to take away the right to bear firearms by law abiding citizens. Can someone please explain that to me?

Posted by: d Jones | March 18, 2008 1:44 PM

It's like this. When something isn't working, we tend to question whether a new direction needs to be taken.

In my home town a previously "law abiding citizen" bought a handgun without a background check, brought along a shotgun for good measure, and murdered a half-dozen people in a popular mall.

Another "law abiding citizen" with a concealed weapons permit was angry with his wife for seeking to divorce him. He gunned her down with his "legal" semi-automatic pistol in front of their kids in a church parking lot.

For every "Bronson" scenario where the bad guys are thwarted by an armed citizen, there are ten incidents of mentally unstable people, angry spouses, road rage, children finding guns, where a needless tragedy occurs because the country is awash with guns. It used to be in my home town that a shooting was a very rare incident, indeed. Now it happens every single day. I'm not happy about that, are you. Tell me, If we all arm ourselves do you really think the situation will improve?

un·al·ien·a·ble (ŭn-āl'yə-nə-bəl, -ā'lē-ə-)
adj. Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable

in·al·ien·a·ble (ĭn-āl'yə-nə-bəl, -ā'lē-ə-)
adj. That cannot be transferred to another or others: inalienable rights.

Used especially of rights: an inalienable right is one that cannot be abridged or suspended or even signed away voluntarily.

now THATS the best idea I've ever heard on these posts. How tolerant and just!!! bawk bawk bawk bawk

Posted by: Steve Hussein S | March 18, 2008 2:26 PM

Special ed Stevie,

Is that the best you've got?!?!

Sign Up or Shut Up you little Republican chickenhawk twit!

i would gladly get rid of the constitution, it's LONG overdue for a rewrite. the new one should indicate that gun owners are 3/5ths of a person.

Posted by: Concerned | March 18, 2008 1:59 PM

Well, God did the same thing about 2,000 years ago.

Out with the "old" testament, "in" with the new.

Special ed Stevie,

Is that the best you've got?!?!
Posted by: John Hussein E | March 18, 2008 3:04 PM

Why do you keep asking me that, low-life? are you obsessed with me? quit being a stalker, you freak

For Carl L: "Living" document has come to mean "May be changed by the opinion of the Supreme court due to whatever reason they wish", not "can be changed by the means provided by the constitution". That is how you can say a means is provided to change it. and it not be a living document. The "living document" idea as currently used, means the Supremes can do whatever political shenanigans they want, instead of what was intended.
Next, the "militia" clause, and the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" are two separate rights that are "not to be infringed". You see, this also has gotten cloudy due to a Press bias against gun ownership. The amendment says what it says, and "regulated" doesn't really apply to individuals, at least as far as the federal government is concerned.
At the time, the frontier nature of the country necessitated unlimited gun ownership due to American Indians, etc., so there was no doubt about its meaning at the time. Also, the founders who put together the Bill of Rights clearly specified the "individual right" was intended, there is no guessing on what the original intent was. A lot of the posts here assume that the founder's intent is not known, so that is why the Supreme court may specify. This is not so.

Posted by: Jeff | March 18, 2008 12:38 PM

Posted by: Jeff | March 18, 2008 2:19 PM

At least you seem to see both sides of the argument on this one.

The NRA likes to focus on "Shall not be infrinegd". Gun control advocates on "A well regulated militia."

The amendment needs to be studied in its totality. We can't pick and choose.

People should have a reasonable right to keep arms. But there also needs to be common sense rules for the afety of all.

I think the founding fathers understood both of these.

This has turned into a huge arguement or left verses right. The whole true issue of this Supreme Court Case is if people have the right to own guns and keep them in their homes. I think of myself as a pretty staunch conservative (not necessarily republican) and believe in individual's rights. That means if you want to go buy a gun you should be able to and it is no one's business as to how many or what kind that you own. There are already laws and certain legislation in place to make sure that if someone wants to own a full automatic firearm that they are to obtain a class 3 firearm liscense. There are courses taught on proper firearm usage, and it might not bve a bad idea to impose these classes just like driver's ed, as generally those who end up "murdering" someone is due to stupidity and ignorance as to how to handle a weapon. Now in the case of self defense it is not considered murder, hence why people get off in murder trials for the cause of self defense. Stop bickering over who's republican and who democratic, and look at the issue of the case. Are you willing to let the government take away your rights?

Quote:
Stepphen, you need to go back to school and study History. It was the standing army lead by Washington (Father of the country...) that defeated the british. Not the militia.

Thanks for brining in the Hitler and Stalin reference though, I was wondering how long it would take.
-Carl L

Carl, how sad it is that you know so little about the founding of our great nation.

The United States did not exist at that time. The only Army that was stationed in the Colonies was the British. Do you really think Washington took command of the British Army to defeat the British?

The "Continental Army" was nothing but the common citizen of the Colonies armed with his personal weapon. Also known as the Militia. Without these civilians with their own firearms, Washington would have had no one to lead and we would still be ruled by the Crown.

I brought up Hitler and Stalin because if you knew your history you would know that both favored gun control, and both killed millions of their own citizens who could not fight back. It's a scary bit of history I never want to see repeated here.

Why do you keep asking me that, low-life? are you obsessed with me? quit being a stalker, you freak

Posted by: Steve Hussein S | March 18, 2008 3:17 PM

Special ed dropout Stevie,

Is that the best you've got?

I'm really in you head now, huh?

Sign Up or Shut Up, sexually confused Stevie!

How can you idiots say that the constitution is NOT a living document and then in the same breath admit that there is a process built in for changing it? Hello!!! that is what is meant by the term "living document".

JPC... Nice partial quote on the second amendment. maybe you should read the whole thing. It says that "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."

Yes, and who has that right? The right of the militia? The right of the states? No, the right of the people.

Also, regulated as was in common usage in 1776 meant trained. A well trained militia. What good is a militia with lots of regulations, you need a militia with lots of training.

Finaly, when people talk about "living document", they are not talking about the ammendment process. If "living document" = "ammendment process", then I agree, we have a living document. You know and I know that is not what they mean when they say living document.

"A well-crafted pepperoni pizza, being necessary to the preservation of a diverse menu, the right of the people to keep and cook tomatoes, shall not be infringed." I would ask you to try to argue that this statement says that only pepperoni pizzas can keep and cook tomatoes, and only well-crafted ones at that. This is basically what the so-called states rights people argue with respect to the well-regulated militia, vs. the right to keep and bear arms.
— Bruce Tiemann

"For every "Bronson" scenario where the bad guys are thwarted by an armed citizen, there are ten incidents of mentally unstable people, angry spouses, road rage, children finding guns, where a needless tragedy"

In 2004, there were 29,569 gun deaths in the USA.

In 13 seperate surveys, there are between 800,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year.

So, what isn't working?

Clear intent? Didn't the 9th Amendment make the intent clear?

http://federalistblog.us/2007/12/understanding_second_amendment.html

Clear intent? Didn't the 9th Amendment make the intent clear?

http://federalistblog.us/2007/12/understanding_second_amendment.html

I'm really in you head now, huh?

Sign Up or Shut Up, sexually confused Stevie!

Posted by: John Hussein E | March 18, 2008 4:01 PM

you just keep coming up with pet names for me cause you can't actually speak to the issues. You're kind of like the ugly little fat kid that walks around breaking other kids toys and then laughs like Nelson. HA ha... nobody likes those people, ya know.

Why, tell me why I cannot protect my family from an invader in my own home!!

Posted by: Bruce | March 18, 2008 12:44 PM

Nobody is saying this. Way to distort facts. The argument is whether you can carry weapons in public spaces without restrictions.

Posted by: john | March 18, 2008 1:19 PM

Well if you had actually done some research on the case, Heller , you know the guy in District of Columbia v. Heller, is a security agent who carries a gun at work and applied with the district to keep it at home for self defense purposes (his gun by the way). This is EXACTLY what the case is about. Being able to buy and keep a firearm at home. Public places still require it to be in the open or a concealed carry license for those firearms NOT in the open... and this is not the issue at hand. Again Heller sued the district over not being able to keep his gun in his home for self protection. So again I ask, why, tell me why I cannot keep a gun in my home to protect my family!!

McCain is entirely right to defend our individual rights. Once the government is allowed to take the right to bear arms away, you can expect the rest of them to fall one by one.

Posted by: Jeff | March 18, 2008 12:38 PM

This is another reason why Republicans can't govern. Everything is black and white with them. It's all or nothing.

Jeff invokes the same old "slippery slope" argument you always hear from the NRA.

"If we let them regulate assault rifles, the next thing you know, they want to take away your hunting rifle."

or

If you have "waiting periods", the next thing you know, only criminals will be able to get guns."

It's all or nothing with you folks. Some regulation is needed to PROTECT the citizenry. Your government isn't going to kill you, you're going to kill yourselves (It's happening right now, and it's not just criminals that are to blame).

John D,

Do you even engage your brain before you write your nonsense?

d Jones, liberals do not espouse freedom, but they do espouse a government that is all powerful, one thst is cradle to grave.
Liberals believe the government should determine what we have and what we don't have, how much we should be paid and how much we should have taken away.
The comments from the Loons on the Left to get rid of the Constitution is proof that these folks are nothing more than Little Hugo Chavezes. They are not for freedom, they are not for America, they are not for Americans. They are against us and their lapdogs in the media are there to enable their cause to destruct the U.S. Plain and simple.

Posted by: John D | March 18, 2008 2:43 PM

Dyslin, who wants to allow the government to wiretap us without a warrant, Dyslin who thinks it's OK for government to mine our personal records without reasonable cause or Judicial review. Dyslin who doesn't value habeas corpus and approves of torture, Dyslin who celebrated the pardon of a government employee who outed a covert agent for telling the truth, says that "liberals are for all powerful government and giving up our constitutional rights"? My god, Johnny D., stick to the trade mags, you blabbering fool!

"If we let them regulate assault rifles, the next thing you know, they want to take away your hunting rifle."

First the left had to invent "assault rifles". The things they banned in 1994 were certainly not assault rifles. Now that it has an evil name, you can ban it. Next thing you know, your hunting rifle becomes a "sniper rifle" with "police officer bullet proof vest piercing ammo". Now that it has an evil name, ban it.

The left isn't the only one who plays this game, take "partial birth abortion" from the right. Give it an evil name, then it's ok to ban it.

"If we let them regulate assault rifles, the next thing you know, they want to take away your hunting rifle."

First the left had to invent "assault rifles". The things they banned in 1994 were certainly not assault rifles. Now that it has an evil name, you can ban it. Next thing you know, your hunting rifle becomes a "sniper rifle" with "police officer bullet proof vest piercing ammo". Now that it has an evil name, ban it.

The left isn't the only one who plays this game, take "partial birth abortion" from the right. Give it an evil name, then it's ok to ban it.

dt, so what you're saying is you trust the government, this government or any other, to fiddle with the Bill of Rights? I don't. That's why I see it as a slippery slope. It is.

The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote that document. Protecting the citizenry from ANY government that might come after they were gone. I, for one, am glad they did.

Seriously, what is next? A limitation on congress making laws against petitioning the government for redress of grievances? Or as we say today, lawsuit reform?

Or perhaps a change allowing congress to make a law abridging the people's right to peacably assemble to stop massive protests that cost businesses in Washington millions of dollars in lost business and productivity?

If you don't think opening this amendment up to interpretation is a slippery slope then you are kidding yourself.

Also, Obama and Clinton are always talking about how the campaign should be about the issues, well here's an issue lady and gentleman. Why is McCain the only one going on the record either way?

For a sampling of the founders thinking:
http://patriotpost.us/fqd/quotes.asp
then select "arms" as the category.

Note the first quote, which is clearly includes the "individual right" from the "Recommended by the Virginia Ratifying convention", it shows what is left out of the quote from the Federalist Blog, which is trying to argue the other way, and is therefore out of context:
"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state......"

How's that for intent? This was the precurser to what turned into the wording we are speaking of.

Yes Terry that quote does clearly show the intent of the founders...

"composed of the body of the people trained to arms"

I have no problem with wide gun ownership by people who are well trained in the use of fire arms. The problem now is we have all to many people with deadly force readily at hand who have no effective training and are as a result a menance to society. Gun owners should be required to go through as thorough a training and testing protocal as drivers. Unfortunately there are those, such as the NRA, who argue against even common sense requirements like that on gun owners.

Come on Jeff, doesn't the government already "fiddle" with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Isn't our right to free speech open to interpretation?

What about the protesters with the "Bong Hits for Jesus" sign in Alaska that the SC decided 5-4 against free speech on dubious grounds. Whether you agree with the opinion or not, it was a case of interpreting the bounds of our right to free speech.

And if the language of an individual's right to bear arms isn't ambiguous, why all the discussion over the years?

I haven't read all the comments, but I always thought "the militia" was meant to be the backstop that prevents a complete government takeover or military coup. The militia can't be the military or the police force. The militia is the ordinary, everyday, working Joe/Jane.

"So if we take the Constitution exactly as it was written at the time then the right to bear arms is limited to white males. They were the only ones guaranteed the other rights."

Posted by: Carl L | March 18, 2008 1:56 PM

Carl L:

Your argument is fallacious. We don’t have to take the Constitution as it was written when the bill of rights was added in order to understand that the Second Amendment still guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. The 800 pound gorilla in the room is the fact the Constitution - which has been amended over time – still contains the Second Amendment intact and unchanged.

A statute or constitutional provision is presumed to carry the same meaning from the time of its enactment until it is amended or repealed. When a provision is amended in some particulars and not changed in others, there is a presumption that the law was intended to remain the same where it was left un-amended, but changed with regard to the particulars of the amendment. The Second Amendment has never been amended. Therefore, one must presume it means the same thing as when it was first established – even if other Amendments to the Constitution expand the category of people who may enjoy rights.

Furthermore, I defy you to show me – in the body of the Constitution and the first 10 Amendments - where it says that only white males get to enjoy rights. Show me where it says (or ever said) that a newspaper can be shut down, or its copy censored, because it is owned or operated by women or minorities rather than white men. Show me where it says or ever said the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is guaranteed to all “the People” – except for non-whites and women. Where does it say that an ethnic minority or a woman can have his or her property taken without due process of law, or confiscated for private use, or even for public use without just compensation? Show me where in any of the qualifications clauses in Article I or II it says that only white men can serve as Representatives, Senators or the President. The word “man” in any statutory enactment – including written constitutions – is a generic reference to members of mankind, rather than a particular gender. Your rhetoric, in this regard, has run past its justification.

Moreover, the Constitution may be a “living document,” but not in the manner you seem to think. No act of Congress can change or supersede the Constitution. The Supreme Court said so in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177-80 (1803). Nor does the Constitution change from a lapse of time or longstanding practices at odds with its terms. That’s what the Supreme Court said in Waltz v. Tax Commission, 397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970), and a number of other cases. The Constitution itself, in Article V, explicitly spells out the procedure necessary to change the Constitution – which includes either the submission of the state legislatures, or congress, of an amendment that must be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures or State conventions. The explicit statement of a careful and deliberative procedure to alter the Constitution raises the presumption that all other methods of changing the Constitution are prohibited. [I.e. by the canon of construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius - which holds that “to express or include one thing implies the exclusion of another, or of the alternative.”] Were this not the case, then the entirety of Article V would be rendered null and void. (See U.S. Term Limits, Inc., et al. v. Thornton, et al., 514 U.S. 779, 793, n. 9 (1995), applying the “expressio unius ” rule to the Qualifications Clauses in Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and Art. I, § 3, cl. 3, of the Constitution.) In which case, the method of “amending” the Constitution chosen by psudo-liberals – i.e. merely stealing power or pretending that the actual words don’t count – is not constitutional.

BTW - the “living Constitution” language is not found in the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. It is an extrapolation of language from cases like Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101 (1958), which declared that portions of the Constitution, like the Eighth Amendment, are not static and must “draw . . . [their] meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” That’s all good and well for the parts of the Constitution that do not have any particular meaning apart from that which is supplied by history and context – like what is a “reasonable” search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment, what Process is “Due” under the 5th and 14th Amendment, or what constitutes “Cruel and Unusual Punishment” under the Eight Amendment. It is altogether another thing to apply that same logic to other portions of the Constitution which have concrete meaning, stated in unambiguous terms, and which do not similarly change with “evolving standards.”

Therefore, it is not legitimate simply to take a blue pencil and wipe out the Second Amendment. It is part of the Constitution, and must be given meaning according to the fair import of its terms.

The fair import of its first clause (e.g. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . .”) tells us that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to “to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of” militias. (See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939). This first part is known as a “whereas” or “preamble” clause – namely, a description of the purpose of the law, making general reference to its objects.

But what the prefatory/explanatory language does not do is restrict or make conditional the scope of the operative language found in the second clause. In fact, it is not permissible to restrict operative language in a statute by reference to its prefatory clause if the operative language expresses a broader proposition. (See, e.g. Huntworth v. Tanner, 87 Wash. 670, 676-77, 152 P. 523 (1915).) In this regard, it is notable that nothing in the first clause makes the exercise of the right defined in the second clause dependent upon the existence or regulation of a militia. To the contrary, the whole Second Amendment makes the existence of a well regulated militia dependent upon “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Historically, the point of the Amendment was to prevent the possibility that restrictions on possession and ownership of firearms would eliminate militias altogether – and not the other way around. That is why the second clause doesn’t say, “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;” or that, “the right of the State to have its militia keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It states plainly that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Second Amendment, like most other Amendments in the Bill of Rights, did not create a new right. Instead, it was designed to protect a pre-existing common law right from congressional abridgement. (See U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875).) Because it protects a pre-existing common law right, the common law as developed in England and America informs us of its meaning. (See Wilson v. Arkansas , 514 U.S. 927, 931 (1995).)

According to William Blackstone, the right of “personal security” under the common law embraced the right of every Englishman to defend his life and limb; and, as auxiliary to that right, to have suitable weapons for defense. (1 Wm. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, at pp. 128-130, 143-144 (London 1825).) Consistent with Blackstone’s observations, the common law courts in England held, prior to ratification of the Second Amendment, that a man had a right to “keep a gun” in his home for his personal defense. (See Mallock v. Eastly, 87 Eng. Rep. 1370, 1374, 7 Mod. Rep. 482 (C.P. 1744) [viewing the issue as “settled and determined” that “a man may keep a gun for the defence of his house and family . . .”].) Thus, the pre-existing common law right to keep and bear Arms was a right “personal” to citizens.

This was exactly the case in America up to the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. Even prior to ratification, Madison wrote in the Federalist No. 46, that a federal army seeking to oppress the country would face “a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.” This was because we had “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.” Nearly every State Constitution at the time included a clause protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Only the federal government had no such explicit restraints and, thus, there was a call for a Bill of Rights which included the right to keep and bear arms. Even the Court in Miller observed that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense . . .” and “that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” (Miller, 307 U.S. at 179.)

It follows, then, that, that the Second Amendment defends a personal right to keep and bear arms in order to insure the continued viability of militias. We can still have militias. There is no law or provision in the Constitution that says we can’t. Thus, in order to make those militias worth more than a glee club or chess consortium, we have the right to keep and bear arms. If you don’t like this, then write your State or federal representatives and ask them to put in motion the amendment process set forth in Article V.

Les,
Site me some of these surveys on "defensive" use of weapons. Do they include police use?, if so they are not applicable here. Personally I have a problem with any statistics whose estimates vary between 800,000 and 2.5 million. Second, in my entire life, of all the hundreds of people I know well, friends, family, colleagues, I know of not a single one who ever had to use a gun in self defense, EVER. I hear of such cases, occasionally, but I find the stats you mention (if they apply to individuals and not police, security guards, etc.) as very suspect. So, once again, show links to some of these 13 sources you mention.

Les,
Site me some of these surveys on "defensive" use of weapons. Do they include police use?, if so they are not applicable here. Personally I have a problem with any statistics whose estimates vary between 800,000 and 2.5 million. Second, in my entire life, of all the hundreds of people I know well, friends, family, colleagues, I know of not a single one who ever had to use a gun in self defense, EVER. I hear of such cases, occasionally, but I find the stats you mention (if they apply to individuals and not police, security guards, etc.) as very suspect. So, once again, show links to some of these 13 sources you mention.

It follows, then, that, that the Second Amendment defends a personal right to keep and bear arms in order to insure the continued viability of militias. We can still have militias. There is no law or provision in the Constitution that says we can’t. Thus, in order to make those militias worth more than a glee club or chess consortium, we have the right to keep and bear arms. If you don’t like this, then write your State or federal representatives and ask them to put in motion the amendment process set forth in Article V.

Posted by: John W. | March 18, 2008 7:40 PM

If the miliotia is to be viable it need tanks and shoulderb launcehed anti-airxcraft missiles. When will Walmart start carrying those John? I want to do my part. ASs muschy as I love my handgun, it won't do much good in a fire fight.

If you're serious about you judgement of the founders intent, it makes more sense to ban hand guns, and make stingers legal. Make the militia more thasn a glee club, trade in your shotgun for a RPG.

Posted by: John D | March 18, 2008 2:43 PM

More proof that Geographically Ignorant Dumb Dumb Little Johnnie Dyslin, "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood", is fully off his meds again.

* * * * *

If you're serious about you judgement of the founders intent, it makes more sense to ban hand guns, and make stingers legal. Make the militia more thasn a glee club, trade in your shotgun for a RPG.

Posted by: Kyle | March 18, 2008 10:12 PM

After all that, the best you can do is come up with ridicule? That’s pathetic. You can’t address the argument on the merits, so you resort to ridicule. Why not? After all, anyone who wants to make gun ownership a “right” has to be a knuckle dragging hillbilly, right? Your point is stupid, friend; just plain stupid.

If you don’t think personal side-arms have any place in a military conflict, go ask the Marines. They use them every day with great effect. In fact, they have a tradition of skill with them in battle.

Or, better yet, go ask your commie friends in Vietnam how effective a few poor peasants with AK-47s can be against a high-tech, well armed professional army with tanks and airplanes.

If you can find one, it might even be worthwhile to ask a member of the German Wehrmacht who participated in the invasion of Poland whether the Jews fighting for their lives in the Warsaw ghettos, armed with only pistols and rifles, made any difference.

You also ignore the history of the American Revolution in making statements like you have. We didn’t have the kind of heavy artillery the British had, but those rag-tag groups of patriots with their squirrel rifles did the trick.

You see, Kyle, your entire argument is nothing but empty ridicule. The historical record proves that citizens armed with rifles and pistols not only can make a difference, but have made a difference.

Oh, and Kyle, start using a spell checker. Your spelling mistakes are annoying.

If you can find one, it might even be worthwhile to ask a member of the "German Wehrmacht who participated in the invasion of Poland whether the Jews fighting for their lives in the Warsaw ghettos, armed with only pistols and rifles, made any difference."

John W, ask your friends at your next Nazi Rally about Warsaw, they can tell you the Jews in Warsaw were crushed completely and brutally because they had no effective response to german armored vehicles and superior firepower. You prove my point exactly.

"You also ignore the history of the American Revolution in making statements like you have. We didn’t have the kind of heavy artillery the British had, but those rag-tag groups of patriots with their squirrel rifles did the trick."

Get book on the American revolution after the Nazi Rally. You'll be fascinated to learn that the Americans had a whole lot more than squirrel guns. They actually had a large stock of heavy weapons early in the conflict. Both those weapons taken at places like Fort Ticonderoga, and supplied by the French.

I can't wait to see you and your gun nut buddies finally rebel against the government with your handguns and hunting rifles. You and you Tim McVeigh loving friends will be squashed like bugs.

For a sampling of the founders thinking:
http://patriotpost.us/fqd/quotes.asp
then select "arms" as the category.

Note the first quote, which is clearly includes the "individual right" from the "Recommended by the Virginia Ratifying convention", it shows what is left out of the quote from the Federalist Blog, which is trying to argue the other way, and is therefore out of context:
"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state......"

How's that for intent? This was the precurser to what turned into the wording we are speaking of.

Obama said the same thing recently.

As for what a "Milita" is as the Founders defined it; If you are over 18, you are in it!!!

dt,
here are some of the studies:
http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html

For example, a study by Galup in 1993, which did not count military or police uses came up with the number 1,621,377.

The LA times did a study in 1994, also excluding police and military, and they came up with the number 3,609,682.

License and register guns, like they do in Kanada? Sure. SO when the next socialist gets into power, the registration forms will be "unavaliable" and the annual license fee will be $10,000 per gun. That would be "reasonable" wouldn't it?

Kyle:

1. I am not a Nazi. Nazis were socialists. I am not. Nazis were in favor of diminishing individual rights. I am not. In fact, Nazis thought firearm confiscation was a good idea. I do not. To the contrary, the features of socialism, diminishing individual rights and gun confiscation seem to be features of you and your fuzzy friends in the (un-)Democratic Party. To thine own self be true.

2. You underestimate (as usual) the efforts of the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto against the German invaders. A few Jews with only a small cache of firearms and homemade weapons, and with NO formal military training, were still able to hold the German Army to a standoff in the Warsaw ghetto for two months. That’s longer than it took for either France or the rest of Poland to capitulate. It is a good example of how a small number of determined patriots, armed only with personal firearms, can withstand an numerically superior force. It is the same point I made with regard to the Viet Cong (which you selectively chose not to answer).

3. For the first full year, the American Revolution was fought by militias made up of local recruits toting their smoothbores or squirrel rifles, few with even the luxury of a bayonet. Militias ran off the British at Concord, and fought them to a bloody standoff at Bunker Hill. The U.S. Army came into existence in June of 1775, but only existed on paper for many months after its creation, and was so small that little could be done with it for a small time. Were it not for the poorly armed militia and whatever weapons they could steal from the British, the Revolution might have been crushed at an early stage, and we would all now be having high tea at 4:00 p.m.

And then you say stuff like:

“I can't wait to see you and your gun nut buddies finally rebel against the government with your handguns and hunting rifles. You and you Tim McVeigh loving friends will be squashed like bugs.”

That’s over the top. Nothing I wrote up to this point could begin to justify it. It just proves that you have bought into the whole progressive propaganda that gun owners are red necked, skin head rebels. Grow up. If you can’t do that, at least bring yourself to get over it.

1. I just wanted to follow your precedent of political name calling John. I'm as much a commie as you are a Nazi. Incidently, your first historical mistake is the old "the Nazi's confiscated guns" lie. Didn't happen. There had been very strict gun control in Germany prior to the Nazis comming to power as a result of the Treaty of Versailles. The Nazis actually loosened gun control regulations in 1938 (unless you were a Jew).

2. Get a history book and look up "Dorchester Heights" and "Fort Ticonderoga".

3. Wrong again. Get another history book. The Warsaw uprising lasted less than a month, and the Jews were completely wiped out. If that's your definition of success, you probably believe Iraq is a success too.

Now after you read those books, you can relax, go back to polishing your guns while watching "Red Dawn", and further fantasize about how you're gloriously going to overthrow the elected government of the United States.

Kyle:

1. The attack on Fort Ticonderoga was undertaken by Ethan Allen at the head of the Vermont militia (a.k.a. “the Green Mountain Boys”), and Benedict Arnold leading a detachment of the Massachusetts militia for which he had been appointed Major by the Massachusetts Committee of Safety. In short, it was a militia action. You are 0 for 1.

2. The fortification of Dorchester Heights did not occur until March 4, 1776, 11 months after the battle of Concord (April 19, 1775), almost 10 months after the capture of cannon by the militias from Fort Ticonderoga (May 10, 775), and nine months after the Battle of Bunker Hill (June 17, 1775) [all of which were fought by militias]; and not until nine months after the Army was created by an act of the Continental Congress.

Furthermore, Dorchester Heights wasn’t a battle. 1200 soldiers walked into Dorchester Heights without a fight. They then set up earthen works overnight and moved in the cannon that the militias had captured from Fort Ticonderoga. The morning revealed to the British in Boston that the American revolutionaries held positions that made further occupation of the city untenable. So, instead of attacking, they loaded up their ships and sailed to Nova Scotia. The next major military engagement in the Revolution didn’t occur until June 28, 1776, which was already more than a year after the opening of the Revolution. As such, I stand by my previous statement that the first year of the Revolution was fought by the colonial militias, and not the Army. You are 0 for 2.

3. The Nazis certainly DID confiscate firearms. On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, issued regulations prohibiting Jews from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. The same regulations required Jews to turn any such weapons over to the police. Those regulations were, in fact, used to justify the wholesale confiscation of weapons in the hands of the Jews. Even earlier, local police had declared Jews to be “untrustworthy” (a requirement of both the 1928 and 1938 for firearm possession). These rules and regulations were used to confiscate firearms from all those hostile to the National Socialist State, especially the Jews. BTW – I never said they confiscated firearms from everyone. I simply said they confiscated them, and that was correct. You are 0 for 3.

4. As for the length of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, its length depends on the dates one uses. The Jewish resistance had already begun in January of 1943, by killing Nazi collaborators. The last, definitive battle occurred on or about June 5, 1943. However, most historians choose the dates of April 19 to May 16, 1943 (which is where I got the idea of two months). Still, a small handful of resistance fighters, armed with less than 100 firearms, mostly pistols, and a bunch of Molotov cocktails, were able to hold German troops at bay for as long as they did. Even then, the Germans did not suppress the uprising until they resorted to destroying or burning out all of the buildings with flame throwers. You are 1 for 4, but the latter still proved my point. Besides, you still haven’t explained how the Viet Cong don’t also furnish an example of how small arms and a will to fight mean something.

5. I am not a revolutionary, I don’t plan on overthrowing the government, and I do not belong to any group or organization that has such a goal. I think the movie Red Dawn was (and is) stupid. But there you go again with this crazy idea that people who support the right to gun ownership to protect themselves are necessarily radicals of the same stripe as people like Timothy McVeigh. That’s just plain stupid. Sorry.

1. The issue wasn't militia actions, it was your completely false claim that the colonists had no heavy weapons for the first year of the war, when they did in fact. You are wrong, as is usual.

2. Again you lie about your own original statement. Let me quote it to you: "You also ignore the history of the American Revolution in making statements like you have. We didn’t have the kind of heavy artillery the British had, but those rag-tag groups of patriots with their squirrel rifles did the trick" Nothing about militias vs. regular troops, but a statement about the presence of heavy weapons. I think that arguement has been completely demolished, as has your pathetic attempt to change what you said.

3. You never mentioned the Jews in your original, blanket statement about Nazi confiscation of weapons. I'm glad to see that you are educating yourself a bit as a result of this exchange.

4. "of April 19 to May 16, 1943 (which is where I got the idea of two months)" Wow, your knowledge of math is even worse than your knowledge of history. I didn't think that was possible.

" Besides, you still haven’t explained how the Viet Cong don’t also furnish an example of how small arms and a will to fight mean something)"

I guess there are more books you need to read John. The VC had alot more potent weapons than small arms. The made great use of RPG's, landmines, and machine guns. Not to mention that as the war went on, the US increasingly fought regular army units of North Vietnam, since the lighter armed VC had been pretty well chewed up by the end of the Tet offensive by the better armed Americans and South Vietnamese forces.

Keep reading John, you may get past your deep historical ignorance yet. (Work on those math skills too).

Have fun on your next weekend with the National Guard. Support your local Militia!

Kyle:

1. Your ballyhoo about Nazi gun confiscation is genuinely disingenuous. You were the one who said, “‘your first historical mistake is the old "the Nazi's confiscated guns’ lie. Didn't happen.” You were the one who made an unqualified statement that it didn’t happen. I didn’t have to mention the Jews in my initial statement. I was making a comment about Nazis tactics, and not their specifics. In fact, Nazi gun confiscation was not limited to the Jews; they confiscated the guns of anyone they thought would oppose their efforts. You were simply wrong. Live with it.

2. Your insistence on the issue of cannon during the Revolution approaches the same level of disingenuousness. The various militia fought most of their battles without a single cannon for the first year. Those under Washington’s command, if my memory serves me, had but one cannon the entire time – which was used once in that interval to sink a British barge. In contrast, the British not only had field cannon, but also the use of ship borne artillery which they used with terrible effect. Battles as terrible as Bunker Hill were fought by militia without cannon against the British who had all kinds of it. They dealt with the weapon imbalance the only way they could: they took cover.

I found your examples of Ticonderoga and Dorchester Heights both confusing and misleading – if, by them, you were intending to give examples of battles fought with cannon. The campaign in which Fort Ticonderoga was captures was fought entirely without cannon. It was at Ticonderoga that the American rebels acquired cannon for the first time. But they weren’t used there. Furthermore, those cannon didn’t get back down to where Washington, the militias and the Army were at for quite some time. That’s because the forces that captured them decided to use them against another fort in Canada before bringing them back. Dorchester Heights was the first place those cannon were used within the American colonies– and they weren’t fired at Dorchester Heights either. Apparently, their display was enough to discourage the British.

So what if I was off by two weeks or less in estimating that the Americans were without cannon to use for the first year? The fact remained that the American Rebels fought a lot of battles against the British, getting by with only their rifles and tenacity, the vast majority of the time for most of that first year. Your pathetic examples are so much form over substance and nitpicking. The fact is that our forces did not fight the British at anything near parity of troop strength, discipline or equipment. If they hadn’t fought as hard as they had with the few weapons in their possession, and against such intimidating odds, the Revolution could well have been crushed. That is the essence of the point I made at the outset. The point is that winning or losing a battle depends more on the size of the fight in the dog, and not so much on the size of the dog in the fight.

3. As far as the Viet Cong are concerned, I know they had more than firearms. But it is a sick joke on your part to suggest that they had anything near the firepower that we had or that we could bring to bear at any time. They fought a very low-tech war against us, and there is no denying it. That’s why the kill ratio (us vs. them) was so lopsided in our favor. But that didn’t stop them from getting their way. They are a tenacious people who wanted their own country and were willing to sacrifice much to get it. It was that tenacity that allowed them to prevail, rather than anything near parity in arms.

4. Don’t talk about ignorance. Your’s is showing all over.

John, your historical ignorance is just to profound on too many subjects for me to bother arguing with anymore. I don't know if you are just making stuff up or you really believe this crap.

Just one more example, The colonial troops had two field pieces at Bunker Hill (actually Breeds Hill). That's why it was a threat to the British, the colonial cannon could threaten the ships in the harbor.

Here's a first person account from one of the gunners.

http://members.tripod.com/compmast/putnam/breeds.html

Here's a further refernce to the multiple cannon the colonials had at hand from the first day of the war.

http://books.google.com/books?id=xl4sAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=battle+of+bunker+hill+cannon&source=web&ots=EkDl6PXS2e&sig=2vuTPAJVKtY8rez1mbqGZnYrqKk&hl=en

If you had any real clue about the early Revolution you'd know that the primary objective the British had in going to Concord at the start of the war was to attempt to capture cannon the colonials had stored there. The colonials were afar closer to parity with the British in terms of equipment than you state. It wasn't lack of equipment that crippled them, it was lack of training and experience.

I don't really have the time or desire to refute your lies or clear up your ignorance anymore, which ever it is. When you actually know what you're talking about maybe we can try again sometime.

In the meantime put down your guns and READ.