Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

CCRKBA Attacks Proposed Gun Ban Policies In Washington And Chicago

January 5, 2010 by  

CCRKBA attacks proposed gun ban policies in Washington and Chicago Rounding off a busy year in 2009 campaigning for Americans’ constitutional rights, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) has condemned leading politicians in Washington state and Chicago for what they see as an attack on civil liberties.

First, it blasted Washington’s proposed ban on assault weapons, sponsored by three Democratic state senators, saying it shifts the blame for recent violent crimes from the perpetrators to law-abiding gun owners.

"Tens of thousands of Evergreen State citizens own the kind of semiautomatic sport-utility rifles and shotguns that these Democrat lawmakers want banned," said the organization’s chairman Alan Gottlieb, specifying that people use them for hunting, target shooting and competition, recreational shooting, predator control and home defense.

"For [the legislators] to demonize them and their firearms smacks of hysteria and social bigotry," he adds.

The organization has also criticized Chicago Mayor Richard Daley for spending resources defending a gun ban that it says will soon be declared unconstitutional, while he shuts down certain city services due to budgetary constraints.

The city is being sued by the Second Amendment Foundation, Illinois State Rifle Association and four individual citizens to overturn its long-standing handgun ban. The case is set to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 2, and a ruling is expected in June.
ADNFCR-1961-ID-19534517-ADNFCR

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “CCRKBA Attacks Proposed Gun Ban Policies In Washington And Chicago”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • James

    The Bill of rights is a restriction the people placed upon the federal government. Just as the First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law” obviously applies exclusively to the national government, so also does the Second Amendment’s “shall not be infringed.” Any federal law that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms would be unconstitutional.
    The right to bear arms is an inalienable right of every American citizen, by virtue of his birth here, and is not dependent upon any constitution for its existence. States have the power to regulate the right, but the federal government does not have such police power in the States.

    • JC

      Look What’s on the 2010 Tax Return

      Gun owners… look what’s on the 2010 tax return

      VERIFIED – TRUE by snopes.com

      http://www..snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp

      As if we didn’t have enough to get upset about! If you have a gun, I hope it isn’t registered!

      It begins … more Freedom gone … the right to protect yourself and your family gone! Now ALL GUNS must be listed on your next (2010) tax return!

      Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own. It will require fingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun. This bill was introduced on February 24, 2009, by the Obama staff. BUT, this bill will only become public knowledge 30 days after the new law becomes effective! This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act
      of 1986. This means that the Finance Committee has passed this without the Senate voting on it at all. Trust Obama? You must be kidding!

      The full text of the IRS amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage: http://www.senate.gov. You can find the bill by doing a search by the bill number, SB-2099. You know who to call; I strongly suggest you do. Please send a copy of this e-mail to every gun owner you know.

      Text of H.R.45 as Introduced in House: Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text

      Obama’s Congress is now starting on the firearms confiscation bill. If it passes, gun owners will become criminals if you don’t fully comply.

      It has begun … Whatever Obama’s “Secret Master Plan” is … this is just the ‘tip of the iceberg!’

      Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House. This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009.

      Even gun shop owners didn’t know about this because the government is trying to fly it under the radar as a ‘minor’ IRS revision, and, as usual, the ‘political’ lawmakers did not read this bill before signing and approving it!

      To find out about this – go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Goggle HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. You will get all the information.

      Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm – any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:
      1) It is registered
      2) You are fingerprinted
      3) You supply a current Driver’s License
      4) You supply your Social Security number
      5) You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing

      Each update change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25. Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.

      There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18. They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from cessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 years in prison.

      If you think this is a joke – go to the website and take your pick of many options to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any hunters in your family pass this along.

      This is just a “termite” approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense – chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it.

      This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not.

      Search Results – THOMAS (Library of Congress) “http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45>

      H.R.45: Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009
      -
      U.S. Congress – OpenCongress http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show>

      H.R.45: Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us) “http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45>

      Please copy and send this out to EVERYONE in the USA, whether you support the Right to Bear Arms or are for gun control. We all should have the right to choose.

      • c lee

        Whats going on JC I went to senate .gov and they say its not true. Then I looked at my 1040 and its not on there,whats going on.

        • J C

          Hey c lee, I’m hoping someone can disprove this. I’d really hate to think that it is in fact true. What I’m wondering though is this…
          By 2010 tax returns, do the mean the ones we’ll actully file in early 2011 for the previous fiscal year?

          Again, If anyone can help with either verifying or disproving this, it will be welcome information.

          • Tinwarble

            Hey JC,

            I just tried to find some info on HR 45, & from what I can tell it was a bill proposed in early 09, but I can’t find any info on it beyond around March 09. Even on the NRA site, the last news they had on HR 45 was posted on 3-17-09. Now I don’t no if it has been dropped on the floor, or if it’s on the back burner. I don’t know how reliable this site is but you can take a look at this: http://www.dailyamerican.com/articles/2010/01/05/news/local/news046.txt . Like I said, I don’t know anything about this site, so you may want to see if you can confirm this.

          • JC

            Thanks Tinwarble. If the article is valid (and it seems like it would be) then the story is half true and half false. There is no IRS amendment,(Declaration & fingerprinting) but the Blair Holt Act is a possibility.

          • Joe H.

            JC,
            It was on the news tonight on Fox and is scheduled to go into effect over the next few years!!!

          • JC

            Unreal! Well might as well spread the word if that’s the case. would you be able to reference a link to the Fox report?
            If everyone knows then everyone will do what comes naturally.

          • JeffH

            HR-45, The Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act would establish a nationwide system for prohibiting unlicensed gun-ownership. If approved, the law would require gun owners to apply for five-year licenses to own firearms, and would give the U.S. Attorney General broad authority over the program.

            This is a fringe bill with no co-sponsors that has virtually zero chance of becoming law.

          • JeffH
          • J C

            Good Info, thanks.

          • JC

            For those who are interested, some firearms related news -

            On Interpol:
            http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5284
            On the Chicago Supreme Court challenge:
            http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5285

      • JeffH

        SB-2099 – Senate Bill Requiring Federal Tax on Guns
        Take a grain of truth, sprinkle it with false and misleading statements, add a heaping dollop of paranoia, and what do you have?
        Description: Email rumor
        Circulating since: Sep. 2000
        Status: Outdated / False
        PLEASE NOTE: This is an old rumor dating back to September 2000 (see analysis and update below). No such bill was introduced in 2009.

        • JeffH
        • JeffH

          Now this is what I’m talkin’ about. This isn’t the only city open carry is exercised in.

          United States
          Open Carry Group Flex Right to Bear Arms over Coffee
          Contra Costa Times (California)
          5 January 2010
          LIVERMORE,Californaia — They brought their guns to downtown Livermore — to have a cup of coffee and demonstrate their right to literally bear arms. A group of more than a dozen people met at a downtown cafe Saturday afternoon, some of them had unloaded semi-automatic pistols holstered to their belts with their ammunition clips readily available. The demonstration was put on by members of the “open carry” movement. The… ( gunpolicy.org )

          Read More: Contra Costa Times (California)

          • c lee

            JeffH I live in Kentucky, here the law is every citizen of K.Y. has the right to bear arms openly, we dont uload our guns in fact mine a Taurus Millinium 45cal is always loaded with 10 in the clip and one in the mag. You also can cary cocealed if you attend an approved class on gun law and safety as well as firearms proficincy. I prefer to carry concealed however on occasion I carry open depending on where I am.

    • Earl, QUEENS, NY

      Not a pleasant thought. If states can regulate our 2nd Amendment right, doesn’t that also mean they can regulate the 1st Amendment, and other rights? Of course, we know our freedom of religion is already being suppressed on all levels of government. The sad reality is that liberal statists just don’t give a **** about the Constitution if it gets in the way of their leftwing morally bankrupt agenda. What we really need is to change some faces on the Supreme Court, and replace liberals with those who interpret what our founders intended rather than invent laws to the (liberals’) liking.

    • Jarhead1982

      JC Both those bills were unsponsored and died in committee.

      James

      You are basing your reasoning on the incorporation theory which is first morally wrong as the incorporation theory was based on the racist Jim Crow policies of the south, prior to and after the Civil War.

      Secondly, the Federal government is made up of citizens of the states. Who by virute of that birth right are also US citizens. There are no, and I repeat, no class of citizens defined in ANY state or federal constitution in the US. Therefore if a law only applies to the federal government, who is made up of state citizens, who are also US citizens, please explain how the US Constitution doesnt apply to EVERYONE James?

      • JC

        Thanks Jarhead. If nothing else, maybe posting it helped clear up some misconceptions.

      • Joe H.

        JC
        I misread your post. The gun registration part wasn’t mentioned just the new regs that anybody that charges to prepare tax forms must follow!!!

      • James

        Jarhead, basically, the U.S. Constitution created the Federal Government. Certain powers were delegated to it in Article I, Section 8. To assure that the national government would not misconstrue those powers to legislate over right, the Bill of Rights was just two years later in 1791. Rights are inherent and inalienable, they are not dependent on constitutions (state or federal) for their existence. All the Second Amendment says is that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, it is not the source of the right. All Americans had that right before the federal government was created by them.

      • James

        Jarhead, the U.S. Constitution created the federal government, in 1789, and delegated certain powers to it. Ths Bill of Rights was added, in 1791, in order “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers” to affect rights. (it so states in its Preamble.) “Its powers” refers to powers that were delegated to Congress. The Bill of Rights starts with “Congress shall make no law” concerning the five rights mentioned therein; the 9th Amendment says “The enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” and the 10th Amendment reminds Congress that “powers not delegated to the United States [i.e., the federal government] by the Constitution…are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
        That’s as simply as it can be stated. What’s not to understand? The 14th Amendment reads: “All persons born…in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Citizens of the United States are such as those citizens who reside in federal territories, such as the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller, which declared a D.C. ordinance violative of the Second Amendment affects similar ordinances in our federal territories, but has no effect within the States, it only affects citizens of the ‘United States’, not the citizens of a State, there’s a difference.

  • Huapakechi

    The reasoning is simple. No guns, no resistance. Ask any of the Jews, Gypsies, political dissidents, and the members of political or ethnic minorities butchered in the last century because they did not have the means to resist.

    Do I hear a liberal whine that “It can’t happen here”?

    I answer that it won’t, as long as the people refuse to relinquish their right to keep and bear arms.

  • Walter

    James, I would be interested in knowing what you mean by “States have the power to regulate the right,…”

    • DaveH

      I’ve seen James repeat that mantra since I started reading this site.
      The Fourteenth Amendment says this:
      “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.
      When the States signed on to the Union, the Constitution was their contract with the Federal Government. If you know about Amendments, you know they are difficult to pass. Ask yourself what they went to the bother of passing the fourteenth for, if not to reassert that the states needed to abide by the freedom guarantees of the Constitution.
      There is an issue currently before the Supreme Court on just that subject:
      http://www.gunowners.com/mcdonald.htm

      • AnhydrousBob

        I’ve been wondering about some things along the lines of federal vs state powers and hope to get some serious comments back.

        The Constitution was a document of Union and as such set up the 3 branches of the federal government and enumerated their powers specifically in an effort to LIMIT the federal powers. Then, the Bill of Rights (BoR)further limited the federal powers and even went so far as to say that anything not listed as federal was reserved to the States or to individuals.

        If I recall correctly, Jefferson did a lot of work in the state of Virginia to replicate the Bill of Rights for his state. Obviously, he recognized that the limits on the federal powers by the BoR did not apply to the powers maintained by the states.

        But originally, before the Union, was a state allowed to place any kind of limits on it’s citizens it chose within the allowances of it’s own constitution? Would this not include the right to control arms, or anything else? A state had those rights not relegated to the federal. Also, any State had the right to secede at any time – since it is not specifically covered in the Constitution, those powers are retained by the states.

        It seems to me that the 14th Amendment only empowered the Federal Government with more powers to regulate (force) the states than it originally had, interestingly enough under the guise of granting more “rights”. In their zeal to right the wrongs of slavery did our ancestors unwittingly open the door to more oppression by the federal government?

    • James

      Walter, Most states prohibit convicted felons and the insane from possessing a firearm, and this has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Last year Alameda County, California, passed an ordinance which put an end to the annual gunshow at their fairgrounds. This was challenged by Mr. & Mrs. Nordyke (who sponsored such shows) in federal court, as violating their right to bear arms. The federal district court disagreed and the Ninth Circuit court of Appeals affirmed. The Appellate Court, applying the 14th Amendment’s Due Process clause on its own, held that such an ordinance did not violate the “liberty” (which the Court held included the right to bear arms) of the Nordykes because it did not affect their personal right to bear arms. That case is now precedent in the Ninth Circuit.

  • Tyme_gypsy

    Wtih all due respect, James, you’re wrong about the states regulating firearms. “The State” as referred to in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is any government entity, not just the U.S. “Shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says (Funny thing about the Bill of Rights, being that way). It does NOT add the caveat “except by the several states”. The state can no more violate the 2nd Amendment than they can the 1st (religion/assembly/free speech) the 4th & 5th (search and seizure) the 14th (Due Process) the 9th & 10th (rights of the people over the powers of the states) or the 13th (Slavery). “The State” is everything from your city councilman to the imitation presidunce.

    • Joe H.

      Tyme_gypsy,
      Although I agree with you, there are several cities doing just that and getting away with it. L.A. for example, is breaking federal immigration laws everyday by being a sanctuary city and even ordering their cops not to arrest for illegal status!!! Now this is a conflict of interests as the cops are sworn to up hold the laws of the state and U.S.!!!!

      • c lee

        Maybe some of the good citizens of L.A. should find a couple of known Illegals and report them to police,and then set back and follow the case from beginning to end. If the illegals are not arrested and deported then bring a court action of deriliction of duty as well as treason against the indivigual officer. I hold no contempt against the officers because I used to be one, not in L.A. If someone doesnt take the bull by the horns this is all for knot.

        • Joe H.

          c lee,
          I’m beginning to wonder if there are any good CITIZENS left in L.A.!!!

        • JeffH

          Illegals are “hands off” in these United States, especially in Los Angeles where the DA’s in both local and state government have a “hands off policy”.

    • James

      Tyme, You are right about “shall not be infringed” meaning just what it says, but it does not apply to the States. Forty-four of the state constitutions have similar restrictions that the people placed upon their respective states. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights reads:
      “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.”
      “Abuse of its powers” refers to the just created federal government. That the Second Amendment applies exclusively to the national government has been upheld by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875); Presser v. Illinois; Miller v. Texas; and just last year in D.C. v. Heller, which re-affirmed those precedents.

    • Jana

      Tyme, I am not up on this but how come New York bans guns? How can they do this? I think it is wrong for them to do so because as we well know all of the criminals sure have no problems getting guns.

      • Tinwarble

        Jana,

        New York only has a ban on assault guns, unless they were grandfathered in before 1994. All though I feel this is wrong, the reason that Liberal judges & Liberal bureaucrats feel that if they don’t take all your guns away, then you still can arm yourself. They don’t feel that you should be able to arm yourself with what ever you want.

        • Jana

          Thanks Tinw. Now I know. I thought it was on all guns. Gotcha.

        • Joe H.

          Tinwarble,
          I heard there is even a town where you have to own a gun to live in the city limits. You have to attend classes to learn how to use it but you have to own a gun to protect yourself. They have a really low crime rate!!!

          • JC

            The town of Virgin, Utah is one such place.

    • James

      Tyme, suppose you live in Illinois and your state constitution reads: SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
      Subject only to the police power, the right of the
      individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
      infringed.
      (Source: Illinois Constitution.)

      Would you assume the Second Amendment takes precedent over that, that both apply to Illinois, or what?

    • James

      Tyme_, read my above comment of this date. The Bill of Rights restrictions apply exclusively to the federal government. That does not mean States are free to infringe on the right to bear arms to whatever extent they choose. State constitutions likewise restrict state legislatures, but they do have police powers over use of firearms. If one state citizen shoots another, except for self-defense, he will be arrested, charged with a crime, tried in court, fined and sentenced to some jail time. The federal government does not have such police power within the states, their police power is limited to federal territories.

  • http://msn.com pilgrim1776

    I just do not understand why people do not read the Constitution to realize, quite simply, that the government is responsible for the ten (10) miles square entitled the District of Columbia. They can do whatever they want with that restricted area.
    All of these so-called patriots should be arguing the fact that the Second Amendment clearly states, “Shall Not Infringe”, and that constructive, restriction both clearly and concisely prevents any form of governmental interference with the inalienable/unalienable Right to Bear Arms.
    Wake up and start arguing the correct principles!

    • James

      Pilgrim1776, You say the Second Amendment prevents any form of governmental interference with the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment has existed since 1791, it’s been here for 219 years. In that 219-year period, how many state gun-laws would you estimate have been held violative of the Second Amendment? 1,000? 100? If every state had violated it once, 50? How many would you estimate?

  • http://allnatural-springwater.com E. David Neutzling

    The old adage is true … no matter how its phrased. An armed populace is a group of citizens. An unarmed populace is a group of slaves.

  • DaveH

    Obama is doing his best to pack the Federal and Supreme Courts with anti-gun and judicial activists (those who believe the Constitution is a “Living Document” and can be interpreted by the judges for the “betterment” of society). We will have chaos if enough Federal Judges pursue that path. Remember that they are unelected officials with lifetime positions who do not answer to anybody.
    Here is one recently confirmed by the Senate:
    http://gunowners.org/a111209.htm

    • DaveH

      Here is how the Senate voted on the Hamilton confirmation. Notice that all but 2 of the Yeas (Lugar of Indiana, Republican, and Sanders of Vermont, Independant) were cast by Democrats:
      http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00350

    • c lee

      I say they can have all the supreme court justices they want that are anti gun but still the people would have to let them take the guns away because there are a lot of us out there I think you included that will not voluntarily give up their right to bear arms. You well know my stance on this issue as Ive said they will pry my guns from my cold dead hands, and they may very well do that but it wont change my mind to my last breath.

      • DaveH

        First though Lee, we need to take any semblance of “moral highground” away from them. Without the moral imperative they will have much less standing to attack a free people.

        • c lee

          You are absolutly right DaveH, its just that I get real defensive when corrupt people are trying to destroy the very document that I have given my life if nessesary and my blood as well as part of my body to protect. But that being said we must defeat them on their turf through the judicial process however I am a patriot so for me its any means nessesary.

        • Joe H.

          DaveH,
          I’ve just got one question. How the hell did Ms Jackson, a DEMOCRAT, get elected in TEXAS?!?!?!?!?!

  • Keith Allison

    You might also consider the following valid case law.
    1. Miranda vs. Arizona, (U.S. Supreme Ct.) 380 US 436 (1966) where it is stated: “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule in making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
    2. Sherar vs. Cullen 481 F2d 946 (1973): “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional rights.”
    3. Simmons vs. U.S., 390 US 389 (1968): We find it intolerable that one Constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.”
    4. Miller vs U.S., 230 F 486 at 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted to a crime.”
    5. Kelly vs. U.S., 379 F Sup 532: “When Constitutional rights have been violated, remedies for violations are not dependant upon fictionalized distinctions.”
    6. ID Louisville & N.R. Co. vs Schmidt, 177 US 230, 20 Sup., Ct, 620 44 L Ed 747: “In determing whether…rights were denied, we are governed by the substance of things and not by mere form.”
    7. Norris v. Baltimore, 172, MD 667; 192 A 531.0: “Where the meaning of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous, there can be no resort to construction to attirbute to the founders a purpose or intent not manifest in its letter.”
    8. Cooke vs. Iverson, 122, N.W. 251: “It cannot be assumed that the framers of the Constitution and the people who adopted it, did not intend that which is the plain import of the language used. When the language of the Constitution is positive and free of all ambiguity, all courts are not at liberty, by a resort to the refinements of leagal learning, to restrict its obvious meaning to avoid the hardships of particular cases. We must accept the Constitution as it reads when its language is unambiguous, for it is the mandate of the Sovereign power.”
    9. Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803: “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”
    10. STANDLER – Supreme Court of Florida en banc, 36 So 2d 443, 445 (1948): “The Bill of Rights was provided as a barrier, to protect the individual against the arbitrary extractions of the majorities, executives, legislatures, courts, sheriffs, and prosecutors, and it is the primary distinction between democratic and totalitarian processes.”
    11. sMITH VS. u.s. 502 f 2D 512 ca tEX (1974): “Government may not prohibit or control the conduct of a person for reasons that infringe upon constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.”

    NUFF SAID

    • jim

      The Bill of Rights is for ALL U.S. citizens, not just the ones who’s govorners or mayors allow it.

      • c lee

        Well said Jim Thank You.

    • c lee

      Nuff Said Keith, Thank You.

    • James

      Keith, Here’s some background on the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment in particular.
      In Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 247 (1833), Mr. Chief Justice Marshall said: “The [U.S.] constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states…the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states.” (Bold added.)
      In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), a mob of whites had disarmed two blacks (in Louisiana) and the issue was whether that action had violated the right of blacks to bear arms, and thus violated the Second Amendment. Mr. Chief Justice Waite said: “This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.” (Bold added.)
      In Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), Mr. Presser claimed that an Illinois Military Code provision (requiring state permits for parades, which he had ignored) was a violation of the U.S. Constitution and his Second Amendment right. As to the latter, the High Court said: “A conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.” (The Court cited Cruikshank as authority.) (Bold added.)
      In Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 537-8 (1894), Mr. Miller was indicted and convicted for murder in Dallas County, Texas, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had affirmed the conviction. At the U.S. Supreme Court, the issue was whether Miller’s Writ of Error was valid – not his guilt or innocence. The Court said: “We think there is no federal question properly presented by the record in this case, and that the writ of error must be dismissed upon that ground.” Then concerning Miller’s contention that a Texas gun-law had violated the Second and Fourth Amendments, the Court said: “We have examined the record in vain, however, to find where the defendant was denied the benefit of these provisions, and even if it were, it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts.” (Bold added) (The Court cited Cruikshank, and 5 other federal cases as authority.)

      Then, 114 years later, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ____ (2008), the Court cited and quoted Cruikshank, and reaffirmed all the above (in footnote 23):

      With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government. (Bold added.)

      • DaveH

        James, I don’t know what your angle is, but it doesn’t matter. Now, with the Internet, more people are aware of their Government’s shennanigans then ever before. It won’t be so easy for the Supreme Court to trample the citizens’ rights this time around:
        http://www.gunowners.com/mcdonald.htm

        • DaveH

          I don’t know why you even bring up 100 year old case law when the Supreme Court is not bound by precendent and there is a current case pending:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_precedent

          • JeffH

            Thanks DaveH, well states and so true. Lawyers will always be lawyers, no matter right or wrong.

          • James

            DaveH, You are shooting the messenger, my angle was simply to report what the U.S. Supreme Court has held from our beginnings. In District of Columbia v. Heller, less than two years ago, the High Court reaffirmed those precedents as still binding on the Court. An upcoming case (McDonald v. Chicago), I think next month, is yet another instance where a state’s city-ordinance was assumed to have violated the Second Amendment. The district and appellate courts held that it did not, we’ll see what the High Court says.

        • James

          DaveH, The Supreme Court didn’t trample on citizens’ rights, they upheld the constitutional restriction on the federal government. They upheld the intent of the Bill of Rights.

  • http://victorbarney@embarqmail.com Victor L Barney

    WAKE-UP AMERICA!

    THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS GONE!

    WE VOTED FOR IT: REMEMBER: I will make “FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE” IN OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT!

    WELL? IT’S OVER! CONGRATULATIONS AMERICA! DON’T WORRY:

    THEY CALL US AN “EDUCATED” PUBLIC, DON’T THEY?

  • Rod

    Have you heard the latest? o-BUM-a has signed an amendment to executive order ( I hope this number is correct), 12524. You will
    not even have a right to know what you are being placed under arrest
    for when interpol shows up at your door.

    This cuts it! The man is a TERROREST!

    • JC

      Rod, its getting where anytime a stranger or strangers come to your door you better have a loaded semi-auto in hand, and be ready to use it. Damned straight Obama is a terrorist and wanna be dictator.

    • Joe H.

      Rod,
      The original bill was passed June 16 1983 with restrictions to stop what you have said. Now O-man has passed an amendment dropping the restrictions!!! the Bill is 12425 and I forget the number of the amendment!!! This does do one thing. ANY HARM DONE BY THE LIFTING OF THE RESTRICTIONS IS ALL O-MANS BABY NOT BUSH!!!!!!

      • DaveH

        Here is an article on that subject:
        http://www.beaufortobserver.net/interpol.html

        • JeffH

          Everyone should go to this link and see what Obama has used his executive priviledges for…Interpol could run wild in America without interferance of our government. They should be concerned about the armed citizens though.

          • JeffH

            I just recieved an email today from the NRA-ILA, here is it’s link, with explanation, regarding the INTERPOL deal.
            http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5284
            a little excerpt:
            This means that articles on the recent order are incorrect in claiming that the order made INTERPOL immune from civil suits; INTERPOL was already immune.

            Some have also suggested that under the order, INTERPOL agents would receive diplomatic immunity, so they could violate Americans’ rights without fear of criminal prosecution. There are several misconceptions here.

            First, diplomatic immunity only protects diplomats, and the IOIA specifically says it does not confer diplomatic immunity on international organization employees.

        • Joe H.

          DaveH,
          this doesn’t really surprise me at all!!! This is O-mans underhanded way of trying Bush/Cheney even though when he ran, he said now is the time to look forward!!! If this isn’t a case of looking back, then I’m Julius Caesar reincarnated!!!!

  • Arkham Grundy

    Where does one draw the line on what weapons a private citizen may posses? Are howitzers, hand grenades, grenade launchers, anti-tank weapons, 50 calibre machine guns all okay? Does this extend to nuclear weapons?

    • JC

      “The right to bear arms”…define arms. Its just that simple.

      • Arkham Grundy

        isn’t that what the anti assault weapons people are trying to do? … define what is appropriate for civilians and what is appropriate for the military and law enforcement?

        • Ed Laurson

          vv

        • J C

          Indeed it is. And of course every argument for gun control is based on silly and emotional reasoning that has a zero bearing on reality.

        • DaveH

          The Second Amendment was designed to protect the Citizens from an out-of-control Government. So called Assault Rifles are nothing more than scary-looking semi-automatic rifles. Even with those, we would be severely out-gunned. Our only possible salvation would be that armed forces members would side with the citizens.

          • JC

            well Dave that’s the 64 dollar question isn’t it? The military swears and oath to uphold (defend?) the Constitution. Would they actually fire on Americans? Good Lord I hope not and I don’t think they would.
            I get the feeling that Janet Napolitano has the same thing keeping her awake at night and that’s why Veterans returning from over seas stand a really good chance of winding up on her “Security Watchlist” of potential threats.

          • Tinwarble

            Dave & JC,

            I feel your frustration & I know a lot of it is just venting, but I would say to anyone that armed revolts & military coups are not the answer. Not just because of the obvious reasons, but because history is full revolts & coups that don’t end well. You may fight for freedom but end up with a tyrannical dictator. Not that I am tell you what to say or not say, & not that I don’t have the same thoughts myself at times, but just remember that our forefathers suffered much more than we before they picked up arms against England.
            I will say as a Vet though, the military will always fall on the side of the Constitution & not follow any unlawful order. Our oath is to support & defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or DOMESTIC.

          • JC

            Hey Tinwarble, Yep! venting. I have no desire whatever to hurt, let alone kill anyone. Things would have to be pretty bad before…

          • Tinwarble

            JC,

            I know, just thought that it needed to be said. If something was to happen, we don’t need those Lefties, as they have done before, say it was because of those people over at personalliberty.com.

          • DaveH

            Tin,
            You are exactly right. Revolutions rarely end up well. They should be a last resort only against a lawless Government.

        • JeffH

          Define what an assault weapon is. Anyone can use a plastic fork as an assault weapon. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am not.

          • Claire

            JeffH–you are correct. My crowbar is my assault weapon and my can of mace. I think a person would pick up just about anything to use for assault if attacked.

          • Joe H.

            JeffH,
            not to nit pick but I think you two are mixing metaphors!!! My fist can be a weapon OF assault but I seem to remember where only a projectile firing weapon can be an assault weapon!!!

          • JeffH

            Joe H, I guess I better hide my compressed air potatoe shooter as it fire projectiles. Is it an assault weapon? I have an AR-15 that I just built to make it California legal and have already killed 2 coyotes here in the central valley of California. It has the same “appearance” as a standard AR, but is semi-auto only and limited to a 10 shot fixed mag, removed only with the use of a tool. Someone that has “gun ignorance”, like the anti-gun movement and their supporters, would immediately identify it as an assault weapon which it clearly is not. It is a modern hunting rifle, no more and no less. If I were criminal, then it can be used for other purposes. Is it then an assault weapon? The definitions, then, only support the mindset.

    • Jarhead1982

      This arguement is a strawmans arguement as the simple fact is, you have to be able to afford such a weapon, maintain, train, etc…..

      There are multiple people in the US that have quad .50 mounts, artillery, tanks, jet fighters all fully functional, but they have more money than they know what to do with it and can afford the cost to maintain, operate and fire these toys.

      All those weapons are class 3, e.g. restricted and if you can get a politician to sign off that you are trustworthy and responsible, you can acquire it.

      That is unless it is nuclear or biological agents. Unless you had a proper safety system and controls, you couldnt handle such materials unless you had a death wish. Do you have any clue what it would take financially and the training required to handle those materials safely? How many people would have that financial capability much less be trained to handle these materials?

      The sad things about those is that if you really consider who has ultimate control of the nuclear or biological agents in the US, our completely trustworty politicians (severe sarcasm) you should be more frightened of them.

      So unless you are one of those 1% that possess that type of income to afford such things, the reality is still economically, not many people will ever possess such a weapon. By the way, how many of that one percent actually own such toys?

      Henceforth why is it such a concern for such a small part of a non issue? AFterall, when was the last time a licensed class 3 weapon was used in a crime, oh yeah, it was owned by a police officer. So much for trusting the “only ones!

  • Claire

    That’s a laugh. Chicago wanting to ban guns.

    • J C

      They can’t of course actually make handguns go away Claire. What they can do though is turn every law abiding citizen into an easy target for criminals and political control. And that’s exactly what its all about. Hitler would be so proud.

      • Claire

        I made up my mind years ago that if I become a target of a gun-wielding idiot, I will go down in a blaze of glory. Somehow!!! Maybe have my 15 minutes of fame!! LOL!!! Serously, I have no sympathy for any criminal. They have a choice in life and that is all there is to it. I will protect myself and worry about it later. I have lived a good decent life and I want to continue, but if it ever came down to the nitty gritty, you know what I will do, and I will probably die trying.

        • J C

          Claire the idea is NOT to go down. That’s for the criminal to do. ;)

          • Claire

            Yes!! You are right! The criminal goes down first! I will do my best if confronted!!!

      • http://www.google.com/ Caiden

        Reading this makes my dicesinos easier than taking candy from a baby.

    • DaveH

      Claire,
      Chicago has banned handguns since 1982.

      • Claire

        O.K. I did not realize that. I should have checked. But none the less, people in Chicago still have handguns. People will get them regardless. All the murders they have, the guns are coming from somewhere.

        • DaveH

          That’s right. Gun laws only prevent the law-abiding from getting guns.

          • http://personalliberty.com Jessica

            There is and always will be a thriving black market for illicit firearms. In a place like Chicago, you can buy a fifteen hundred dollar semi-automatic rifle with scope for two hundred dollars. And if you catch that crackhead when he’s really hurting, you can get it for fifty.

          • Joe H.

            Jessica,
            that may be true, but don’t be stopped with it in your possession as for all you know, it may have been used to kill someone and now your prints are all over it!!!!!

  • http://myronjpoltroonian.blogspot.com Myron J. Poltroonian

    When I was stationed at Oberschleissheim, about 5 miles from both Munich and Dachau, West Germany from December of 1960 through June of 1962. I was the Battalion Public Information photographer for the 8th Transportation Battalion, Lt. Helicopters. One of the things I did while there was photocopy about 40 or so black and white photographs of the liberation of that death camp. The naked, emaciated bodies depicted were not distinguishable by faith, just a common fate – a merciless death – even though some still drew breath, they were amongst the walking dead. While I would love to see the “Silent Majority” rise up as they did in the election’s of 1980/84 and then again in 1994. (That one did a lot of good two years later, didn’t it.) I said it during the Clinton administration: “It’s coming.”. That was during the Janet Reno/Jamie Garelick “Actions” to “Save the Children” at Waco, Texas (by killing them), and at Ruby Ridge, Idaho (by killing a mother with a babe in arms in order to capture someone who may (repeat, may) have violated the minimum rifle barrel length by 1/16th of an inch). To what “It” was I referring? The revolution by Americans to return our country back to it’s constitutional roots. Now, much to my sad recognition, the “Bloodless Coup” has not yet been confronted by the “Non-Bloodless Counter Revolution”. Am I happy over this apparent inevitability? Hell no! Am I resigned to it’s inevitability? Sadly, reluctantly, disgustedly, I’m beginning to see no other way out of this decent into Fascism. Benito Mussolini would be proud of GE, PHILLIPS, GENERAL MOTORS, CHRYSLER, (or anything run and/or funded/controled by George Soros) et al, and their conjoining with big government to curtail competition from their competitors. God preserve us. He knows the current administration won’t. I say that as a not overtly religious man. But I am “An American” who firmly believes in the founding principles of our country, first, last and always. Always aim just below the helmet. No matter what color it is. According to a dear friend of mine: “Paranoia is what they call perceptivity, before you’re proven right”.

  • Earl, QUEENS, NY

    About 17 years ago, Rush Limbaugh spoke at an NRA convention in Nashville, suggesting that if liberals read the 2nd Amendment the way they read the rest of the Constitution, gun ownership would be mandatory for everyone. Sound familiar?? YES!! That’s exactly what we’re seeing today – leftwing liberals using the general welfare clause to try to force Government Health Care onto us!! DONT let them get away with this!! LET’S BE MORE AGGRESSIVE!! We should advocate, based on the exact words of the 2nd Amendment, that all able-bodied civilians be required to own firearms for the security of a free state. And if the leftwing liberals don’t like it….well that’s too bad!! Liberals need to learn to differentiate rights vs. obligations forced unto citizens!! We’ll properly interpret and respect the Constitution when the leftwing statists do likewise!!

    Finally, if our founders were here today, they surely would assert the importance of the 2nd Amendment, especially with the worst Congress and administration of history in power!!

    • Tinwarble

      Earl,

      Yes, I have heard the old “welfare” line before, that’s just how ignorant Libs are. First “welfare” doesn’t mean you are getting a check in the mail & Second, that is in the Preamble, not the governing body of the Constitution.

      • DaveH

        Tin,
        It’s in Article 1, section 8, which says:
        “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”.
        http://www.cato.org/pubs/constitution/article1_en.html

        This is unfortunately vague and obviously could be interpreted to mean the Federal Government can pass any laws they want, which I doubt seriously was the intent of the Founding Fathers.

        • J C

          Alexander Hamilton used the “General Welfare” clause to all kinds of interpretations. From a central bank to Federal taxation. (Whiskey rebellion) Having seen what could be done with that clause the CSA under Jackson deliberately left that clause out of their Constitution.

        • Tinwarble

          Yeah, sorry about that Dave, forgot about that. However, the confusion about the “general Welfare” is because we try to apply today’s meaning of the word “welfare”. Where as if you look at an old dictionary, the oldest that I could find is 1828, & as it applies to states (as the Constitution says “….of the United States”) means:
          2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace & prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society & civil government; applied to states.;
          and not,
          1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health & the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.;
          because the Constitution doesn’t say “….of the citizens of the United States”.
          And it most certainly doesn’t mean:
          1 : the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity
          2 a : aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need b : an agency or program through which such aid is distributed;
          as describe in today’s Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

  • Arkham Grundy

    Rush Limbaugh is an egomaniacal hate monger who believes in nothing but his own aggrandizement and will say anything that appeals to what he believes are his base followers.

    • DaveH

      So, Arkham, if somebody is stepping on your neck, you love them?

    • Jana

      Arkham, It sounds like you are the one spewing the hatred.

    • Tinwarble

      Now Arkham, what did Rush ever do to you, did he make you ears bleed? You know, if you don’t like Rush there’s a little thing on the radio called a dial, you could use it & not listen to him. Did you just come here so that you could bash Rush, so that someone might talk to you? You know there’s plenty of Lefty sites were you can do that all day long & have people agree with you. You must really love Conservatives & Libertarians just to come here to try to save our souls from that evil Rush or maybe your just a closet Conservative or Libertarian & you’re having a hard time coming out. Well, if you start to have withdrawls just go ahead and go back to your Lefty websites & fill up on those Liberal ideas then come back & we’ll help you get though that 12 step program.

      • Arkham Grundy

        I am hardly a lefty… i just find Rush revolting.

        • Tinwarble

          So, Rush is revolting because he says what he believes & he does it with passion. Come on, your a Lefty or you just haven’t heard Rush. If you aren’t a Lefty why are you regurgitating the Liberal criticisms about Rush’s body language.

        • JeffH

          Do you find Pelosi refreshing?

    • JeffH

      Arkham Grundy
      Rush’s base followers are known as “ditto heads”. Don’t like him, your choice. I don’t like our current political climate and our current political administration, my choice. That is the wonderful part of it, choices, not forced at all. I can have a part in changeing the polital situation, but as far as “Rushbo’s” popularity and listening audience, he is way to popular and his ratings are way to high. Don’t expect any changes soon on hat one.

  • Ed Laurson

    I agree with mr Grundy. The pro-gun folks want any weapon they can fit into their house or car. Most folks who stockpile weapons have a sinister agenda.Whether on the left or right.

    • Jana

      Ed, You must be projecting your own thoughts on others, as it is legally and mentally impossible for you to know who has sinister thoughts or not. If you truly do know, then we need you to start working at an International Airport.

    • Claire

      Ed: Perhaps only if they stockpile enough for an army, then I would maybe think something is going on. But, my husband and I will keep the guns we have, what we have is sufficient for us. MY big problem is WHY doesn’t Homeland Security go after the creeps that belong to organizations that contemplate thoughts of evil? Why do they continue to go after the average decent American that causes NO HARM to anyone and only want protection for themsleves? Don’t put me in the sinister category of stockpiling weapons with thoughts of doing harm to America.

      • Joe H.

        Claire,
        This isn’t just to you, but I wanted to get it across! You guys talk about the evils of having to register your weapons, but what are you doing when you talk about them here? None of you know if this site is on some list with the government to monitor!!! I won’t mention mine here again!! Bet on that!!!!

        • JeffH

          Jor H., just a thought. If this is monitored by the givernment, which I believe it is, “screw them and the horse they rode in on”.
          The Obama administration is probably more concerned about you and I, the harmless little peons that are bent on keeping America free, than the Elite power and wealth mongers that have visions of a “One World Order” or the terrorists that threaten every American every day from now to eternity.
          My guns are legal and they “WILL” protect me, my family and my great American friends from anyone that attempts to seperate them from me, whomever that may be.

    • Tinwarble

      Ed,

      I have to disagree with you, pro-gun folks don’t want any gun that will fit in our car. Some of us would like a gun that would mount on the top of our car. Just think about it, who would cut you off in traffic with a mini-gun strapped to the hood. I’m pretty sure with that set up carjackers would have a second thoughts. I just don’t know what gas mileage I would get though.

    • Joe H.

      Ed,
      There are collectors that have hundreds of working weapons. Are they sinister, contemplating destruction? If collecting is bad, then you better go after those evil stamp collectors as they have thousands and thousands!!!

    • DaveH

      So Ed,
      What is the sinister agenda that would drive you to deprive people from defending their lives? I consider the Liberal gun-haters to be accessories to the murders of all victims who might have been able to defend themselves if not for the gun-banners.

      • DaveH

        And you know, Ed, that regardless of how many guns a person owns, they rarely can use more than one at a time.

        • J C

          True Dave, but in an emergency, one may arm his friends and neighbors.

          • c lee

            Ive got a lot of friends and family that cant afford their own guns so I have plenty to go around just in case. I know I could depend on them if they had a gun so I make sure they do.

    • JeffH

      Mr. Ed and Wilbur…because you don’t particularly like guns, those of us that do are sinister and have bad things planned. Has anyone ever forced you to go around or purchase a gun? Probably not! If you don’t like guns, by all means don’t get one. That is your choice, but do not tell me I can’t have one! No matter what my intent is, as you don’t know. Typical comment!

    • J C

      People who stockpile firearms are generally aware of the Sinister Agenda in place to subjugate them. That’s why they stockpile in the first place. Now throw in the fact that this latest administration is showing open disdain for our Constitution and liberties and you will understand better why people stockpile. Some of us have actually learned something from history.

  • eddie47d

    I personally don’t care who owns a gun. Unfortunetly not all gun owners are responsible and certainlynot all weapons dealers give a hoot about who owns a weapon. Almost all gun deaths in NYC come from illegal guns bought in the Carolinas. Pretty easy pickings I’d say. 85% of weapons found on captured druglords and dealers in Mexico came from the USA. Most illegally bought from gun shops in Arizona. These gunrunners should be spending many years in prison;plus for complicity in spreading the drug wars.But they never will. Guns can be used for good and for evil and the laws should reflect that.

    • DaveH

      And what should we do with the Drug Warriors themselves who bear the main responsibility for all the violence? Without the Drug Laws most of the Drug Related Crimes would disappear as the price of drugs plummeted. We have enriched the most evil segment of society (the Drug Lords) with our misguided Drug Laws. And money is power. Just what we need, evil people with lots of money. Have the laws worked? I say no. There is more drug usage now then there was before all the Drug Wars. When I was in junior high (early 1960s) my friends knew nothing of drugs. Then the do-gooding-controllers started their Drug Wars and the kids were soon all atwitter about the different kinds of drugs they could get. The Drug Warriors did little more than give free publicity to the Drug Trade. And the kids loved it, because, after all, that is one of the big thrills with drug usage – pissing off the authorities.

      • J C

        Its all about authority, money and control Dave.
        Here’s a little video that touches on the subject,
        (very tongue in cheek) ;)

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRPxN7DGy5c

      • Tinwarble

        Dave,

        Like I have said, I agree with most of your points, probably 90 to 95% & hate to disagree with you, but that is not completely true. I ask you to take a look at this study:
        http://monitoringthefuture.org/pressreleases/07drugpr.pdf
        which, I know is a 2007 report, but it’s most current that I could find. Also, I am not saying that this has anything to do with the “War on Drugs”, however, from what I can see from the report, at least with teens, they are choosing to use the easier get prescription drugs & over the counter drugs.
        Also, this is more of a recent article:
        http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2009/1214/Report-marijuana-prescription-drug-use-up-among-teens
        I know that this says that the decline seems to be due to parents & the education of the danger of drugs, but I don’t think that makes a good argument for legalizing drugs. I am pretty sure that my dog wouldn’t eat my cat, but I wouldn’t dangle the cat in front of her to see if she might take a bite.
        As to the Drug Crimes, I know from experience (because when I was younger & worked for my parents at their convenience store one tried to hold me up) that drug-heads are not the most stable or reliable people. They usually don’t have or keep a job & they will do what ever it takes to support their habits. As long as there are drug-heads there will be drug crimes, but (to get back to the gun thing) I also know from experience, that if you pull a gun on them they tend to run the other direction.

        • J C

          Tinwarble, combine the idea of legalizing drugs with a “no retreat” gun law. I say the Darwin theory kicks in and in about 6 months you’d see a dramatic drop in crime of all types. Not to mention the crazier users of hard drugs would soon be invisible if they were still alive.
          Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating drug use….but as far as I’m concerned if someone wants to sit in a closet with a crack pipe I really couldn’t care less…until they break into my house. It’s all about choices. If that’s the life they choose…well that’s just too bad.

          • Joe H.

            J C,
            That would be fine if after they burn out their mind and sit in the corner filling their pants cause they have no control over their bodily function, we didn’t have to support them with medical, psychological, and supplemental care!!!!

          • J C

            Good Point Joe. But I offer you another thing to ponder…
            What would cost the avarage American taxpayer less? Taking care of the those “poor mindless unfortunates” or waging the unwinnable never ending drug war and all the fallout thereof?
            I don’t really have the answer myself, but I tend to believe that the loss of liberties and the costs of the “war on drugs” would outweigh taking care of the few…
            That and I believe that over time there would be fewer drug users simply because the thrill (doing something illegal) would be gone and the profits would be gone.
            I also tend to believe that the unwinnable war is just another soap box for political smoke and mirrors so we can “think” they are actually doing something for us. (They’re not.)

          • Tinwarble

            JC,

            Sure, if all things were equal, then yes, by all means let the drug-heads sit in a corner and burn out. But what the 80 yr. old grandmother that gets beat up & robbed by the drug head to support his habit. What about the children, theirs or others, that get hurt because of the drug-heads use. If in this world good always triumphed over evil then yes, your point would be valid. You should also think about this, do you think that prostitution should also be legal, want about in states where the age of consent is under 18, should those minor girls be allowed to sell themselves into prostitution? To say that everyone should be allowed to just do what ever they want isn’t freedom its just anarchy. Our forefathers gave us a government that was pushed to the edge of anarchy, but not to over the line.

          • Joe H.

            JC,
            I agree with you most of the time but I disagree that there would be fewer users. What about the people that don’t take a chance because they don’t want to go to jail, but now that it’s legal…..? Take the kids that don’t drink a drop till they are 21 then become alkies!!!

          • J C

            Fair enough guys. I still don’t think we’re getting much bang for our buck in the unwinnable war on drugs, but you have some valid concerns and I respect that.

    • JeffH

      eddie47d you have bought into the “Bloomberg” mindset. Every example you have presented is inaccurate and complete fabrication. Check your facts at http://www.nraila.org or Gunowners of America if you want real facts and not fairy tales.

    • J C

      Actually, “most” of the guns being used in the drug wars in Mexico arrive from Eastern European countries via South America. The myth that they come from the US is promulgated by gun control advocates to further their agenda within the US.

  • Tinwarble

    eddie,

    You are right, not all gun owners are responsible, just as not all drivers are responsible. Both are deadly in the wrong hands, but can you say who well do something stupid with either. You will never stop criminals from having guns, no law will ever stop that, however, you can arm yourself & hope that if it came down to you or the criminal, & your gun didn’t make the criminal think twice, you would be the deadlier draw.

    • J C

      It’s pretty easy to guage a person’s moral compass on where they stand on gun rights. Morally speaking, I have a perfect natural right to defend myself, my property and the Constitution our country was founded on. I do not need a law that tells me so.

    • Claire

      Tinwarble–very good point.

    • J C

      If the idea that guns are dangerous is what drives the gun control morons, then we could make the same argument about motorcycles and steak knives. Thing is, the government doesn’t feel threatened by a steak knife, so don’t look for any logic there…
      Its about control…not guns, not safety.

      • jim

        ain killed Abel with a rock. I wonder if Eve tried to get Adam to start some rock control laws. Gun control- The ability to hit the target.

  • Arkham Grundy

    Turn off the sound sometime when you are watching Rush… note his body language. You’ll see what I mean.

    • Joe H.

      Arkham Grundy,
      What does body language have to do with it anyways? Do you hear what the man says or do you turn a deaf ear to his words because you don’t like his body language? If you do that, you better not watch O-man!! He’s so stiff and angry in his body language that you would swear he’s mad at the whole world!!! His body says “Do what I say or else”!!!!

  • James

    What everyone here seems to agree on, is that every American has the right to bear arms, and that no government should infringe on it.
    The bone of contention, is to whom does the Second Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” apply? I have introduced conclusive evidence that it applies exclusively to the national government, to which no one will agree. I have asked how many states may have violated it, and no one responded. I will now make an offer, I will give $1000 to anyone who can prove, by state or federal court records, that any State law has ever been held violative of the Second Amendment.
    If no such case can be found, then all must admit that the amendment does not apply to the states. It’s time to put up or shut up!

    • Joe H.

      James,
      I would say that ANY law that has been overturned by the SC has done exactly that!!!! keep your money!

      • James

        Joe H., The Supreme Court justices aren’t gods. Their role is to determine whether a federal law has exceeded the powers that were delegated to it, in Article I, Section 8. The Supreme Court power to hear cases is enumerated in Article III, Section 2, and two of those were removed in 1795 by the Eleventh Amendment, as a result of the High Court’s decision in Marbury v. Madison.
        The High Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller, held that a District of Columbia ordinance had violated the Second Amendment. That decision only has effect in federal territories.
        If a state law has violated one’s right to bear arms, the appropriate venue is a state court, not federal. All High Court decisions on the scope of the Second Amendment have upheld that.

      • James

        Joe H., this is about the Second Amendment, not ‘any law’.

    • Tinwarble

      James,

      Your assertion that no court has upheld that states do not have the right to regulate gun ownership is mute. The argument isn’t about what courts have ruled, through judicial activism or because of how a case was argued, but what the Constitution says. By your assertion Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld states rights to segregate schools would still be upheld & never be overturn by Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. The courts do not always rule using strict interpretation Constitution & use their own ideology to make rulings. But if you take the Constitution by how it is written, then it does not give the states the right to prohibit any gun ownership & prohibits any infringement. Unless you are saying that you think that before the finding of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, that states did have the right to segregate schools.

      • James

        Tinwarble, I believe you meant ‘moot’. Yes, on rare occasions the Supreme Court has reversed itself, and ‘Plessy’ is an example, there the Court held that “separate but equal” was constitutional, then reversed that in Brown v. Board. That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
        The High Court has never reversed its holdings on the Second Amendment. The amendment is a restriction that states placed upon the federal government, it is not the right itself. The right to bear arms existed before the national government was created. Such rights are inherent, they are not dependent on any document for their existence. Calling the right to bear arms a ‘constitutional’ or ‘second amendment’ right, is where the confusion arises.
        Nor does the right depend on state constitutions for its existence. If a state law has violated one’s right, that’s a state court matter.
        No court, state or federal, has ever held that a state law has violated the Second Amendment. In fact, the only law ever held to be violative of that amendment was the D.C. ordinance in D.C. v. Heller.

  • David Wickwire

    The rights are granted by our creator and not given to us by the Government. The rights to bare arms can not be taken away by the State or Government. If it can take away one right then it can take away all our rights. The Constitution is the law of the land and all public officials swear to uphold the Constitution. It is not a living document if is was then it would not be a right but a idea, the Constitution does not say should or belief but they are God given rights. Case close no State can be denie or rights.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.