The Right To Bear Arms

[Nosmo King]

are you crazy??? social welfare programs amounted to a near genocide against the black family. The men went to jail and the women gave birth as very very poor single mothers.

Show me. Prove it. Incontrovertibly and with genuine evidence. Because that argument has been made by every Conservative pundit without proof.

too stupid!!! Read "Losing Ground" all the numbers are laid out at book length!!

The fool liberal didn't notice that the black family was destroyed by welfare????

What planet were you on????

Opinion.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Show me. Prove it. Incontrovertibly and with genuine evidence. Because that argument has been made by every Conservative pundit without proof.

too stupid!!! Read "Losing Ground" all the numbers are laid out at book length!!

The fool liberal didn't notice that the black family was destroyed by welfare????

What planet were you on????

Opinion.

too stupid!! "Losing Ground" is a scientific book, not an opinion!!!

 

[expatriate]

are you crazy??? social welfare programs amounted to a near genocide against the black family. The men went to jail and the women gave birth as very very poor single mothers.

Show me. Prove it. Incontrovertibly and with genuine evidence. Because that argument has been made by every Conservative pundit without proof.

too stupid!!! Read "Losing Ground" all the numbers are laid out at book length!!

The fool liberal didn't notice that the black family was destroyed by welfare????

What planet were you on????

I bet you buy into his book, "The Bell Curve", too...don't you, Ed?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

A statist and a liberal are too different ideologies, just like conservative and libertarian are. Moderate is another ideology.

True.

Liberals have consistently advocated for the rights of individuals and restriction of the state, such as privacy rights with regard to abortion, equal protection rights concerning same-sex couples, and due process rights for minorities and immigrants.

Actually liberals use Government to influence and control the rights of others through a system of "what's best for the majority", not the individual. They try to grow and place more responsibility upon the role of government to control the needs of the whole. No where in that do I find the "individual" placing that responsibility upon themselves whether they are to succeed or fail based upon their OWN decisions they make, without outside influence or power placed upon "Government" and its place to subject their will upon others for the sake of the needs of the MAJORITY. It's a system where there is a desire for more increasing government control and intrusion over the interests of its people, rather than a smaller government system which relinquishes the need for more power and hands that control back over to the individual person. A less intrusive government where the individual must suffer the consequences of their OWN choices they make, and "LEARN" to grow based on their own experiences rather than simply allow government to provide for them.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Show me. Prove it. Incontrovertibly and with genuine evidence. Because that argument has been made by every Conservative pundit without proof.

too stupid!!! Read "Losing Ground" all the numbers are laid out at book length!!

The fool liberal didn't notice that the black family was destroyed by welfare????

What planet were you on????

I bet you buy into his book, "The Bell Curve", too...don't you, Ed?

Daniel Patrick Moynihan
The Negro Family: The Case for National Action
Office of Policy Planning and Research, United States Department of Labor
March 1965
3
"In too many cases, if our Government had set out determined to destroy the family, it couldn't have done greater damage than some of what we see today. Too often these programs, well-intentioned, welfare programs for example, which were meant to provide for temporary support, have undermined responsibility. They've robbed people of control of their lives, destroyed their dignity, in some cases -- and we've tried hard to change this -- encouraged people, man and wife, to live apart because they might just get a little bit more to put in their pockets."

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A statist and a liberal are too different ideologies, just like conservative and libertarian are. Moderate is another ideology.

True.

Liberals have consistently advocated for the rights of individuals and restriction of the state, such as privacy rights with regard to abortion, equal protection rights concerning same-sex couples, and due process rights for minorities and immigrants.

Restriction of the state when they want to socialize the economy????
That's restriction of the State????????????? No liberal can be that slow!!!

Clayton is the king of slow and proud of it!!

 

[expatriate]

too stupid!!! Read "Losing Ground" all the numbers are laid out at book length!!

The fool liberal didn't notice that the black family was destroyed by welfare????

What planet were you on????

I bet you buy into his book, "The Bell Curve", too...don't you, Ed?

Daniel Patrick Moynihan
The Negro Family: The Case for National Action
Office of Policy Planning and Research, United States Department of Labor
March 1965
3
"In too many cases, if our Government had set out determined to destroy the family, it couldn't have done greater damage than some of what we see today. Too often these programs, well-intentioned, welfare programs for example, which were meant to provide for temporary support, have undermined responsibility. They've robbed people of control of their lives, destroyed their dignity, in some cases -- and we've tried hard to change this -- encouraged people, man and wife, to live apart because they might just get a little bit more to put in their pockets."

Can't you just answer the question I asked you?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I bet you buy into his book, "The Bell Curve", too...don't you, Ed?

Daniel Patrick Moynihan
The Negro Family: The Case for National Action
Office of Policy Planning and Research, United States Department of Labor
March 1965
3
"In too many cases, if our Government had set out determined to destroy the family, it couldn't have done greater damage than some of what we see today. Too often these programs, well-intentioned, welfare programs for example, which were meant to provide for temporary support, have undermined responsibility. They've robbed people of control of their lives, destroyed their dignity, in some cases -- and we've tried hard to change this -- encouraged people, man and wife, to live apart because they might just get a little bit more to put in their pockets."

Can't you just answer the question I asked you?

never read Bell Curve , sorry

 

[Lakhota]

The 2nd Amendment will continue to be limited over time.

 

[Lakhota]

State and federal courts and legislatures have repeatedly rendered the 2nd Amendment obsolete - including SCOTUS. The 2nd Amendment is nothing but a fossil from 1796.

 

[Contumacious]

Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible. Both are subject to vast interpretation.

.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible. Both are subject to vast interpretation.

Both are attacked by people who can't change them so they try to quibble them away.

 

[Lakhota]

I love the OP.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I love the OP.

Of course you do.

This is a lie...

...but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders...

... as Heller contains no such text.

 

[PaulS1950]

The second amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms, it mearly states that government must protect that right which comes with life as a human.

 

[American_Jihad]

 

[Lakhota]

A distinguished citizen takes a stand on one of the most controversial issues in the nation

By Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States (1969-86)
Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990, page 4

Let's look at the history.

First, many of the 3.5 million people living in the 13 original Colonies depended on wild game for food, and a good many of them required firearms for their defense from marauding Indians -- and later from the French and English. Underlying all these needs was an important concept that each able-bodied man in each of the 133 independent states had to help or defend his state.

The early opposition to the idea of national or standing armies was maintained under the Articles of Confederation; that confederation had no standing army and wanted none. The state militia -- essentially a part-time citizen army, as in Switzerland today -- was the only kind of "army" they wanted. From the time of the Declaration of Independence through the victory at Yorktown in 1781, George Washington, as the commander-in-chief of these volunteer-militia armies, had to depend upon the states to send those volunteers.

When a company of New Jersey militia volunteers reported for duty to Washington at Valley Forge, the men initially declined to take an oath to "the United States," maintaining, "Our country is New Jersey." Massachusetts Bay men, Virginians and others felt the same way. To the American of the 18th century, his state was his country, and his freedom was defended by his militia.

The victory at Yorktown -- and the ratification of the Bill of Rights a decade later -- did not change people's attitudes about a national army. They had lived for years under the notion that each state would maintain its own military establishment, and the seaboard states had their own navies as well. These people, and their fathers and grandfathers before them, remembered how monarchs had used standing armies to oppress their ancestors in Europe. Americans wanted no part of this. A state militia, like a rifle and powder horn, was as much a part of life as the automobile is today; pistols were largely for officers, aristocrats -- and dueling.

Against this background, it was not surprising that the provision concerning firearms emerged in very simple terms with the significant predicate -- basing the right on the necessity for a "well regulated militia," a state army.

In the two centuries since then -- with two world wars and some lesser ones -- it has become clear, sadly, that we have no choice but to maintain a standing national army while still maintaining a "militia" by way of the National Guard, which can be swiftly integrated into the national defense forces.

Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing -- or to own automobiles. To "keep and bear arms" for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; "Saturday night specials" and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles.

Americans should ask themselves a few questions. The Constitution does not mention automobiles or motorboats, but the right to keep and own an automobile is beyond question; equally beyond question is the power of the state to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. In some places, even a bicycle must be registered, as must some household dogs.

If we are to stop this mindless homicidal carnage, is it unreasonable:

1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?
​

These are the kind of questions the American people must answer if we are to preserve the "domestic tranquillity" promised in the Constitution.

More: Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger in Parade Magazine

Chief Justice Burger was a smart man.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I have a right to bear and use arms.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Are a majority of anti gunners criminals? Have they done something criminal to lose their right too keep and bear arms?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Nope, they're people that want the government to rule us.