See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On March 18th, 2008 at 8:54 am, tre said:

   I hope the court will side with gun owners. However, I also thought that it would side on the right of free speech in McShames “Campaign Finance Reform” bill. I thought it would side with the right of property owners in the Kelo decision. And, I never thought it would site foreign laws, and treatys that were never ratified here in making decisions.
   So, I just don’t know. But I can pray.

2. #2
   On March 18th, 2008 at 8:55 am, ACHefty said:

   It’s a very simple thing. Interpret the Amendment the way an English teacher would. Use the subject/predicate breakdown. The right … shall not be infringed. Thus, the “militia” is moot.

3. #3
   On March 18th, 2008 at 8:56 am, ACHefty said:

   The difference between CFR and Amendment II is clarity. McShame-WhatsHisName was full of sludge. The Second Amendment is as clear as day.

4. #4
   On March 18th, 2008 at 9:13 am, NeoConNews said:

   This can go very well, or it can go disastrously. I’d like to think the 2nd amendment issue at its core is long decided, but you know what they say about assuming things.

5. #5
   On March 18th, 2008 at 9:28 am, Rusty said:

   Although I’m an advocate for sensible gun control (background checks, registering guns, closing the gun show loopholes), the gun control laws in DC are beyond the scope of “reasonable” gun control.

   As I’ve said many a time, it would be one thing if DC’s handgun ban actually prevented violent crime. It doesn’t. With no benefit to the people making the laws, the Court should always err on protecting the people’s liberties.

   So I’d be disappointed if DC won this case.

6. #6
   On March 18th, 2008 at 9:43 am, Brent said:

   This is going to be mighty interesting and I’m praying the judges make the right decision, that it is an individual right. It makes no sense why all the other rights would be indivdual rights, but not the right to bear arms.

7. #7
   On March 18th, 2008 at 9:44 am, radio relay said:

   I’m hoping they affirm the 2cd Amendment in favor of lawful citizens of this country to arm themselves for personal protection. However, I’d bet a dollar to a donut that the SCOTUS cuts the baby in half.

   They’ll leave D.C.’s ban on hand guns in place (citing local preference… kinda like pornography), but rule against D.C.’s requirement that owners must request permission from Big Brother to move legally owned long guns from room to room in their own homes, and that they be completely dismantled.

   There is heavy pressure on the SCOTUS to rule in favor of D.C., not only from gun banners within our own boarders, but also from the international organizations like the U.N., and from gun banning countries like Britain, and Australia, which have taken firearms away from their citizens and left them at the mercy of the criminals.

   There is also a lot of powerful support for lawful citizens to be allowed to possess firearms for personal protection. The NRA being front and center, but also many other gun rights groups scattered across the country…. Not to mention the obvious wording of the Constitution.

   I think the SCOTUS will try to please everyone, and thus please no one.

8. #8
   On March 18th, 2008 at 9:53 am, mattymatt10 said:

   There can be no sensible gun control laws because gun control makes no sense to begin with. A criminal, by definition, is someone who breaks laws. The idea that more laws will stop someone who breaks laws in the first place makes no sense. Gun control serves only to remove guns from those who are law-abiding in the first place, thus making them helpless victims to the trash that make up the criminal element of our society.

   And the whole idea of a “militia” right is ridiculous as well. When the colonists rose up against the British in Lexington and Concord, they didn’t sign up with their regiment and were then issued a gun. They brought their personal firearms with them. The idea that men who fought a war with their own arms (until France finally began sending supplies) would restrict that right only to states and militias, when guns were used not just for war but daily food gathering, is just stupid. Really, really stupid.

   At any rate, I lost faith in any member of government anywhere to not have their head way up their rear end a long time ago. I don’t believe anything good will come from the court on this one, either.

9. #9
   On March 18th, 2008 at 9:53 am, Dimsdale said:

   From an article by Larry Elder, circa May 15, 2002:
   (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27640)

   Even some noted liberal professors admit the obvious. Harvard’s Laurence Tribe says, “The 14th Amendment, which makes parts of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, reflected a broad agreement that bearing arms was a ‘privilege’ of each citizen.” Fellow Harvard liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz agrees, and scolds fellow liberals for twisting the words of the Second Amendment in a way that could come back to haunt them. “Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming that it’s not an individual right or that it’s too much of a safety hazard,” said Dershowitz, “don’t see the danger of the big picture.” He added, “They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.”

   Tribe, “Harvard Law School’s liberal lion,” embraced a more individual rights view of the Second Amendment than he had before in the latest (1999) edition of his book “American Constitutional Law,” and liberals cried. And sent Tribe hate mail. LOTS of hate mail: “I’ve gotten an avalanche of angry mail from apparent liberals who said, ‘How could you?’” Tribe says. “But as someone who takes the Constitution seriously, I thought I had a responsibility to see what the Second Amendment says, and how it fits.”

   They can’t accept that their beliefs can be deeply flawed. They should be wary: what can happen to the Second Amendment can likewise happen to the First, or any, of the amendments.

   You can’t just change the Constitution because you don’t like parts of it. But the flawed and illogical “thinking” of liberals makes them suppose they can.

   Prof. Lawrence Tribe notes, “The people’s ‘right’ to be armed cannot be trumped by the [Second] Amendment’s preamble.” Nor can the government pronounce the militia dead and then decree that the right to bear arms is archaic. He thinks the Second Amendment assures that “the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification.”

   There are literally millions of gun owners in this country, not all NRA members or conservatives either (even Rosie O’Donnell’s body (ick) guards use them!). This could really tick them off, and make a huge political shift in the country towards conservatism.

10. #10
    On March 18th, 2008 at 9:56 am, Vic said:

    I don’t even know why they’re holding oral arguements; the case is already decided.

    Remember folks, the same five liberals who completely disregarded the Constitution to give us Kelo v. New London are still sitting on the bench.

    The Second Amendment is toast.

11. #11
    On March 18th, 2008 at 9:57 am, tniles said:

    Regardless of how the SCOTUS rules, and I do think they will rule in favor of an individual’s right to own guns, the battle is far from over. We have to insure that the next POTUS will not trample our rights in this arena. Even though I’m not a supporter of McCain and I didn’t vote for him in the primary. I fully intend to vote for him in the general election. Staying home is virtually the same thing as casting a vote for Obama or Clinton, and we know what will happen to our rights if they get into office. I will try to look at my vote for McCain not so much as an endorsement of him, but more of a cancellation of some moonbat liberals misguided vote for McCain’s opponent.

12. #12
    On March 18th, 2008 at 9:58 am, graysonret said:

    Keeping in mind, their history on questionable decisions and the reasons given, I would not be surprised to find them going against the amendment; quoting some obscure comment from John Hancock, back in 1760 sometime. Don’t laugh. They’ve used a Jefferson letter, and European law for its understanding of Constitutional law, as well as looking out for friends.

13. #13
    On March 18th, 2008 at 9:58 am, Boomer said:

    Many of the SCOTUS rulings of the 19th Century were in favor of the right to bear arms as an individual right. I have to thank last month’s NRA 1st Freedom magazine for that information. I hope and pray they will fall back on these previous decisions and continue our individual right. The founding fathers were right to be weary of a central tyrannical government after freeing themselves from the chains of the oppressive British Government. They did not trust a large standing army and relied on the militia (every able bodied male old enough to properly use a firearm) to protect their freedoms in case of aggression from foreign enemies or a tyrannical and arrogant government (much like the lying crapweasels we have in our government today). I am very nervous about this ruling and what it will do to this right that shall not be infringed. Here’s praying it goes the way of the responsible citizen.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE

14. #14
    On March 18th, 2008 at 10:10 am, RealImmigrantChick said:

    IT all depends on how Kennedy goes. The libs will likely be against gun ownership as an individual right or at least say the Wash law is a reasonable restriction (which will in effect kill the 2d amendment), the conservatives will rule the correct way, so it all depends on Kennedy. How scary. I come from a communist country where gun rights were almost gone. It was a scary thing. Let’s hoe this country does not go further down the road to commie-hood.

15. #15
    On March 18th, 2008 at 10:12 am, Larraby said:

    Not directly on point to the SC arguments but I have to wonder why groups like the NRA don’t mention how important gun ownership in Israel has been to stopping terrorism and saving lives. Just look at the last two terrorist attacks: Last month in Dimona, Israel, two terrorists entered a commercial business to blow themselves up. The second guy was killed by an Israeli bystander who was armed. How many innocent people were save by this? Probably about 30. In the terrorist attack on the religious seminary last week in Jerusalem, the terrorist would have killed 30 or 40 just like at Va Tech except that an Israeli guy who was armed and nearby came in and killed the terrorist before he could do more carnage. Granted, Israel does not have the social pathologies that exist here, particularly in the inner cities with gang worship, but it is still a pretty reasonable argument to make. And most people can relate to it. In Israel law abiding citizens can and do have arms and it is very helpful in stopping terrorism. If a Colin Ferguson got on a train in Israel, somebody would be armed and would shoot the thug down.

16. #16
    On March 18th, 2008 at 10:14 am, On-my-soap-box said:

    At least a comic strip can get it right even if DC can’t (or will not).

    Mallard

    The Second Amendment is toast.

    Let’s just pray this decision (when it goes against the 2nd Amendment) will be contained and not spread. Alas, we have idiots who want to arrest the POTUS so, this may get out of hand – quick.

17. #17
    On March 18th, 2008 at 10:15 am, tarpon said:

    The Bill of Rights is on trial, does it mean what it says it means, or is it what the liberals say it means. I wonder why they call it the “Bill of Rights”.

18. #18
    On March 18th, 2008 at 10:35 am, bloghooligan said:

    Rusty, don’t worry. DC won’t win this case.

19. #19
    On March 18th, 2008 at 10:35 am, jenmom said:

    I am also nervous about how SCOTUS will rule. As far as checks and balances go in the govt – who is making sure SCOTUS is doing what they should do? There have been plenty of poor decisions from SCOTUS throughout its history.

    It seems clear to me that the 2nd amendment is an individual right. Anyone who has studied constitutional law should also agree. But once personal feelings get in the way, some people want to change the Constitution’s meaning.

20. #20
    On March 18th, 2008 at 10:42 am, DBNinKY said:

    On March 18th, 2008 at 9:43 am, Brent said:

    “It makes no sense why all the other rights would be individual rights, but not the right to bear arms.”

    I agree!

21. #21
    On March 18th, 2008 at 11:01 am, JonR said:

    If you read the Federalist Papers to try and understand what “Well regulated militia” really meant, you will come to the conclusion that this meant every able-bodied man. Each and every one! They did not mean the National Guard, they did not mean the Continental Army, they meant each and every able-bodied man that could take up a firearm in defense of his home and country. As for the crap of “the dead hand of the past”, that “dead hand” has guided this country for over 200 years quite within reason thank you. To pick and choose what parts of the Constitution we want to adhere to and what we don’t is a travesty and an affront to all of those people that have defended this country for so long.
    SCOTUS needs to grow a pair and finally define the meaning of the Second Amendment. The founding fathers did not put it after Free Speech as an accident. They put it there to protect the freedom of the United States against tyranny and individual protection. The need for such protection still stands today. Even more so in my opinion! We cannot let the government or any other special interest group turn this nation into a collection of defenseless sheep. Like the UK and Australia. Disarming law-abiding citizens flies in the face of any and all reason and logic.

22. #22
    On March 18th, 2008 at 11:25 am, Dandapani said:

    “MOLON LABE”, or in today’s vernacular: “FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!”

23. #23
    On March 18th, 2008 at 11:40 am, desertdweller said:

    From the WSJ assessment,

    Now even the District asserts the new theory that, while this right is individual, it is “conditioned” on a citizen being an active participant in an organized militia. Therefore, whoever wins, Heller won’t be based on a “collective” right of the states.

    This would be about the worst thing that could happen. If the “collective rights” argument is not presented, it can’t be put down, and the whole issue will have been side stepped.

    The Anti-Gun Industry will then remain in business, arguing there is no court precedent against their “collective rights” argument.

24. #24
    On March 18th, 2008 at 11:42 am, Chuck said:

    I expect them to quote the European Union and the U.N. when they strike down the 2nd Amendment. Why not? They’re doing it for everything else.

    As each year goes by, I wonder more and more why I served in the U.S. military. It sure as hell wasn’t for this version of America.

    chuck in st paul
    SSgt. USAF ’62-’70

25. #25
    On March 18th, 2008 at 11:53 am, Boomer said:

    On March 18th, 2008 at 11:42 am, Chuck said:
    As each year goes by, I wonder more and more why I served in the U.S. military. It sure as hell wasn’t for this version of America.

    I know how you feel right now with my own service and continued service as a civilian. It sure isn’t for the money.

    Boomer
    SMSgt, USAF, Retired 1975-2000
    GS-9, DAFC, 2001-Present

26. #26
    On March 18th, 2008 at 12:15 pm, Mommaofmany said:

    We appreciate your service, Men. Thank you from the bottom of this Momma’s heart.

    I am praying for the SCOTUS’ decision, and lifting up my head, for my redemption draws near!
    Luke 21:28

27. #27
    On March 18th, 2008 at 12:17 pm, SpeakEasy said:

    This issue is the one most likely to cause a permanent rift in the US, as much or more so than the issue of slavery. Americans will not give up their weapons peacefully. If I am ordered to confiscate weapons from civilians by my command, I will refuse on the grounds that it is an illegal order (the Constitution that I swore to defend being the highest order)and I suspect many others will as well. I will further retire from the military and start stock-piling ammo for the fight to come.

    For the retired service members, (soon myself included), by being retired, you are still a part of the “militia” so this would protect your rights in any case since you are all subject to recall as a condition of your pension.

    “Gun control is a slow, steady trigger pull.”

28. #28
    On March 18th, 2008 at 12:29 pm, zorro said:

    I’m thinking we a better than even chance that we “the people” will prevail in this case. Just a feeling.

29. #29
    On March 18th, 2008 at 12:30 pm, zorro said:

    The above should be “we have a better than even…”

30. #30
    On March 18th, 2008 at 12:52 pm, The Raging Republican said:

    Shall not be infringed.

    Seriously!

    Can someone please tell me how our gun rights have NOT been infringed! The NRA should never have allowed things to go this far. Unbelievable!

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Gun control means using two hands when you shoot!

31. #31
    On March 18th, 2008 at 12:52 pm, Hercules said:

    Yeah, ZORRO, I have a ‘hope’ but not a ‘feeling’ about this. I don’t trust the SCOTUS to actually uphold the Constitution anymore.

    This is why I think the Conservatives who are either not going to vote at all or vote for a ‘Third Party Candidate’ ( no one who matters ) miss the big picture when they say McCain is ‘not Conservative enough’. There are going to be some SCOTUS appointments in the next cycle.

32. #32
    On March 18th, 2008 at 12:59 pm, The Raging Republican said:

    On March 18th, 2008 at 9:28 am, Rusty said:

    Although I’m an advocate for sensible gun control (background checks, registering guns, closing the gun show loopholes),

    Rusty-

    Good to see you on the Right side of the isle on this one.

    To address your misguided view on “gun show loopholes”: Its a myth!

    “Gun show loopholes” refers to the ability of private citizens to sell their own privately owned firearms at gun shows. The problem here is that this is more or less the first step to anti-gun nuts saying that law abiding citizens couldn’t sell their privately owned guns anywhere as a private firearms transaction.

    The bottom line here is that there is no such thing as a “gun show loophole”. Criminals don’t go to gun shows to buy their guns. This is just a deceptive way to close down guns shows all together. A recent report by the U.S. Department of Justice surveyed inmates in state and federal correctional facilities and asked them where they got their guns. 40% said friends and family, while another 40% got theirs via street buys and other illegal sources. 0.7 % got their guns from gun shows. (Source: Guns & Ammo Magazine, June 2007 Issue) In addition, any gun dealer who has a Federal Firearms License to sell firearms (Which is about 95% of the individuals selling guns at gun shows) must still comply with all provisions of the gun control act which includes performing a required background check and filing out all the federal forms required no matter if the sale is at a gun show or at their gun shop.

33. #33
    On March 18th, 2008 at 1:17 pm, radio relay said:

    Chuck… .Right on, Bro!

    I have the same thoughts. The America I fought for forty years ago, isn’t this version.

    I feel so sorry for the WWII Vets that are still alive. My Dad was a three war Veteran (WWII, Korea, and Vietnam) and career Army. My Dad also taught me how to shoot and to respect firearms. He died in the 1975….. God bless him, and thank God he can’t see this mess!!!

    The SCOTUS better do the right thing and protect the Constitution!!

34. #34
    On March 18th, 2008 at 1:18 pm, SHoward said:

    Just to add some to The Raging Republican’s commments on gun shows:

    The old loophole was that a private person could procure a table in a gun show and sell to whomever passes buy, just like a dealer could. Florida closed that one some time ago.

    Also, you can no longer wonder around with your rifle on your shoulder and a “For Sale” sign on your rifle. You effectively have to find someone looking for something by accident and meet them in the parking lot. Most private persons wouldn’t sell to sleeze-buckets or kids anyway.

    BTW: Gun registration never stopped a bad guy either, Rusty. But I know you’re not an anti-gun nut.

    I can’t wait to find out what I can’t do here in the People’s Republic of Kalifornia when I go to my first gun show out here.

35. #35
    On March 18th, 2008 at 1:26 pm, JamesLee said:

    Judging simply on the questions asked during oral arguements, the Justices are seeming to come down against the DC Ban, on the idea that it totally bans an otherwise-legal class of arms, as well as the long gun restrictions (trigger locks, disassembly, etc), going with the idea that the handgun ban does not allow you to “keep” and the others do not effectively allow you to “bear.”

    Still listening to it, but I’m starting to get a little warmer feeling here.

36. #36
    On March 18th, 2008 at 1:44 pm, Speakup said:

    Shall not be infringed. The Founders were damned serious in their provision to preserve our individual rights to defend life, property and liberty.

    The impudent vanity of current social conditions cannot compare to the forthright genius of original Constitutional law.

37. #37
    On March 18th, 2008 at 2:00 pm, iowavette said:

    The fact that law-abiding people such as myself have high-powered arms close at hand gives pause to large-scale foreign incursions, even as it did during the revolutionary war. One can’t speak for the Northeast or the West Coast, but the heartland and the South are positioned to protect themselves.

38. #38
    On March 18th, 2008 at 2:13 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    From Trinity United Chirch of Christ bulletin March 16 “To Do Justice” page (Emphasis mine):

    In this school year, 17 children have gone to school and not returned home. In this school year, 17 children have left their parents, not knowing that they would never return again. This year alone, 17 children have been killed by gun fire. These are 17 people who could have shaped the future of our city, community, nation and world. These are 17 lives senselessly taken. As part of an effort to cease the killing and value the lives of the children, Father Michael Pfleger has instituted two initiatives which prayerfully will slow down access to guns, and force the state legislature to pass common sense gun laws.

    1. Within 24 – 72 hours after a child is murdered, a response team will rally from 11:00 a.m. until 12:00 noon at the Thompson State of Illinois Building, demanding that state legislators pass gun legislation.

    2. Every time a child is murdered, if there is no known suspect, a $5000 reward will be put up for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the shooter.

    If you are interested in participating in either of these initiatives, please call the Faith Community of St. Sabina Church at 773-483-4300.

    ACTION ITEMS
    1. Boycott Wal-Mart & Sam’s Club

    Thought for this wek:
    “I believe the children are our future…” — George Benson

    Seems like the TUCC church wants to ban guns and stores that sell guns because, as you know, guns used in murder are often purchased in Walmart. SHEESH

39. #39
    On March 18th, 2008 at 2:16 pm, letget said:

    If the court rules we can not own guns, does that mean gangs, drug dealers, etc. have to give up their guns too? Of course not. When citizens are armed to protect themselves, robberies, thief, etc. goes down. I do not plan to give up my guns, and most legal gun owners won’t give up theirs either.
    L

40. #40
    On March 18th, 2008 at 2:24 pm, SHoward said:

    letget,

    That’s why you don’t register them, if you can help it. Once they know what you’ve got, all they have to do is pass whatever they want and show up to collect your private property.

    They also would likely search for anything else they don’t think you should have……

    /sarc on — Now if we could only convince those poor, downtrodden gang members to register theirs, why we’d be able to get ‘em all off the street, wouldn’t we…../sarc off

41. #41
    On March 18th, 2008 at 2:52 pm, rotarymunkey said:

    Any IDIOT can read the 2nd Amendment the right way! Jeez! “Well-regulated” only applies to “militia”, and is the ONLY thing in the amendment that the Federal Gov’t has the right to regulate! Period. The second phrase eloquently and succinctly states, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    Translation: the GOVT has the right and obligation to maintain a well-regulated militia (police depts, National Guard, Armed Forces, etc) in order to protect our freedoms, BUT our right to keep, and more importantly, BEAR ARMS (meaning in public, in private, and damn well anywhere else we want) shall NOT be infringed.

    Will there always be crime? Yes. Will those criminals always use whatever means available to them to commit crimes. That’s why they’re called “law-breakers”. Would they start to think twice about knocking off the local convenient store if they knew there was a good possibility that they’d be out-numbered and out-gunned in most situations? I think they would.

    Look at our current gun laws, and the tragedies on college campuses around the country. Homicidal madmen (or women) don’t choose to open fire in a police station. Why? The police HAVE guns… lots of them, all loaded and handled by well-trained folks.

    You don’t negotiate or legislate a madman. All societies who have attempted to do so in the past have perished. Those are the facts of life, folks.

    Our framers knew that, hence the 2nd Amendment, and it’s curious phrasing. They’d lived through the atrocities of war in their own neighborhoods, and clearly understood the need for societal defense. They knew that THAT sort of defense could not be guaranteed by laws or militias, only by a freely armed polulace.

    To paraphrase Sen. Barak Obama, we are the law and order we’ve been seeking. We always have been.

42. #42
    On March 18th, 2008 at 3:00 pm, jenmom said:

    We just got the monthly America’s 1st Freedom magazine from the NRA and they pointed out that:

    “…the odds of a child under 10 being killed by an accident in a swimming pool are a hundred times greater than the risk of a child being killed in a gun-related accident.”

    Now – why don’t we ban swimming pools for the “good of the children?”

43. #43
    On March 18th, 2008 at 3:27 pm, twoninerkilo said:

    Buy more ammo.

44. #44
    On March 18th, 2008 at 3:30 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    Great point jenmom.

    Number of children drowned in a pool in my neighborhood = 1 (sadly). Number of children shot = 0. Number of homes with guns? 23 out of 24. Number of roberies = 0.

45. #45
    On March 18th, 2008 at 4:40 pm, Vince said:

    After hearing the oral arguments, I think the court will strike down DC’s gun law. Justice Kennedy’s first question seemed to indicate that he thought individuals had the right to not only keep arms but also bear them.

    Breyer and Ginsberg were their usual liberal selves but Kennedy appears to be the swing vote.

    Since DC is not a state, I don’t know how this will be seen as a precedent.

46. #46
    On March 18th, 2008 at 6:08 pm, PurpleHaze said:

    I don’t care how they rule. The second amendment is clear. The Imperial Federal Government is not taking my guns away from me! Period!

47. #47
    On March 18th, 2008 at 7:19 pm, alamedaman said:

    The other rights within the Bill of Rights address the rights of THE PEOPLE. Using noscitus a socii, we can see that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals. Following this, the court has found in US v. Verdugo Urquidez that “the people refers to a class of persons part of the national community” – which Mr. Heller certainly is.

    Also, in Scott v. Sandford, the Court held “[n]or can Congress deny to the
    people the right to keep and bear arms,” while listing various other constraints on the powers of congress. Another case that mentions this is Duncan v. Louisiana (1968), where it was said “the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the FIRST EIGHT amendments”- which obviously includes the Second Amendment as a personal right.

    Because of these main facts, I urge the Court to rule in favor of Respondent Heller.

48. #48
    On March 18th, 2008 at 8:00 pm, zyzzyg said:

    Forget guns, I want real arms, and I should have the right to bear them. If the Federal Government is to be kept in place, I will need a rocket propelled to stop their tanks. Heck, I might even need my own tank.

    Yeah, just exagerrating for effect. But, seriously what arms should we have and not have?

49. #49
    On March 18th, 2008 at 8:01 pm, Regulus said:

    On March 18th, 2008 at 8:55 am, ACHefty said:

    It’s a very simple thing. Interpret the Amendment the way an English teacher would. Use the subject/predicate breakdown. The right … shall not be infringed. Thus, the “militia” is moot.

    Thanks for the laugh. Suffice it to say that if you were a law student with that kind of reasoning, you wouldn’t need to concern yourself about making the Order of the Coif (or passing the bar, for that matter).

    Historically speaking, it is only comparatively recently that a “militia” (as opposed to a standing army) would’ve had its weapons and equipment provided by the state. And seeing how in the early days of our republic we had but a tiny standing army and depended heavily on the militia for local defense, it made sense for the Founders to write the Second Amendment the way they did.

    Of course today, if you were to join the National Guard – the direct descendant of the old state militias – you get everything provided, including an M-16 or an M-4. So one might think of the Second Amendment as something of an anachronism in the literal sense, or maybe like a human appendix: it may have had a functional role at some time in the past, but today just sits there as a reminder.

    That being said, there may still come a day in our country’s future so black that we might once again have to form scratch militias at the local level. Hard to imagine, yes, but impossible, no. And in that case, the Second Amendment’s original meaning would get a new lease on life.

    And because the possibility exists, albeit remotely, that such a dire exigency could arise, it’s hard to see from a legal perspective the Court upholding any law banning the ownership of firearms in the home if it sticks with the literal language of the Amendment.

50. #50
    On March 18th, 2008 at 11:03 pm, Christian Soldier said:

    The Founders knew their history. Since the beginning of time-if those in power wanted to subjugate the population – the means to make or own weapons was taken away.

    The Hebrews had to go to Philistine blacksmiths because the Ps did not want the Hebrews to be able to make weapons.
    1 Sam. 13

    All dictators have taken and will take the arms of people FIRST.

51. #51
    On March 19th, 2008 at 5:27 am, graysonret said:

    For some states, like Maryland, any male over the age of 18 is considered part of the “militia”. I’m not sure that Virginia’s law is still in effect. I’ll have to look. To say that it only applies to organized units, like police, national guard is wrong. All men were required to keep arms and respond when the need arose. A lot of the Revolution was fought with militias; called up, served a short period and went home, as well as the 1812 war. So, I hope that SCOTUS understands what the term “militia” means. I know one thing, criminals will think twice about crashing a home, if they knew a gun was inside. That’s one thing the MSM refuses to report…all the criminals who are thwarted every day because the potential victim pulled a gun.

52. #52
    On March 19th, 2008 at 3:55 pm, SpeakEasy said:

    One only has to read the experiences of our troops in Iraq to understand you do not need rocket launchers and tanks to put up a good fight. In urban areas especially, a pistol can actually be an advantage over an M16. Shotguns too.

53. #53
    On March 21st, 2008 at 1:28 pm, Yashmak said:

    Well, apparently they found that we have a right to own firearms that extends beyond those who are part of a militia.

    It’d by nice to see an update on this topic.