Published: Monday, May 6 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
Time to put your money where your mouth is, conservatives. If you truly believe
your right to guns "shall not be infringed" then please grab all your
guns, arm yourself to the hilt, and walk into your nearest elementary school.
Shoot off a couple of rounds to demonstrate your disgust w/ socialized education
(1st Amendment) and then sit... and wait. When you're
arrested, let's see whether you can win in court based on your "shall
not be infringed" argument. Come on, show some conviction in
your side of the argument.
Chief Burbank should consider having his officers leave their weapons at the
office and wear a shirt that reads "This Officer is a Gun Free Zone!"
Re JoeBlow...Mike,JoeBlow is right. The Constitution
doesn't mean what is written in it... it only means what the Supreme Court
says it says. That's why it is so important that we not let
"Progressives" take over the Supreme Court and start morphing it into
something you would never recognize as our founding document and out "bill
of rights".Your rights can be taken away with a simple opinion
by a group of activist judges. So don't take your government for granted.
They don't GIVE these rights (they are natural rights). But they can
sure TAKE them away.Keep bringing up the Constitution! I LIKE
people who use the "Constititional" argument every day. I don't
like opinions that are consistenly contrary to our Constitution and our Bill Of
Rights (ala JoeBlow). Anyone that would CRITICIZE you for citing the
Constitution isn't on the right track IMO.The Constitution is
fairly direct and simple to understand on this topic.
@ Lany Myer,DOMA was passed September 21, 1996 and signed by Bill
Clinton, long before Obama was elected as President. Obama knew, before running
for office, that DOMA was the law of the land. He knew that he had no authority
to NOT enforce that. As President, he is not authorized to pick and choose which
laws he will execute. His oath of office requires him to faithfully execute ALL
of the laws of the United States, not just those laws that he deems
Constitutional nor those laws that you deem to be Constitutional.He
swore an oath under false pretense. He had no intention of keeping that oath.
He misrepresented himself to the people of America, who have every right to
expect him to FAITHFULLY execute the duties of his office.Read his
oath of office. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my
Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States.”If he disagrees with the law, he needs to step down or
Congress needs to remove him.
@J Thompson"Your assumption that the Court has upheld laws that
infringe on our right to keep and bear arms is totally false. "Then how about..."Like most rights, the Second Amendment right
is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in
any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons
prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The
Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and
government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the
commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the
sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time”
finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of
dangerous and unusual weapons."From the Heller brief written by
airnautThe Supreme Court has already ruled and did not agree with your
presumption that Militia means Police, National Guard, etc... in their decision
ruling the Washington DC law "UnConstitutional" that limited gun
ownership to police and military.You can say that militia = national
guard, but that doesn't make it true (and the Supreme Court didn't
agree with your presumption). "Militia" CAN mean many things (not just
National Guard). The neighborhood militias that existed and acted during the
Revolutionary War were not "National Guard" units. They were self
organized nieghborhood entitites that the government did not form, fund, or
control. They were groups of concernd people (call them MOBS if you want but
you owe the contry we have today to them).There was the "Mormon
Militia" organized by Joseph Smith back in the day. They were not a
National Guard unit.There are nieghborhoods today that have
organized militias because they do not take their security for granted and want
to be prepared to HELP the government if outsiders threaten their
neighborhood... and are also prepared in the unimaginable case that the
government should turn on it's own people some day in the distant future.
Many are talking about the 2nd Amendment only applying to those in a militia.That is not correct as is also spelled out in the Heller ruling The Heller ruling's main point was that the 2nd Amendment did not
limit the right to bear arms to only those in Militias.Overall,
Heller was a win for gun advocates.Like it or not, the SCOTUS
interprets the constitution. Those interpretations ARE constitutional. You
cannot separate the SCOTUS rulings from the Constitution.In the
Heller case, the majority opinion was written by and joined by the most
conservative of the court. Even the parts where they explicitly
spell out that the 2nd Amendment DOES allow for limiting- Who can
Carry- Where they can Carry- What they can CarryAnd to
Procur. What I posted was excerpts form the DECISION. Not
atl134,Exactly whose rights were infringed by the Heller brief?
Does the Heller brief REQUIRE a background check? Does the Heller brief REQUIRE
that semi-automatic firearms be turned in to the government? Does the Heller
brief REQUIRE high capacity magazines to be turned in? Does the Heller brief
ALLOW States to NOT allow you to keep and bear arms? You are putting
restrictions where no restriction exists. You are pretending that the Heller
brief upheld some non-existent government "right" to take away our
firearms. That's just wistful thinking on your part.Until the
Court upholds a SPECIFIC law passed by Congress that allows infringement on our
right to keep and bear arms, we, the people, have the guaranteed right to keep
and bear arms. "Might", "maybe" and perhaps don't count.
"Shall not" does count.
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UT=========The
"National Guard" - wasn't enacted until the Militia Act of 1903.The National Guard still holds and maintains the "Minute Man"
icon, as it always has since 1775.Regular guys/gasl - 9 to 5,
friends and neighbors -- who are duly sworn, trained, certified, drilled, and
ready to serve at a "Minutes notice".In 1842 (pre-civil war)
- The Nauvoo Legion was fully State chartered, State sanctioned, regularly
drilled, and trained.I maintain you "militia wanna
be's" - not meeting ANY of the Constitutional requirements of being
"well-regulated" are nothing more than armed thugs and mobs.Keep your guns and protect your homes if you must,But 2nd Amendment
Constitutionally defined “well-regulated militia” you most certainly
are NOT.In other news -- Minnesota: A Domestic terrorist
suspect was arrest. Buford Rogers (24) is the founder of the "Black Snake
Militia".I rest my case....
Again and again we hear the bleating cry that anyone who supports the idea of
sensible gun laws including background checks must somehow be "anti
gun."False.But as long as the NRA claims it is,
people who are easily deluded and confused will continue their bleating.
JThompson -- you mean like Bush's "signing statements" that said
"Okay, I'll sign this law, but won't obey or enforce it."Is that what you're talking about?
@J ThompsonI am arguing that the brief notes that policies we have in
place regarding limits on guns for felons, background checks, and assault
weapons bans, are regulations that can be considered constitutional. If there were no regulations on guns that could ever be allowed we
wouldn't have a ban on machine guns. We wouldn't have background
checks on purchases from gun manufacturers. We wouldn't have any of the
requirements the states currently put on guns. But we do, because they're
We have to find somewhere where one isn't either 'anti gun' or
'anything goes, anywhere, anytime'.
Re: Mike Richards"Our Constitution protects us against police
chiefs and presidents who think that the Supreme Law of the Land can be changed
because they don't like the way that it is written."The
Supreme Law can be changed because we don't like the way it is written. If
it couldn't, black people would still be 3/5 of a person and women would
still have no standing or rights as citizens."Obama, the
Commander in Chief, took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, yet he
actively disregards DOMA."How so? Has he been giving federal
benefits to same-sex unions that no one has noticed? Where in the Constitution
is marriage even mentioned, let alone defined?"He actively
disregards his duty to secure our boarders."How so? Have we
lost territory to Canada and Mexico recently? "He actively
disregards his duty to evict those who entered the United States
illegally."His deportation numbers have been widely reported and
documented as higher than any previous president in the modern era. Your friend, procuradorfiscal, likes to call out so-called liberals for
"sophistry." You tell me Mike, who's really being deliberately
dishonest in his speech?
LDS Liberal, "The Nauvoo Legion was fully State chartered, State sanctioned,
regularly drilled, and trained."And (it should be mentioned)
armed by the state of Illinois, which is why they accepted Governor Ford's
demand that they lay down their (state-supplied!) arms after Carthage. Many here seem to be buying into the romantic mythos of the militia.
The reality is that they were poorly trained, poorly led, poorly disciplined,
and rightly held in contempt by regulars. That view is consistently
backed up by their performance in the colonial period, the Revolution, the War
of 1812, the Civil War, and a laundry list of minor Indian conflicts.The militia's apogee was on the green at Concord. The rest of the time
their performance ranged from poor to disgraceful.Assembling a group
of armed people together and to call themselves a "militia" confers
neither self-legitimization nor color of law. From some of the arguments here
about the definition of a militia, the Bloods and the Crips have every right to
quit being gangs and call themselves militias, and the LAPD wouldn't be
able to do anything to stop them.
Re: J Thompson"DOMA was passed September 21, 1996 and signed by
Bill Clinton, long before Obama was elected as President. Obama knew, before
running for office, that DOMA was the law of the land. He knew that he had no
authority to NOT enforce that. As President, he is not authorized to pick and
choose which laws he will execute. His oath of office requires him to faithfully
execute ALL of the laws of the United States, not just those laws that he deems
Constitutional nor those laws that you deem to be Constitutional."Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Teddy
Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and
George W Bush also performed what you term "unauthorized action."
There's a concept called departmentalism, look it up. Chadha v. INS is the
most recent example, excluding the DOMA cases, where the POTUS refused to defend
a law because he believed it was unconstitutional. P.S. The SCOTUS agreed."He swore an oath under false pretense. He had no intention of
keeping that oath."And you know that, how? What evidence of
fraud do you alone have that we are all oblivious to?
Re JoeBlow"like it or not the supreme court interprets the
constitution". ++++++No where in the constitution
does it give the Supreme Court the authority to go against what the constitution
actually says. Where the constitution is ambiguous, a court may clarify its
meaning. For example the constitution says "no cruel or unusual
punishment" , this is a perfect example of where a court may clarify. In
cases where the constitution is clear the court has no authority to rule against
what the constitution actually says.
to Mike R (May 6 @ 7:29a)... Its when people such as yourself think
they *have the right* to be armed as well as the police & military that I
start to worry.
to cjb May 6th4:56 p.m. May 6,Contextually speaking, interpret &
clarify are synonyms.
"If you are a federally licensed gun dealer and your license is revoked
because you've engaged in misconduct ... your entire inventory under
prevailing law is deemed your personal collection. You then can sell it free
from any background checks." (politifact)
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments