This Is Frightening

Have you read the reports about the Supreme Court throwing out Washington DC's handgun ban?

This is the one that gets to me:

>Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."<

No untouchable constitutional rights? What's wrong with that man? Didn't anyone tell him what his job was when he put on the robe? It's to preserve and protect the constitution. Period. That's his whole job.

We're not talking about interpretation here. It's not a question of what the founding fathers meant. He's not unclear about the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

He's saying, point blank, if we don't like what they meant, we can ignore it. "No untouchable constitutional rights guaranteed by (the Bill of Rights)."

Y'all better get posting to SpicePlace out of your system tonight, cuz tomorrow Justice Breyer will tell us there is nothing untouchable or guaranteed about free speech. And, oh, yeah, starting Saturday we all have to subscribe to the Pentecostal view, cuz there is no freedom of religeous choice after all. No right to peaceably assemble. No right to sue for redress of grievences. And all those newspapers that didn't back his nomination? They're gone, cuz there is no untouchable guarantee of free press whatsoever.

Sure, all that's in the Constitution. But, what the hell, let's just toss it all out on a whim.

Somebody needs to take Justice Breyer out behind the barn!

KYH,

They have been trying for yrs. now to unravel our Constitution, slowly and surely our Constitutional Rights will all be a thing of the past!
THAT IS REALLY A FRIGHTENING THOUGHT

I just wrote a very depressing thing about my reaction to this, the market today and ---thank goodness for delete--then got this in an e-mail-- are you aware of who opposed him for the Nobel Peace prize??
Irena Sendler of Poland, Nobel Peace Prize, a real winner « Citizen Wells
If you do a search on Irene Sendler you will smile through your tears and then astounded this could happen.
Nobel Peace Prize???
hugs my friends,
Nan

Really makes you wish Republicans and Democrats had a different kind of candidate. I do not trust either of these bozo's when it comes to USSC appointments. What scares me was how close this decision came from going the other way.

I read most of Scalias opinion on this today and he pretty much nailed it. He basically asked the minority why it is every other right in the BOR applies to the individual (i.e. the 1st amendment) yet they chose to not apply the same the 2nd.

He also noted that the right is recognized by the BOR, not given by it. The document clearly states: "The right to keep and bear arms will shot not be infringed". The first 7 words show that the right already exists, and the BOR definition is not a right to the people, but it denies the right of Governments in the United States to INFRINGE upon it.

He also tore apart the militia argument basically pointing out the term militia at the time meant any able bodied man. This is why other language says "call up the militia", "organize the militia", etc.. It does not say to create a militia.

It really is an interesting read in fresh Americana and I hope to one day get it in book form because it is lengthy and rather hard to read as a PDF:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

I myself was brought up to use firearms. When I was old enough to fire a .22 I was instructed on how to handle the weapon. I currently own a couple of rifles and handguns and am confident in my ability with them.

Having never been dictated to that I cannot defend myself, I could not imagine living in DC where crime is running rampant (even after 30+ years of an unconstitutional weapons ban that supposedly protected people) and not being able to defend my family in my own home.

Nothing makes me sicker to my Stomach than watching the Mayor of Chicago wail over the decision. Here is a man surrounded by secret service, who are all carrying weapons to protect HIM and HIS family, yet he is enraged when others who cannot afford such protections now have the right to take it into their own hands.

Should Governments be able to regulate firearms? Sure, I think every reasonable person agrees with that. The last thing I want if Charles Manson gets out of prison is to see him walk into a gun shop and pick up a tech 9. However, outright bans on gun possession by law abiding citizens does nothing more than leave them defenseless.

I certainly agree with almost everything you say, Jaffo. But my point wasn't a question of whether anyone agreed with the Supreme Court decision or not.

That 2nd amendment issue has always been fought over interpretation of the word "militia." And Justice Scalia was completely correct, in that the word has always applied to the amateur citizen-soldier prepared to defend home, family, and country.

I'm an 18th century reenactor, who belongs to a militia, and know, firsthand, exactly what the responsibilities are. Indeed, not only did the militia have to respond to a call up, it brought its own arms. The founding fathers saw that fundamental to defending freedom was the ability to do so, and you cannot do that without weapons.

Switzerland is the only modern country that recognizes that fact.

However, that was not what was at stake. Justice Breyer wasn't saying, "I disagree with Justice Scalia over the definition of 'militia."' He was saying, "If we disagree with what is written in the BOR we can just ignore it."

To me, that's the scary part.

Is the Court politicalized? Of course. And has been every since FDR staked the deck. But I have never seen such a patent disregard to both the law, and the intent of the law, by a man who has sworn to defend it.

The Bill of Rights was aimed precisely at people like Justice Breyer. The founding fathers realized, as soon as the Constitution was ratified, that they'd made one mistake. The had assumed that the rights and privledges they had fought for would be recognized by all. But, realizing their error, they quickly rectified it. In effect, they said, "hey! All that gobbledegook in the Constitution has to do with how we are organized as a country. But this Bill of Rights is what it's all about. This is what it means to be a citizen of this country!"

As to your other point, well, I don't think there is any question that if "none of the above is acceptible" were on the ballot this fall he would win hands-down.

Public service used to be an honorable profession that attracted first rate people. Now? Phui! If John McCain is really the best we can produce, we're in big trouble.

Wouldn't be pretty at all...

I'm right there with ya, KYH. Normally it's wisest for me to stay apolitical at places like this, because I have very strong political beliefs AND because I love to debate outspokenly (I promise to behave here, though!).

I lean just liberal enuf on certain issues to where I seem to pizz off a lotta conservatives in my circle- and I lean far enuf to the right on other issues to where my liberal loved ones often feel trampled on...

that said... more than one Supreme Court decision, voting result and constitutional argument of late have riled the hell out of me.

I for one appreciate what you offered and support your right to speak out eloquently. Now I'll stop short of speaking my two cents on several issues- that wouldn't be pretty at all!

>Here is a man surrounded by secret service, who are all carrying weapons to protect HIM and HIS family,<

Liberals and politicians always behave that way. They want rules that only apply to the other guy.

You remember, for instance, when Ted Kennedy's bodyguards were not allowed to enter the Pentagon, because they were carrying unregistered and unlicensed automatic weapons? The loudest anti-gun voice in America, knowingly surrounded by the very things he claimed to dispise.

Or the time that big-name anti-gun columnist for the Washington Post shot a teenager for using his pool? With, I might add, an unregistered handgun. Just another case of do as I say, not as I do.

Or..... well, we could both list dozens of such instances.

The ironic thing about all this is that the last thing a typical homeowner wants for home protection is a handgun. I used to do a lot of consulting in this area, and 99 out of 100 times a handgun was the wrong choice.

And for anyone who still has a knee-jerk reaction to gun ownership, I send you only to the FBI's uniform crime statistics, that show a drastic reduction in violent crime in every state that has adopted concealed carry laws (all of which, btw, are unconstitutional).

For me the whole argument in the majority opinion about militias was to illustrate that the right is indeed an individual right, not a right granted to the Government for sake of the military.

The minorities opinion to me just was some pouting about how they cannot throw away the Constitution and BOR when it doesn't fit their ideological perception.

In short, Scalias opinion was interpretation, whereas Breyer and the rest of his ilk were commenting on what they think the Constitution SHOULD say, rather than what it does say.

KYHeirloomer said:

The ironic thing about all this is that the last thing a typical homeowner wants for home protection is a handgun. I used to do a lot of consulting in this area, and 99 out of 100 times a handgun was the wrong choice.

Click to expand...

Could you elaborate on this?

shipscook said:

Irena Sendler of Poland, Nobel Peace Prize, a real winner « Citizen Wells
If you do a search on Irene Sendler you will smile through your tears and then astounded this could happen.
Nobel Peace Prize???
hugs my friends,
Nan

Click to expand...

Dear Nan,

I have printed this article out and will read it to and share it with my 8 yr. old Granddaughter. Thank you for letting us know about it Nan. I am amazed by these unsung heroes still in our midst. And I thank God for the reminder of that fact!

I would hate to see another "Facist Regime" come into existance, although there are many in existance today! I hate to see America go that path....

We must continue to be a proactive people to prevent it! I highly encourage everyone to be active, write your Congressmen and Senators, and please "Let your voices be heard" no matter where you stand on the issues. We simply must rise up.......and be heard!

>Could you elaborate on this?<

Sure thing, Jaffo.

In the first place, the typical homeowner does not want to shoot anybody. He just want's 'em gone. That's key to the whole thing.

In the second place, the typical homeowner wants to live in Hollywood rather than the real world. He/she is not going to take the time to become proficient with a handgun. And they do not realize that the first thing you lose, in a high-stress situation, is your small motor control.

So, instead of becoming Bruce Willis, blazing away with a pair of side-ways held autos (talk about a joke), they're left there fumbling around, trying to find the safety on that expensive Glock, while their hands shake and the sweat runs down into their eyes. Meanwhile the bad guy, who has no compunction about using it, is likely to take the gun away from them.

For the typical homeowner the best approach is this: Go down to the pawn shop and buy the cheapest operating pump shotgun on the shelf. Cut the barrel off even with the magazine tube. Load the gun, and store it under your bed in a combat-safe position.

If there is somebody in the house who doesn't belong there, I guarantee one thing. If that person has never been near a shotgun in his life, but it's the middle of the night, and he's where he doesn't belong, and you jack a round home---he's gone. No ifs, ands, or buts. And if you have to shoot it, even if you miss, the bad guy then knows for sure that you're serious, and is gone.

My house is a little different. Here we have a simple rule: Intruders found here at night will be found here in the morning. You cannot stand anywhere in my house and reach without encountering a loaded handgun. But nobody said my house was typical.

I suppose that could be right, but I don't know if I would lump 99% of people into that category. My problem with your solution is that well, in my state anyway, sawed off shotguns are illegal. The barrel must be a minimum of 18 inches.

I will agree with you though, that unless you have been completely trained on the use of a handgun, chances are you will do more damage to an intruder throwing it at them rather than shooting them.

I usually keep my .357 revolver in my nightstand without a trigger lock. Sorry, but I have a hard enough time opening that thing up adrenaline free, much less if someone is breaking into the house. When I was a child, my father did the same thing and we all new better than to even think about touching that and my kids are no different.

If I am going to be away from the house, i.e. leaving a babysitter to watch the kids, then I lock it in my safe with the rest of my weapons.

This is probably not a good idea for everybody. Everybody meaning the people I see at the supermarket who cannot control their children as they run around, grab stuff, or cry over and over "but I waaaaant it". In order to to do what I do safely means you have to invest the time and effort into disciplining your children and making sure they know the rules unequivocally. In other words, I trust the work I have done with (or "on") my family more than I do a gun lock. Those parents who feel that paying the $50 for a good lock is better than training their kids, either have dull witted children, or have forgotten how resourceful they can be otherwise they would know any determined child can get past a tiny lock.

I'm not lumping everybody into any categories, Jaffo. I try to never do that.

I'm talking about the percentages of actual clients, who paid me big bucks to help them design effective home defense systems, or people who made inquiries but couldn't get through the Hollywood syndrome.

A lot of people misunderstand what a home defense consultant does. My job isn't to decide which handgun you need. It's to decide whether you need one in the first place. But an incredible number of people think it's the former.

FWIW, according to the GCA (Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended), legal shotguns must have barrels with a minimum length of 18 1/4 inches. 18 inches is a colloquial figure, but is technically incorrect.

But what do I care? It's not like you're going to be carrying the thing around with you. We're talking about a home-defense weapon.

And, if you do use it on a low-life, the least of your immediate concerns will be possessing an illegal shotgun. Trust me, even though you are in the right, you will be put through a judicial wringer.

Anyone who even contemplates a home defense weapon needs to first become thoroughly conversant with the "in gravest extreme" legal concept, and how that applies. Basically, it's the determining factor in when lethal force is justified. It saddens me that many law enforcement officials do not understand it, and you can get an awful lot of bad advice from the local police chief.

Let's face it -

Is this America?

The America I grew up living in is long gone.

These morons want to interpret everything "their" way and they stretch, pull, pinch and tweak their way through it all.

Take a real good look at our country.

Look where we came from - where our parents and grand parents came from. What they did in fighting wars and sacrificing for this country. Believing in the words of our country's forefathers.

Look at where we are today.

Look around you.

Would you say things are different?

I haven't found ONE politician in the whole 50 states that I care for. Not one. Not in any level of government.

Yeah - we're free - free to do as we please and get away with it - that is where we are going. Not a good road.

Don't get me wrong - there are good people out there - and there are bad. As the good people get the short end of the stick in one way or another they turn bad for whatever reasons.

I dread the future for our young ones.

Mama Mangia said:

I dread the future for our young ones.

Click to expand...

ME TOO!
BUT I HOPE FOR THE BEST! (NEVER FORGET: FAITH-HOPE & LOVE)

I realize and respect that this is the "Chatter" forum where no topic is off-limits, but I for one need to sit-out this thread... politics always leads to disagreement, and disagreement when connected to politics, religion, etc. often gets ugly. If someone wishes to battle-out the merits of Velveeta versus Tillamook Cheddar, I'm all for it! But other things? Naw- not for me. I respect you all too much to think my ideas on politics should outweigh yours. Enjoy the debate- and when you're ready I'll see ya'all back at the food-related threads! smiles & winks- K.

Hey CAG - You're right, politics, s.e.x and religion always lead to fights and arguments. But we (as a country) do need help! That much you must admit!

Catch ya on the flip side for the next debate!

When folks fled their homeland years ago to start over and give freedom to "all", that in theory, was a good and evolutionary idea. At that time in world history, no one had done it that well, in that manner before- we were the model of liberty.

The problem was the folks who fled to new shores were mainly Puritans- or for lack of a better definition- those with narrow views and exclusionary ways.

America was a beacon of light for quite a while. But soon the rest of the world began to become intrigued by this idea of "freedom", too. They began to employ their own systems of liberty, and began to limit oppression and rule out exclusionary practices in their own nations. It wasn't long at all before many nations in the world caught up to us. And soon, nations were even surpassing us in the measure to which their generosity of freedoms were administered, and to whom.

Fast forward into the 20th & 21st centuries and this wonderful new revolutionary nation with freedoms and liberties for "all" became the laughing stock. Our reputation for denial of basic rights and eqaulities to many made us look like a nation of hypocrites. Over decades various populations of Americans have had to fight and argue to prove their worth; to force changes in practice and legislation simply to achive basic human rights.

While America is no North Korea, Cuba or Iran when it comes to the violence associated w/ denial of equality and rights- we still have ranked as low as they over recent decades with our practices of denial of rights to those of religious difference, women, blacks, non-Christians, and today with gays...

Today? There are groups that STILL in America are fighting to prove their worth and demand their equality. And although those very same PURITANS have really slowed down the progression of liberty and freedom, they are gradually losing. True freedom is slowly coming to all...

While many long for the nostalgia of "the good old days", others look back on the American past as an era when times were bad- times that should never, ever be repeated. And I happen to belong to a group of Americans who are still legally denied, repressed, oppressed and prevented from the basic human rights and equality that the Puritans have steadfastly kept so many from through generations of narrow-mindedness.

So, when infrequent random situations occur like a constitutional arms ruling gone awry- it's hard for me to directly identify with the tragedy of that, because I fight for the fair and even distribution of much more important very basic rights every single day.

Not a day goes by that I am not denied and kept from those same freedoms and liberties that all Americans are supposed to enjoy. I am disenchanted with and disenfrachised by the system, and the citizens & elected officials that perpetuate the inequality everyday- not just the day after unpopular Supreme Court decisions.

I don't get it, how are you oppressed, denied and disenfranchised again?

Edit....

Sorry, re-read your post again.. I am going to assume you mean your Gay, and the current Gay marriage issue is what you are talking about. Let me know if I am wrong, but your post seems to indicate it.

My view on that subject is basically that it is a non-issue. Gays for the most part cannot have a marriage that is acknowledged by the nation as a whole, as far as Governments are concerned (i.e. the state of Alabama) when marrying someone of the same sex.. One state may recognize a marriage, whereas another will not.

I am not sure how this is unequal with the "other" group: heterosexual. Heteros enjoy the same limitation where they cannot marry someone of the same sex either.

I have thought about this issue for some time because I have many friends and family who are gay and I try to put myself in their shoes and think about it. From what I have experienced in being around gay relationships is that they are a completely different dynamic than a hetero relationship. I think it is quite commonly accepted that it is rather a rude thing to ask a gay couple "Which one is the wife". Well, at least I think it is because although there may be one dominate partner, the relationship itself is just different than a man and a woman.

So looking at it from that perspective, I would assume that if I was gay, I would find it just as insulting if someone insinuated that my relationship with my partner would be considered a marriage. I would want it to be called something else distinct from marriage. Something that only same sex couples could enter into.

I mean, is the issue black and white like algebra? No, of course not. We are dealing with a deep cultural thing here.

Let us for arguments sake say that tomorrow, across the land, same sex marriage was recognized by law. Would then two brothers be able to marry? If not, why not? There would be no genetic dangers of procreation to warrant such a restriction, but yet, hetero's would then become "disenfranchised"..

What if me and my buddy wanted to get married even though we are not gay? Heck, if the benefits of marriage can be extended to same sex couples, I can guarantee that will happen. If I was working and had great health benefits and a buddy of mine was diagnosed with an illness that will kill him if he doesn't get treatment, and I was allowed to marry him and put him on my insurance, my nature would force me to. What then has it done to marriage?

In the end, my view is, as it stands now, Gay couples enjoy all the benefits of heteros couples. By law they can enter into legal agreements that are basically the same as marriage. Sure, it hasn't always been this way, yet Democracy is still a relatively new thing. Gays are organized now, and with that they have a chance to start something for themselves, so I do not understand this move to try and change all that they have worked for just to then assimilate into a hetero based philosophy. Surely there is a better solution, but either way, everyone has the same restriction on marriage be they gay or hetero.

Very respectfully, Jafo-

I am a very private person. I offered the very limited things I did in my post earlier simply to vaguely illustrate my point as it pertained to my views about the recent Supreme Court decision reflected on by the original post.

I find much of what you wrote in your post to be insulting, but I do not take it personally for two reasons- 1.) we don't know one another and are not in one another's presence, so I don't feel it was necessarily directed at me individually, and 2.) because the view you offer is a wide-range view that is held by many- so it's hardly something I can just "blame you for".

Suffice it to say that I completely disagree with the views you expressed. But again, this isn't something I wish to argue- in fact, I come here for a certain amount of enjoyable escape- and I'm not willing to forfeit the fun I get from a place such as this by even discussing the gay issue. I don't engage in debate about gay equality, because even simply engaging in the banter indicates that the matter is debateable- and in my mind equality for gay Americans is most certainly NOT debateable.

Equality is coming- it will be here completely at some point. It is taking FAR too long- in fact it is embarrassing from the worldwide perspective just how long it is taking, but it will come. History shows us that the light of right almost always absorbs the darkness of wrong.