Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

The Supreme Court will consider two new cases on the scope of individuals' Second Amendment right to have guns at its first Conference for the new Term, on Sept. 29, according to the Court's electronic docket. Both petitions challenge a Seventh Circuit Court ruling that the Amendment does not restrict gun control laws adopted by state, county or city government, but applies only to federal laws. The cases are National Rifle Association v. Chicago (08-1497) and McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521).

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

JOE

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

I expect a 5-4 ruling.

As do I. I think Scalia hinted in the Heller opinion that he'd be willing to extend the decision to states. We'll see.

Hopefully they hand liberal pants pissers another crushing defeat.

Dare one hope that the SC decides that the Right To Bear Arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment applies to the states and local governments as much as any of the other amendments to the U.S. Constitution do?

I don't see where here is any question of the outcome. The Constitution trumps all state and local laws.

Dare one hope that the SC decides that the Right To Bear Arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment applies to the states and local governments as much as any of the other amendments to the U.S. Constitution do?

But they don't. The Amendment that dumped prohibition doesn't apply to dry counties.

I'm surprised more states rights "Conservatives" aren't arguing against the NRA's support of rampant federal overstepping.

I still don't get why people are so geeked about having a pistol for home defense.

I just picked up a 12 gauge Mossberg 835 for deer season later this year.

I am sure, that if i were at home, and someone who did not belong there heard me chamber a round with that particular piece of hardware they would have genuine second thoughts about their choices in life leading up to their visit to my humble abode.

Pistols are very susceptible to inacuracy due to pulling the trigger too hard, shaking, any kind of break from good form. All of which is an issue if you arent well trained and used to firing your pistol under stress. Even people who do that for a living are well knon

I'm surprised more states rights "Conservatives" aren't arguing against the NRA's support of rampant federal overstepping.

#6 | POSTED BY NORTHGUY3 AT 2009-09-03 10:29 PM | REPLY | FLAG: Zing!

"But they don't. The Amendment that dumped prohibition doesn't apply to dry counties.

I'm surprised more states rights "Conservatives" aren't arguing against the NRA's support of rampant federal overstepping."

I'm NOT surprised you're talking out of your ass.

Equating prohibition with an amendment in the Bill of Rights is dumb enough, but not as stupid as citing an amendment you've never read.

You anti second amendment nuts are amazing.

www.law.cornell.edu

But they don't. The Amendment that dumped prohibition doesn't apply to dry counties.

You really are mentally impaired when it comes to understanding the Constitution aren't you?

What in the Twenty-first Amendment (the one that repeals prohibition) makes you think States and/or Counties may not have their own prohibition?

Quite the contrary. The Twenty-first Amendment specifically repeals the Eighteenth Amendment and makes it unconstitutional to violate a State's liquor laws by bringing in alcohol to that State if their law prohibits it. In other words, the Federal government gave up their right to decide the issue, kicked the decision back to the individual States but with a constitutional enforcement of whatever each State decides.

Incidentally, only the Thirteenth Amendment shares this property of restricting an action by the people by abolishing slavery.

But they don't. The Amendment that dumped prohibition doesn't apply to dry counties.

I'm surprised more states rights "Conservatives" aren't arguing against the NRA's support of rampant federal overstepping.

#6 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-09-03 10:29 PM



Would you feel the same way if your city, or state decided that the 4th and 5th amendments didn't apply to them?


Living in the Chicago area, I've been watching this case closely.

I really hope Chicago loses, Daley will shit a cow.

BTW, Chicago is a bidder for the 2016 Summer Olympics. There are shooting competitions, but Daley won't allow them to happen in the city, so they will be held out in the western suburbs.

Would you feel the same way if your city, or state decided that the 4th and 5th amendments didn't apply to them?

While I understand the point you are trying to make Roy, the mistake that NG3 made was much more fundamental and stupid.

The Twenty-first Amendment specifically gives the right to the States to prohibit alcohol if they wish, and backs the State's decision with the Constitution. However, there is nothing in any of the other constitutional amendments (like the Fourth or Fifth) that similarly gives the individual State a right to decide. NorthGuy3 picked a spectacularly stupid example to try and support his position.

I believe the original Constitution allowed states to ban guns.
The Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government until Lincoln and Jeff Davis deformed it.
When America realizes Lincoln was fundamentally wrong in his view of the Constitution, we might experience actual rights again!
That would require lefties to admit (GASP!) the founding fathers did NOT make abortion and birth control a 'right'. It would require righties to admit the founders also never imagined they required states to allow gun ownership.
To claim otherwise is to admit stupidity.
So many of you will step up to claim that 'honor.'

To claim otherwise is to admit stupidity.
So many of you will step up to claim that 'honor.'

#13 | Posted by Diablo at 2009-09-04 01:53 AM

Ahhhh.... yes. The old "If you don't agree with me then you are stupid" argument.

It seems that this is your weapon of choice, Diablo:

3.bp.blogspot.com

the founding fathers did NOT make abortion and birth control a 'right'

There is also no prohibition of either in the constitution

3.bp.blogspot.com

belly laugh for that one

Founding Father's Intention & Purpose of the *Right to Bare Arms*

In their own words, the Framers saw the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" so important that they made it second in our Bill of Rights.
In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary. This right is protected by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.

The Second Amendment wasn't written into our Bill of Rights so that we could go duck or deer hunting.The Second Amendment was given to us as protection against tyranny by the federal government and the Congress of the United States.

Quotes

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence."

Thomas Jefferson: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Patrick Henry:"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.

Samuel Adams:"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

George Mason:"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Thomas Jefferson: "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

Tench Coxe: "Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize ... the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

Thomas Jefferson: "One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."

Thomas Jefferson:"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Thomas Jefferson: "None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important."

Alexander Hamilton: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government."

Thomas Jefferson: "Most codes extend their definitions of treason to acts not really against one's country. They do not distinguish between acts against the government, and acts against the oppressions of the government. The latter are virtues, yet have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former, because real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries."

George Mason: "Who are the militia? They consist of the whole people, except a few public officers."

Thomas Jefferson: "It astonishes me to find... [that so many] of our countrymen... should be contented to live under a system which leaves to their governors the power of taking from them the trial by jury in civil cases, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce, the habeas corpus laws, and of yoking them with a standing army. This is a degeneracy in the principles of liberty... which I [would not have expected for at least] four centuries."

Thomas Jefferson: "I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."
www.geocities.com

Bare...bear...?
Don't blame me I just cut and pasted the article.

While I understand the point you are trying to make Roy, the mistake that NG3 made was much more fundamental and stupid.

The Twenty-first Amendment specifically gives the right to the States to prohibit alcohol if they wish, and backs the State's decision with the Constitution. However, there is nothing in any of the other constitutional amendments (like the Fourth or Fifth) that similarly gives the individual State a right to decide. NorthGuy3 picked a spectacularly stupid example to try and support his position.

#12 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-09-04 12:13 AM



I understand your point, I was trying to point out a more fundamental threat to our liberties.

Many people on the gun ban side of the argument, would like to see these bans upheld, on the grounds that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government, because of Supreme Court rulings on the 14th Amendment.

If these bans were upheld, then the State, or local governments could cherry pick which rights don't apply to them.

Don't want protesters rallying? Decide the 1st amendment only applies to the federal government.

Same thing goes for any other right that stands in the way of their agenda.

Even if your a staunch anti gun person, you'd have to side with the NRA in this case, because of the threat it would pose to everyone's liberties.

Once again, liberals show their constitutional illiteracy. Northgay will not return to this thread.

the Amendment does not restrict gun control laws adopted by state, county or city government, but applies only to federal laws


I don't think they have a case. While the first Amendment clearly does limit the Feds by saying "Congress shall pass no law," the second is not worded that way- it is a general decree that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It limits ALL government.

Remember the first 9 Amendments pertain to the people. The 10th is for the States.

Remember the first 9 Amendments pertain to the people. The 10th is for the States.


I never saw it that way. I see it as the Constitution says what the Federal government CAN do and the Bill of Rights says what they CAN'T.

I just picked up a 12 gauge Mossberg 835

#7 | Posted by Valisk

Kinda big to keep in the night stand though.


I still don't get why people are so geeked about having a pistol for home defense.


I just picked up a 12 gauge Mossberg 835 for deer season later this year.

My pistol isn't for home defense. I carry it concealed because I can't conceal my shotgun. The shotgun and the slugs loaded in it are for home protection.

I'm of the same opinion as you. Racking the slide on a shotgun is enough to make most people think twice about continuing what they're doing, but if it doesn't the bite is definately worse than the bark.

Mossberg is a nice choice. I've got an old (1965) Ithaca Model 37 and an old LC Smith double barrel. I wouldn't mind getting a Mossberg with an 18" barrel.

Saw it down and fill the stub of the barrel with aluminum beer can pop tops for maximum effect, Axion.

Well,it is a touch long, I took the 24" Deer/Turkey combo package. my father's property has a large overgrown field so i may be taking some fairly long shots, also I havent tried my hand at birds yet but wanted the longer barrel for giving that a go.

With deer i'm not too worried.. I can hit the deer with a slug no problem. the question is will i hit the heart squarely.

I had thought about the 500, Iconic, but the 3.5" magnum shells will (hopefully) reduce the amount of chasing injured animals i will have to do.

On the other hand, if i hit a turkey with one of those.. there may not be much left =P

Dare I speculate?
I believe the Supreme Dorks are in a private quandry. They realize previous decisions such as Griswold and Roe have unleashed a flood of federal regulations never anticipated by the founders of this country.
They seek a way to reverse this but the ideological left is so entrenched in universities and media it would be suicide for the court to do it using a sexual, reproductive rights or sodomy case.
Gun laws...hmmmm! The left would have to shut up on that one and the court might be able to throw out the concept the 10th Amendment is only a "truism," the malignant idea that matastisized into our present state of Bush/Obamaism.
Once that is accomplished...Roe, Griswold and 60% of federal power goes down the crapper over time.
I can only hope....

The Supreme Court may make owning a handgun mandatory--after all, they changed the Second amendment from what was written to what they wanted---why not just make any law they want from the bench since these Activist Judges don't really need the Constitution as a guide.

Old Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

New Second Amendment:

Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but such right shall be infringed as the government see fit.

They didn't even have to change the words---when you are an activist judge--the Constitution is not a factor.

USSC: A well regulated Militia---UMMM--we don't need that part.

USSC: being necessary to the security of a free State---UMMM--we don't need that part either

USSC: the right of the people---UMMM---Close, let's just make that Individuals

USSC: to keep and bear arms---UMMM---Let's change that part to have the right to keep and bear arms

USSC: shall not be infringed--UMMM--- well that sucks--let's change it to---but such right shall be infringed as the government see fit.

USSC--Should we change the words? WTF for? We make the laws--not the Constitution---its just a Goddamned piece of paper.


Yeah--that's the ticket.

Buffalo chip returns with more illogic!
"the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..."
Notice buffalo chip separated the words?
But best of all, the ignoramus fails to consider that at the time it was written, that amendment applied only to the fed government, not the states.
Imagine if buffalo chip had ever taken a course on civics...how much more effective he might be....

Dribbelo

The point stands you simply ignored my entire post.
The second amendmet was completely changed by the activist judges. How about you tell us where a "well regulated militia" is any part of the new second amendment.

Have a nice cup of STFU while you think it overr.

;-)

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable