Which conservative did Piers Morgan ban from his show?

Crime

Does the Second Amendment Only Apply to State Militias? Liberals Are Making the Case — But We Look at the Evidence

Dec. 19, 2012 9:10am Mytheos Holt

Liberals Say Second Amendment, Right to Keep and Bear Arms Only Applies to Militias, Supreme Court Disagrees

Thomas Jefferson

Whenever the subject of gun control comes up, supporters of the practice (generally of the liberal persuasion) inevitably run up against one major roadblock to pushing sweeping laws — specifically, the United States constitution, and its second amendment, which protects a sweeping right to keep and bear arms.

Thus, experts have read the amendment in a way that hasn’t banned the ownership of weapons altogether. This reading has only been strengthened by recent Supreme Court cases such as District of Columbia vs. Heller, and McDonald vs. Chicago, which have codified the right to keep and bear arms as being as important as other rights such as the right to free speech.

Undoubtedly, this is frustrating to many opponents of gun rights, since even in moments of widely felt national tragedy like the present moment, their agenda requires a constitutional justification as well as a political one – a fact that puts them at a permanent disadvantage relative to gun rights supporters.

Which is why opponents of gun rights have seized on a well-worn constitutional argument in the wake of the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary. That argument – an old chestnut of the anti-gun community – is that the second amendment doesn’t actually grant every American a right to keep and bear arms, and is in fact obsolete because it only applies to members of state militias. This argument focuses on what legal scholars call the prefatory clause of the second amendment, bolded below for emphasis:

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.

So since the amendment itself mentions the maintenance of “well regulated” militias as the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms, the argument goes, gun control is perfectly permissible so long as it only targets private citizens and not state militias. In fact, the liberal Daily Beast published an article on Tuesday making this exact argument.

The Argument for “Militia-Only” Gun Ownership

So well-worn is this argument that Justice John Paul Stevens used it in his dissent in District of Columbia vs. Heller (emphasis added):

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

As did Justice Stephen Breyer in the same case (emphasis added):

The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.

Of these two Justices, Breyer remains on the court, and would presumably be all too happy to resurrect this argument to limit the scope of the Second Amendment. So at the level of legal strategy, it is easy to see where this argument – that the Second Amendment is much narrower in scope than a generalized right to bear arms – might be appealing.

Illinois gun owners and supporters file out NRA applications while participating in an Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day convention before marching to the Illinois State Capitol Wednesday, March 7, 2012 in Springfield, Ill. Credit: AP

The Argument Against the Liberal Interpretation

But does this interpretation actually follow from the text? Certainly, the majority opinion in District of Columbia vs. Heller, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, does not find this reasoning persuasive (emphasis added):

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.

Scalia’s reasoning is fairly easy to understand. That is, simply saying why a right is necessary to protect before claiming that it is a right does not obviate the existence of the right once that reason ceases to be in effect.

For instance, one can imagine the founders drafting the First Amendment’s protection of “freedom of the press” in order to protect the distribution of anonymously authored pamphlets, or to allow people to use privately purchased printing presses. Yet if the first amendment were phrased, “A robust distribution of political pamphlets being necessary to the maintenance of a free society, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech,” would anyone seriously argue that such a right would not cover laser printing or online news organizations? Certainly, Justice Scalia (who has found that the first amendment covers things the founders never could have imagined, such as video games) would not accept such an interpretation.

Yet still, legal scholars argue over the meaning of the text. Christiane Amanpour’s show on CNN featured a segment recently on this very topic:

The Context

So what’s the reality of the argument?

The answer varies depending on whether one is talking about historical or legal reality. Historically, the question of what the Second Amendment is supposed to mean is almost certainly never going to be solved, because conflicting sources exist on both sides of the issue, and conflicting interpretations of those sources have already proliferated. The reason for this is partially that the gulf between militias and ordinary people was not nearly so large in 1790 as it is now, and partially because arguably the most obvious original purpose of the Second Amendment (giving citizens the means to resist the government by force) would be impossible to fulfill without extending gun rights far beyond what even their most friendly supporters would allow. In short, like the homemade printing press example above, the reasons the amendment was originally ratified are difficult to translate to a modern context.

However, in terms of the present legal regime, the answer to how the Second Amendment is likely to be interpreted for the foreseeable future is fairly easy to answer.

Legal Reality

For now, at least, the legal reality regarding the Second Amendment is that it does guarantee a right to keep and bear arms of some kind to individual citizens. Barring a massive shift in power on the court, this is unlikely to change, as five of the sitting justices voted to hold that the right exists and protects citizens against both state and federal law in the two cases cited above.

Moreover, even cases that the majority of justice disagree with are not always changed after the fact, given the varying attitudes of various jurists towards the importance of upholding precedent. For the foreseeable future, therefore, the right to keep and bear arms is a fixed reality of the American legal and constitutional landscape.

However, in practice, this tells us very little about how far that right extends, which is where the current (and future) legal debate is likely to focus. A right to own a handgun is one thing, after all, but what about the right to own rocket launchers? Miniguns? Anti-tank ordinance? An actual, physical tank? Are all of these things protected by the right to keep and bear arms? They are, after all, arms.

Fortunately for those worrying about their neighbors acquiring weapons grade helicopters, even the most stringent supporters of gun rights admit that the law allows for limits on what sort of weapons are protected, or on how those weapons might be obtained. For his part, Scalia would limit the amendment solely to weapons that can be carried by an individual human being, knocking such armaments as tanks and missiles out of contention, and admitted in the majority decision in Heller that regulations such as background checks and concealed carry permits almost certainly pass constitutional muster (emphasis added):

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should 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.

This leaves gun control advocates with some degree of leeway legally in terms of what they can do to control access to weapons. For instance, it is possible to interpret that the Constitution permits bans on certain types of magazines, and given that the court has declined to invalidate a previous assault weapons ban, this too would be possible.

Is There a Bigger Issue Than Guns?

What is less clear is whether these policies would have the desire effect of stopping incidents like Sandy Hook from happening. The Daily Beast’s Megan McArdle has already written a lengthy post explaining why this is almost certainly not the case (emphasis added):

You can, to be sure, name one or two things that might make a marginal difference: ban extended-capacity magazines, and require background checks for private sales. As a proponent of reasonable gun control that in some ways goes farther than current rules (I’d like to require that people pass a shooting and gun safety test before they can own a gun), these rules don’t strike me as crazy.

But we are back to generic solutions. These “reasonable controls” would not, in fact, have done much to stop the horror at Newtown; Lanza’s problem was not that he didn’t know the four rules of gun safety, or that his aim was bad. And Lanza didn’t buy the guns, so a background check would not have stopped him.

Could we go bigger? Should we ban the relatives of anxious sad sacks from buying guns? How about family friends? (Michael Carneal broke into a friend’s house while they were away for Thanksgiving and stole the guns he used to shoot up his Kentucky school.) The question answers itself; the kind of all-knowing surveillance regime that this would require would be both impossible, and intolerable.

Reducing the magazine sizes seems modesly more promising, but only modestly. It takes a few minutes of practicing to learn how to change a magzine in a few seconds. Even if you banned magazines, forcing people to load the gun itself, people could just carry more guns; spree shooters seem to show up, as Lanza did, with more guns and ammunition than they actually need. In this specific case, it might well not have helped at all. Would Lanza really have been gang-rushed by fast-thinking primary school students if he stopped to reload?

Indeed, McArdle concludes, the only policy that would absolutely stop this sort of thing would be to ban all guns, categorically. And that is both politically and constitutionally impossible, and in all likelihood will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Moreover, it is not clear that guns are the issue so much as mental health is. In writing this article, we reached out to the National Rifle Association for comment, and while they declined, they did suggest David Kopel of the University of Denver as a source to talk over the constitutional niceties of this question. Dr. Kopel did not respond to a request for comment, but as it happens, he did publish a Wall Street Journal op ed on this topic recently, which we excerpt below (emphasis added):

Finally, it must be acknowledged that many of these attacks today unfortunately take place in pretend “gun-free zones,” such as schools, movie theaters and shopping malls. According to Ron Borsch’s study for the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato, active shooters are different from the gangsters and other street toughs whom a police officer might engage in a gunfight. They are predominantly weaklings and cowards who crumble easily as soon as an armed person shows up.[...]

Real gun-free zones are a wonderful idea, but they are only real if they are created by metal detectors backed up by armed guards. Pretend gun-free zones, where law-abiding adults (who pass a fingerprint-based background check and a safety training class) are still disarmed, are magnets for evildoers who know they will be able to murder at will with little threat of being fired upon.

People who are serious about preventing the next Newtown should embrace much greater funding for mental health, strong laws for civil commitment of the violently mentally ill—and stop kidding themselves that pretend gun-free zones will stop killers.

So while the law may permit many different remedies that involve the restriction of access to guns (while staying well shy of the “Second Amendment is inoperable because of militias” theory), these remedies may not be the correct ones, according to some critics. As to what remedies would be correct, that is a topic more thorny than even the question of the original meaning of the Second Amendment, and therefore possibly beyond the powers of even the most brilliant court to solve.

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (262)

Landon410
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:47am
so we all know that people have the right to arms
the left will have to concede this, so the issue then becomes, they will try to outlaw types of guns and ammo, ie “assault” or “high capicity” bulk ammo etc these things will all be outlawed.

so the point that needs to be made is that the people along with their rights to have arms, have the right to the same arms as the people we are protecting ourselves against (the guberment)

A militia is pointless if we all have .38 revolvers and the tyrannical government has fullauto and “assault” rifles
The people should be free to own these same weapons to keep the government inline, if we are not a power that is strong enough to protect ourselves we are not a power.

now i’m fine with doing backround checks, people with violent historys mental illness etc… i get that and am find with it, but I am 29 year old profressional with no criminal history, I should have the right to own whatever gun I want to spend the money on, if I want a full auto 50 cal machine gun, I should have the right to own it.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- naughtycal
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:54am
  A government with no people to govern is not a government if every private citizen swore to liberty or death they lose before shot could be fired.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Jerk
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 10:35am
  Landon: “… the left will have to concede this… .”
  
  This is the error made time after time by conservatives. These left wing ideologues concede nothing. They have their political judicial minions create lies, and call those lies precedent. They then use the principle of precedence as the tool of deconstructing our Constitution.
  
  More is coming.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 10:38am
  Unless you are in a WELL REGULATED MILITIA you have no right to bare arms.
- BODYBAG
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 10:40am
  @NAUGHTYCAL
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:54am
  A government with no people to govern is not a government if every private citizen swore to liberty or death they lose before shot could be fired.
  ————————————–
  Bullseye. We are the people. We ARE the government. They spend OUR money. They are OUR employees. They’ve become TYRANTS and we are their SLAVES.
  
  Newtown Rundown:
  Law providing gun purchase restrictions, background checks, mandatory waiting periods —-
  FAIL
  Law providing “Gun-Free Zones” — No weapons allowed on the premises
  FAIL
  Law designating homocide as intentional killing of another human being justifying capital punishment
  FAIL
  Law keeping teachers, administrators, school officials from arming themselves
  FAIL
  1994 Assault weapons BAN [if it were right now still in place]
  FAIL
  41 other various laws and useless garbage legislation
  FAIL
  
  Im done with liberal stupidness
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 10:46am
  @Enicom
  
  We already know the talking points you were handed to parrot, there is no need for you to parrot them. They’re right here in the article. We already know what you were told to say and what you’re going to say unthinkingly.
  
  I can’t imagine going through life not thinking and blindly repeating dogma. That has to be a sad existence.
  
  Report this comment
- Landon410
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 10:47am
  enciom…. what is your definition of a well regulated militia, and why did you leave off the part of the second amendment after that? “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
  
  Report this comment
- TEXASGRANNY73
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 10:56am
  @Encinom Obviously you do not know how to break down a sentence into phrasing with commas and periods. Take note. Both have different meanings and one has more than one meaning. Are you related to Lameliberal? First cousin, or what? Learning is fun after all, hmm? Or is it fundamental?. Fun duh! mental.
  
  Report this comment
- WarMunger_Al
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 10:57am
  Encinom-
  “The right of the PEOPLE to keep…”
  the people are the militia. Every single citizen of this country is a militia member. Even retards like you. Why do you think nobody was disarmed after the revolution? There were a ton of British loyalists (you probably would have been one of those, like the rest of liberal’s) still in the country after the war, they were not disarmed, nor were any other who did not join up to fight with the militia. So go put a pillow over your face if freedom is too hard a concept for you to live with.
  
  Report this comment
- Cavallo
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 11:00am
  Leftists only believe in the rights of the State to rule you as it sees fit.
  
  Report this comment
- Silvertruth
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 11:01am
  ENCINOM is very wrong in this matter and totally missed the point of the article.
  
  Historically, militias were called up on the spur of the moment from average citizens. Well regulated refers to what the framers were calling for if they were needed to defend the cities or states from attack. Some militias were ‘standing’ meaning they met regularly and had normal paramilitary functionality. These were kind of morphed into the various State ‘National Guard’ units.
  
  If the right of citizens to keep and bare arms were ‘infringed’, these militias could not be called up. Also, the citizens could not stand against corrupt state or federal governments. The founders (quotes galore from them are all over these articles, you can read them there, I’m not going to revisit them) were very clear on the intent of the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court members who are ruling in favor of the flawed ‘militia’ argument are doing so knowing full well that they are creating advocacy law and NOT upholding the intent of the founders that wrote the Constitution.
  
  The founders weren’t fools. They knew exactly what they were doing and predicted long ago where the Republic would fail. They also knew that by making the Second Amendment the SECOND most important right, that the odds of citizens having firearms to deal with that failure would probably remain. Both the First and Second Amendments are under assault, daily, from all sides. Protect them please.
  
  Report this comment
- banjarmon
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 11:04am
  ANY Laws prohibiting or restricting gun ownership is an INFRINGEMENT on the SECOND AMENDMENT and THEREFORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!
  
  Report this comment
- booger71
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 11:06am
  Why is that the to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights, I first must “be approved” by the government.? Do you have to be approved to exercise your 1st Amendment rights? While we are at it, you do realize don’t you that there are 10′s of thousands of police (federal , state, and local) along with men and women in the military that are taking some sort psychotropic medication and being treated for a myriad of psychological afflictions don’t you.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 11:13am
  It’s considered unconstitutional to tax ink and paper, as that infringes upon your First Ammendment Rights. And yet ammo prices are rising like gas prices due to excessive taxes…
  
  How is the 2nd Ammendment not clear enough?
  
  “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. ”
  
  I understood that perfectly. How about you?
  
  Report this comment
- kaydeebeau
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 11:30am
  The 2nd Amendment is in place in case the government chooses to ignore all the others
  
  Report this comment
- THE_SUPPLANTER
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 11:31am
  Two things: @Landon – be careful with the being okay with “mental illness”… Christianity will likely be considered a “mental illness” if the atheists have their way. This concept can very easily be skewed.
  
  @TROLLM – if you look at the text of the Amendment, it does not say that “the rights of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed…” does it? No. And you and your lefty ilk know it. It states “the rights OF THE PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The definition of infringe means to limit or undermine. Therefore, any law that limits or undermines the right of the people to keep and bear arms is invalid ab initio.
  
  What you want is a compliant populace so you can quickly slaughter any defiance to government mandates. You want slavery to a government that will tell you what to do. You want to FORCE people to your viewpoint and you want them all to accept it quietly like good, dumb animals.
  
  Report this comment
- Evileye
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 11:47am
  The Government does not need gun to control the masses .
  All it need to do is cut off the monthly check that a majority of the people receive.
  We have many highly trained combat veteran that are out of work. arm them and put a couple at each
  school.The little **** head that did the CT killing would have never gained access to the Building
  If you had a pair of Marine riflemen on duty .
  After awhile knowing that they will meet a highly skilled veteran the creeps will avoid these sensitive areas .
  
  Report this comment
- VanceUppercut
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 11:55am
  @Landon410
  
  You may be fine with backgrounds checks, but the fact is that approx. 20% of guns sold in this country are sold without background checks, through loopholes that allow private dealers to sell there wares freely at gun shows and over the internet. And any time the govt. tries to close these loopholes, the gun lobby starts screaming about their rights being taken away. There is a limit to every right–you have the right to free speech, but you can’t yell “fire” in a theater. There is no justification for private citizens owning assault rifles, except those b.s. reasons put forth by the “we need to be able to fight the government” types, who are apparently unaware that in a war against a military that has smart bombs, tanks, guided missile cruisers, and thermonuclear weapons, an AR-15 isn’t gonna save your ****. Any rational person should at least support an assault rifle ban. I’m tired of the stale argument that even in countries that ban guns there are still mass killings. Give a guy a billy club and enough time, and in theory he could kill millions. But in practice? Not so much. The problem with these types of weapons is that they facilitate the killing of massive numbers of people in a very short span of time. Some reports say that the Newtown shooting took place in a span of three minutes. Think about that–in three minutes a man was able to kill 26 people.
  
  Report this comment
- THERAPTURCOMES
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 12:37pm
  Liberals already have the blood of 50 plus million murdered babies in the womb on their heads as well as every person that has been killed in a gun free zone.
  
  They are all demon influenced and are going to be left behind at the resurrection/rapture http://youtu.be/ahEVxIzlxwo where they will face the wrath of God where 1/3 to 2/3 of the world population will die from a direct result of Gods wrath.
  
  The only ESCAPE is to believe the Gospel
  
  Romans 10:9-10
  
  9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
  
  10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
  
  Rev 3:10 Because you have kept the word of my patience, I also will keep you from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 1:02pm
  encinom
  
  Show us what a well regulated militia was in 1792 or 1800. This was after the time the Constitution & Bill of rights were passed & when many Founders were still alive.
  
  There were many people around that were part of no state militia & yet they had their guns. The Founders did nothing about that. So their intent must have been to allow private gun ownership.
  
  Encinom, you have been “schooled”
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 1:18pm
  Encinom
  
  Thankyou for being a pain in the b/tt, a Kool Aid drinking progressive, & a mind-numbed robot endlessly repeating leftist mantras.
  
  You challenged. We research & reply growing stronger, wiser.
  
  “Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 asserted that, “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of THEMSELVES and the state”"
  
  “British and Loyalist efforts to disarm the colonial Patriot militia armories in the early phases of the American Revolution resulted in the Patriot colonists protesting by citing the Declaration of Rights”
  >>>
  “no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law” Bill of Rights 1689
  
  So unlike what the ******** have been telling us there is a right to self-defence. And that does not mean merely calling 911 & calling the police.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
  
  BTW I save the web pages in case someone tries to alter them
  
  Report this comment
- booger71
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 1:21pm
  VanceUppercut
  ===========
  A semi automatic AR15 is NOT an assault rifle. My .308 deer rifle has twice the knockdown power of an AR15. An AR15 is not much different than shooting my .22 cal rifle loaded with magnums. I wish people would actually learn about guns before they spout their ignorance.
  
  Report this comment
- black9897
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 1:45pm
  The ignorance in America (and all over the world) about the 2nd amendment and the Constitution in general is very frightening.
  
  Report this comment
- Landon410
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 1:48pm
  booger is correct a .223 or “assault rifle” round is really one of the smallest rounds you can buy, if you talk to war vets that used the round they hate it because of its lack of power at stopping man size targets, in WW2 they used 30-06 rounds that weighed more than 3 times these .223 rounds
  
  I have a rifle that shoots 40gr bullets 1400 FPS, it holds 25+1 rounds at a time
  I have a rifle that shoots 200 gr bullets 2500 FPS it holds 5+1 rounds at a time
  I have a gun that shoots 385 gr bullets 1700 FPS it holds 3+1 rounds at a time
  
  which one is the most dangerous according to what you know?
  
  which rifle is more dangerous?
  
  and all this assault rifle buzz is stupid, the guy didn’t even use an assault rifle! CT HAS an assault rifle ban in place already…. this is just libs taking advantage of a terrible situation and using it for politics.
  
  Report this comment
- Plutos_Pal
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 2:11pm
  @ENCINOM
  
  Everyone in the world has the right to bare arms. I know of no regulation anywhere that prohibits folks from going sleeveless.
  
  Report this comment
- BLDEGLKEY
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 2:11pm
  @ ENCINOM
  I reserve the right to wear short sleeve shirts as appropriate, militia or not! In fact if called to respond, bare arms may not be the best choice.
  
  Report this comment
- Plutos_Pal
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 2:15pm
  @VANCEUPPERCUT
  
  You’re wrong. There is no such thing as a “private dealer” of firearms. All dealers are required to be licensed by the ATF. If one is engaging in the practice of buying and selling firearms without a license from the ATF, it is the responsibility of the ATF to prosecute them. All dealers licensed by the ATF must follow all regulations whether selling at their store or at a gun show.
  
  You might be confused with the private citizen who is generally permitted to sell their personal firearms without a license or conducting background checks. It should be noted that there is nothing in place to allow private citizens to conduct a background check before selling a firearm.
  
  Report this comment
- Larry E
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 2:22pm
  Encinom, you’d sound a whole lot less like the total moron you apparently are if you knew the difference between “bare arms” and “bear arms”.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 2:23pm
  booger71
  
  Come on Booger WTF are you saying?. You can’t talk about kinetic energy, stopping power or Joules to someone ignorant like Vance_Uppercut.
  
  http://www.fieldandstream.com/answers/guns/rifles/ammunition/how-big-308-incomparsin-223
  
  Report this comment
- pap pap
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:01pm
  I agree Landon the intent of this right is to protect the citizenry from government tyranny as the founders saw in Europe that despots disarmed the citizenry there so that they could command them. We are not to be commanded by our government “we the people” are supposed to command the government. To do this we need to have access to same weapons.
  
  Report this comment
- Landon410
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:01pm
  what booger was saying is just because the gun is black, is in 223 and is a semi auto does not mean it is an assault rifle, i said it before i’ll say it again, the rifle used in this school shooting was NOT an assault rifle according to the law.
  This gun was bought in CT bt a CT resident, it was legally purchased, and….. CT has a assault rifle ban in place, this rifle was not an assault rifle according to the law.
  
  and booger was also correct about a 308 being way more powerful tan a 223, even your link supports this.
  “308 has way more nock down power than a 223, it has deeper penetration and makes a much bigger wound channel”
  this is what booger said
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:14pm
  a militia is pointless period. you can have all the military grade guns in the world and it wouldn’t save you if our government truly turned on us! were talking Missiles, Nukes, Drones, Tanks, etc etc. your kidding yourself if you think a nation wide militia would last a day!
  
  Report this comment
- naughtycal
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:16pm
  So these scholars want the believers of the second amendment tgo form state wide militias uniting even tighter together forming well oil machines who sole goal would be the destruction of the tyrants that threaten liberty….I LIKE IT. Where do I sign for my state wide independent militia card?
  
  Report this comment
- naughtycal
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:19pm
  We could be more unified than the black vote…..Now that would scare the he77 out of the tyrants and prevayors of socialism and communism. We could even make it manditory that all militia take an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies both foriegn and domestic……I can’t wait
  
  Report this comment
- steelpanther
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:33pm
  The Militia argument is absurd. It’s nothing but an argument to make the government be the only one with guns. I’m sure their argument on what a militia would be the Army reserve and the National guard, and as much as I respect the people in them, they are still arms of the government.
  
  They are not citizen soldiers like they claim, and therefore not a militia, the militia is a CITIZEN army. And the left has already branded all of them as extreme right wing wackos.(and some are). So yeah, the militia argument is nothing but tyranny.
  
  Report this comment
- Izzy383
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:58pm
  @VanceUppercut
  
  The problem with your point is although your not allowed to yell the word “fire” in a theater, you are allowed to say the word fire. Your being denied the context, not the word. Therefore you can deny me using a weapon in the commission of a crime (context), but you cannot deny me the weapon.
  
  Report this comment
- James
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:13pm
  It does.Just go back and read all the excerpts, notes ect. at the time of the 2nd amendment writings and you will see that it does. Don’t fall for the left’s BS. They just want to be in control of our live from cradle to grave.
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:29pm
  @KEATONC33 You’re a true idiot, and one of a kind. The US military went up against poor communist farmers for several years, and couldn’t defeat them. The US military went up against armed rebels in Lebanon, and couldn’t defeat them. The US military went up against dirt poor cave dwellers in the Middle East, and yet we’re still there, after 8 years. Sorry to break the news to you, but any armed civilian population in the world, even consisting of citizens in third world countries, would undoubtedly give the US military a difficult time fighting. Now go back to lala land before your brain explodes trying to accept facts and truth.
  
  I can’t even believe you would rather accept the role of no hope for survival against tyranny instead of at least having an ounce of chance to protect yourself and family. The liberal’s mind will always surrender when faced with a choice demanding sacrifice, dedication and vigilance. They’re cowards of the first degree and don’t have the heart to become free. Like subjects they depend and wait for their overlords. It’s sad really, they forced such a mentality on all public schools, and left our children sitting ducks. They”re sick.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:48pm
  Keatonc33
  a militia is pointless period. you can have all the military grade guns in the world and it wouldn’t save you if our government truly turned on us! were talking Missiles, Nukes, Drones, Tanks, etc etc. your kidding yourself if you think a nation wide militia would last a day!
  ***
  The Syrians lasted for more than a day & that was before they started getting help from the U.S> in terms of Stingers.
  
  If a military unit defects, they do not return their weapons back to the armory, because fair is fair. They take their weapons with them
  
  There are & will be civilian drones. Drones can also be hacked. Drones cannot see everything. Does a drone see money being transferred via hawala? Do you know what hawala is? You think techno toys are everything. Keaton let me teach you something. Infantry, boots on the ground are the Queen of Battle (I use that as a Chess analogy). The boots on the ground might be a regular infantry or special ops, but they are flesh & blood people.
  
  Nuke weapons have limited utility in a civil insurrection. If they nuke too much the elites, would have too little to live on. they would be too weak after nuking their own country to defend against outside elites. Any nuking of a city is liable (almost guaranteed) to alienate a great # of people in the military encouraging them to defect.
  
  Also using the military to put down an insurrection is not guaranteed. The Communist leaders of China called in armies whose troops were not
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:54pm
  Keatonc33
  a militia is pointless period. you can have all the military grade guns in the world and it wouldn’t save you if our government truly turned on us! were talking Missiles, Nukes, Drones, Tanks, etc etc. your kidding yourself if you think a nation wide militia would last a day!
  
  ***
  And the elites /oligarchy using the military is always going to work why?
  
  “During the initial days when martial law was declared, the 38th Army, under General Xu Qinxian, openly refused to use force against student protestors.
  
  The 38th Army is stationed near Beijing and therefore has a closer connection to the people of Beijing. Many students had also served in the unit before attending university and some students trained with the 38th in the summers as members of the army reserve.”
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_at_Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989
  ***
  Using the military to support an illegal oligarchy has long term consequences. Maybe all those protests in china are not all about the Chinese economy. Maybe they are blowback/reverberations from Tianmen Square.
  
  Keaton do you really try to think critically or do you just repeat the Democrat party line?
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:55pm
  Oh year, forgot the link about the continuing blowback 20 years later
  
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2151677/Father-Tiananmen-Square-victim-hangs-protest-Chinese-governments-failure-address-sons-death.html
  
  Report this comment
- HenryA
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 5:37pm
  I am 55 years old an your post is right on. There is no way to keep a bad government in line with a 38 revolver.
  
  Report this comment
- Silvertruth
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 6:06pm
  Walkabout-
  
  You fail to understand who controls those nukes, drones, tanks and artillery. They are people who are defending a country they know and recognize. They take oaths to defend the constitution. Removing the Second Amendment is a clear path to removing the first (and all of them), any military person worth a darn will leave and create those ad-hoc ‘militias’ joining the civilians to fight against the ‘official’ government orders. They will likely take hardware with them, the National Guard units will lose nearly all their cohesion and equipment. This has all be gamed out before in several different ways.
  
  You will end up with a Civil War, just like the previous one but less along State lines and more along Urban vs. Rural lines. You will have mass starvation and death in the large cities as the food sources dry up. The rural military units will likely leave Federal service and enter into citizen based units. It will be a big ugly mess, but the right to have a firearm will be pre-eminent. Just look at Syria, it’s not the big weapons making the difference, it’s the small arms. We will be no different.
  
  Take away the guns, you will have Civil War take 2. It’s absolutely guaranteed. Considering those on the left are turning in their firearms at record rates, I think I know which side will win.
  
  Report this comment
- SgtB
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 6:56pm
  Let me explain this plainly for all of you who suffer from mental health issues or those who ignored k-12 U.S. History classes.
  
  Our nation WON its’ independence from the nation of Great Britain. At the time of our Revolutionary War, our nation’s founders were British subjects and slaves to the crown. The Revolutionary war started when our founders were ordered to relinquish their inherent right of self defense to the colloquially named “Red Coats” which were the British land and naval forces. In today’s terms, that would be like our President banning weapons and putting Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines on the streets to disperse any political activity, and then having them kill innocent civilians who only wanted to practice free speech (Which I highly doubt would happen with today’s all volunteer force led by Oathkeepers). These men who paraded the streets and deprived the subjects of what they felt and knew were their rights, were the well-regulated militia of the day. They were so well regulated in fact, that they shot and killed their own countrymen. They took over the homes of their fellow countrymen and demanded quartering at no cost. Not because they had to. Because they were ordered to. That is how well regulated they were.
  
  So in response to this reality at the onset of the Revolutionary war, when our loose confederacy became a republican nation after the signing of the Constitution, our founders wanted to ensure our rights would not be taken again s
  
  Report this comment
- Wyoming_Patriot
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 7:12pm
  encinom
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 10:38am
  
  Unless you are in a WELL REGULATED MILITIA you have no right to bare arms.
  
  OK, so according to encinom, it is long sleeved shirts only people. Larry the Cable Guy better get to WalMart quick.
  
  Report this comment
- fastgunslinger
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 7:51pm
  spoken like a true AMERICAN..
  
  Report this comment
- black9897
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 11:20pm
  @KEATONC33
  
  That’s not the point. The point is it would give you a chance. Guns or anything else don’t promise you a victory or that you will be safe…it simply gives you a chance to be safe and to fight back.
  
  Report this comment
- DeOppressoLiber
  Posted on December 20, 2012 at 12:08am
  Here is a short read and a great book on gun rights. It gets straight to the point on what gun owners should do next.
  
  http://ia701208.us.archive.org/13/items/milmanual-tc-31-29-special-forces—caching-techniques/tc_31-29_special_forces_-_caching_techniques.pdf
  
  Report this comment
- qaz_jar
  Posted on December 20, 2012 at 3:34am
  Scalia— no Federal Regulations at all…
  Federalist Papers- Jay, Madison, Hamilton: Philadelphia Convention. Bill of Rights not needed. No powers delegated to national government to create proper regulations concerning them- let alone violate them. Tax Power{Chief Heap Big Forked Tongue Roberts} Commerce clause, etc. National gov’t can’t ban guns, do national backround checks… (round up persons involved- put behind barbwire.)
  
  Can’t ban guns or do backround checks.
  Obama/Congress can provide money to State Army Reserves: teachers volunteer 1 weekend a month small arms training.(or be drafted) Founding Fathers revised 2nd Amendment so- people could be compelled to bear arms.
  
  Report this comment
- Trigus
  Posted on December 20, 2012 at 1:51pm
  “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
  George Mason
  Co-author of the Second Amendment
  during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
  
  And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”
  Samuel Adams
  quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, “Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State”
  
  “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
  George Washington
  First President of the United States
  
  Do I need to post more?
  
  Report this comment
- cowboybobb3n8
  Posted on December 20, 2012 at 1:58pm
  Incinom, you’re a moron. Landon410, you’re right on the money, I agree with you 100%
  
  Report this comment
- Trigus
  Posted on December 20, 2012 at 2:09pm
  “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
  
  Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
  
  We all have heard of the supposedly Million Man March – IF 30, 40, 50, or even 100 million Firearm Owners Marched on Washington. What profound effect would that have on the Country?
  
  “Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
  
  Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts
  
  Recall Petitions should be filed against any Elected Official that puts their name or votes for any Bill that restrict the Firearm Rights of the People
  
  Report this comment
- mr. parker
  Posted on December 20, 2012 at 9:33pm
  As a relative newcomer here, who is the screwball called encimom? Read the Heller decision, read the writings of the signers of the constitution.
  It is an individual right, it should never be in question.
  The amendment also allows states to form militias, just as we have county sheriff’s posses in Arizona.
  
  Report this comment
DZ-015
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:46am
Scalia has the Second down pretty well, and it is unlikely to change so long as the Justices remain healthy. The problem lies in the tortured logic of the Roberts Obamacare decision. High federal and state taxes on firearms and ammunition could make them unavailable to anyone but the wealthy and those willing to bypass the marketplace. Also, the Second only mentions “keeping” and “bearing” arms. Logically, this extends to such things as “acquiring” (through purchase, gift, or inheritance), but ammunition is expendable. If exorbitant taxes and threats of lawsuits prevent the production of firearms and ammunition domestically, the feds could tax imports to make them unaffordable to most citizens. Voila, the Second is then bypassed to a large extent.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The_Jerk
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 10:37am
  Then it’s time for a San Antonio lead party, to replace the old Boston tea party.
  
  Report this comment
- SgtB
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 6:59pm
  Not without me going on a… better not finish that in case big brother is reading. Nah, I’ll go ahead and say it. If ANY administration tries to inhibit my rights any further, I will go apeshit and I won’t be the only one.
  
  Report this comment
forthepeople
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:43am
Let them try and take away our guns for we are in need of a revolution every couple hundred years to clean ( up ) the fat from the bone in DC ?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:49am
  I am a militia of one.
  
  What these lying psychopaths think or say has become irrelevant. They want to disarm us and then have their way with us without us being able to resist. They excel at lies and distortion and word games. Refute them with facts, but address them otherwise not at all.
  
  Also, please, pass around this article. It debunks the “assault weapon” mass murderer myth they’re building up to try and take our 2nd Amendment rights from us. Share it far and wide, on and off the internet.
  
  http://www.patriotsdonotcomply.com/index.php/articles/myth-mass-murderer/
  
  Report this comment
- ArmedAndReallyPissed
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:55am
  Thanks GHOST. If i ever need to Radio for backup, i’d like for you to be first on my list.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 10:12am
  Why thank you Armed! :)
  
  If you haven’t yet, sign up over at the site (it’s my site). Get more people over there. The data for the article came from one of the contributors over there, all sorted and analyzed. If we can get as many intellectual and experienced folks over there participating, we can become a potent repository of information to defeat the ghouls we face.
  
  Report this comment
- oneshiner
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 10:47am
  As horrible as every death is, it’s caused by more than just guns. The little reported medical mistakes take more lives (legally) than guns do. see the report:
  More Treatment, More Mistakes – NYTimes.com
  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/…/more-treatment-more-mistakes.htm…
  Jul 31, 2012 – According to a 1999 report by the Institute of Medicine, as many as 98,000 Americans were dying every year because of medical mistakes. Today … But a reasonable estimate is that medical mistakes now kill around 200,000 …
  
  (This scares me more than someone with a gun, we rely on the medical community to save us)
  
  Report this comment
- VRW Conspirator
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 11:37am
  Ghost
  
  posted your link on my facebook….
  was thinking of getting some guns but money is tight…hate credit…but might use it to get a 12g and 2 youth 22LR for my kids…
  can’t wait any longer….
  
  unless someone has a nice 1911 or Sig P226 Navy they can sell me cheap.. LOL
  
  Report this comment
- Middle Finger
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 6:18pm
  Then let’s form that well regulated militia and cancel the liberal argument. Oh. I just labeled myself a terrorist. Eat me DHS.
  
  Report this comment
BasketFullOfPuppies
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:42am
I find that our Constitution is a lot like the Bible.

If you start picking and choosing the parts that you want to believe in, then it’s really not worthwhile to believe in any of it.

The difference though, is that the Constitution can be amended. So why, if so many red-blooded Americans want to change it, can’t they? They point to the NRA, a faceless, nameless beast. But, it is no such thing. It is an organization of about 4 million PEOPLE that care more about their RIGHT to keep and bear arms, than they do about 35 dollars per year. So, the NRA “only” represents 4 million people. Why can’t they get the 306 million people to take their side?

Simply put, while people may be justifiably horrified by gun violence, they are even more afraid of being left defenseless in the face of that violence. But, even more dangerous, is the thought of being defenseless in the face of those that swore to protect and uphold the Constitution… the people we elected, and that are, every day, trying to find an end run around an amendment that “they” don’t like.

If you don’t think that “they” are after control, just let them take that right away. They’ll take the rest at their leisure.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Iron_Wyll
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:41am
A couple of things to consider: A militia is defined as citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. In the Revolution, the Minutemen and the Green Mountain Boys were examples of militia. Well-regulated means that once assembled, the militia could do its job, which was to fight an opposition force. That means, in the most simple terms, being able to handle a weapon effectively. That comes with use and practice. So our Founders were saying that citizen soldiers were/are an important part of the domestic defense, and our citizens should have weapons so they can perform if called upon.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- WarMunger_Al
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 11:07am
  Standing armies were not permitted by the constitution at first, the citizens were the defense. Now we are overwhelmed with military and para-military forces. The government and idiot liberals are pushing towards the redline by going after our right to defend ourselves. When they cross the line under the command of Mystery Joe Biden, I hope everyone is ready.
  
  Report this comment
- andjusticeforall
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:23pm
  The Virginia ratifying convention met from June 2 through June 26, 1788. Edmund Pendleton, opponent of a bill of rights, weakly argued that abuse of power could be remedied by recalling the delegated powers in a convention. Patrick Henry shot back that the power to resist oppression rests upon the right to possess arms:
  Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.
  
  More quotes from the Virginia convention:
  [W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually…I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…
  —George Mason
  
  Report this comment
Exidor
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:40am
The Left is complete ignorant, devious and insane. Their arguments make no sense whatsoever.

What do think make up militias?

A baseball bat can be an Assault Weapon. So can my car keys.

Social decay cannot be remedied by the number of bullets a gun can hold.

Geez……

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
LameLiberals
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:39am
A SUPREME COURT judge JUST DIED.

Obama will choose another liberal which will TIP balance. Our Republic is DEAD!

The 10 amendments ARE MEANT FOR THE PEOPLE. Freedom of speech, right to bear arms, get a warrant to prevent unlawful seizures, etc. The fed and state government ALREADY HAD the right to bear arms and did not need a 2nd amendment to say they could. The 1st amendment of free speech is NOT meant for the state/federal government and neither is the 2nd amendment or any of the other amendments. ALL 10 amendments were FOR THE PEOPLE.

The constitutions gave the states and federal government their own list of governing directives AFTER the 10 amendments which government THE PEOPLE.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 10:00am
  Robert Bork is not a Supreme Court justice. I wish to God he was but Ted Kennedy trashed him personally in the most disgusting ways to keep him off of the court.
  
  Report this comment
- LameLiberals
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 10:04am
  Thank GOD he is not a supreme court justice. I was washing Fox News and a woman said he was!! My heart dropped. I PRAY the 5 so-called conservatives on the Supreme Court out last Obama’s administraiton. I say -so-called because Bush’s appt who agreed with ObamaCare is not really a cosnervative.
  
  Report this comment
- BADDOGGYDESCIPLE
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 10:07am
  Um….Bork was not confirmed, not on the court. But yeah, pray for the health of the current members.
  
  Report this comment
- TEXASGRANNY73
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 10:48am
  Cannot even imagine anyone as a citizen of this country not only being dumb but stupid to boot. Ha ha, yes, I can. Maybe I am wrong. Einstein said it was better to have an imagination than knowledge so………………..? What did Einstein know? I imagine he imagined lots of folks in la la land who open mind, insert image of intellect. Lameliberal, do you think if you tried really hard you can name the justices who are alive or at lest present themselves as being? Or was this an attempt to just be noticed? It worked.
  
  Report this comment
Jeff Bassett
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:38am
The Declaration first 2/3rds is the reason why we separated from England. The first amendment again states why and what the most important issue, government not limiting free speech is foundational to the nation. The second, next second most important issue of all, the right to defend yourself against government. All stated with a purpose and framed as an example of what other governments did to limit such freedoms.

If there is ANY question, the founders made it very clear in the pro and con debate of the federalist papers, siding with the pros for such freedoms. Again, framed in a manner to show exactly why such freedoms were so important.

Our nation is founded on God given rights, noted with such strong wording and backed up by over 15,000 references to the bible so that it is know those rights are God given because if they come from the government, the government can take such away. But God will not and no man has the power to usurp such.

Liberals always argue by taking such out of context, using small snippets, deleting and editing sentences to try to make their point. The electorate needs to learn US historical apologetics.

The balances instituted by our founding fathers has eroded, judicial activism, administrative proclamation and congressional laziness to now advocate by committee as well a press that looks to one side has taken away the safeguards meant to protect citizens. Worse, the electorate at large grown lazy and apathetic to such.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Izzy383
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:03pm
  Of the 8 delegations sent to work on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, 6 called for protections of the right to bear arms. Only 3 called for the right to free speech.
  
  Report this comment
Flyingfish
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:34am
They are right, it does only apply to State Militias. Of course that means every able bodies adult male is considered in the State Militia, and these days that also means every able bodied adult female.

Even the States can’t tell there citizens that they cannot form their own millitias, so exactly what is their point?

Oh that’s right, they don’t have one.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- WarMunger_Al
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 11:14am
  Every gun owner should carry a militia card in their wallet. You can make up your own units, even if solo. Then you would be exempt from any restriction on bearing arms, eh? stupid liberals are relentless in their efforts to destroy this country.
  
  Report this comment
wordsofwisdom
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:32am
This is how sick our government has become under this administration.
Your about to see them try to take our guns without having the gun laws or the constitution changed. If they think they can confiscate them by executive order without much resistance they will. Once unarmed he will not care about the constitution or the laws. We will be just another 3rd world country with a little want to be world ruler dictating to the people & if you don’t like it, tough ****.

It’s already started! Unless you are a complete idiot you can already see his contempt for our laws in his actions. Eric Holder has broken several laws and others in this admin have also broken many laws but no action has been taken. So why do you think he will care about the constitution after you are disarmed? He will not because he is a communist Muslim that wants to destroy the kind of law we have in this country.
I wrote this song about the Muslim way of life which I see as Obama’s desired way of life. It’s called
“That’s Not Right” http://www.reverbnation.com/play_now/song_10789999 Obama is supporting Muslim causes all over the world and a lot of the money he is spending is going to our enemies around the world. groups like the Muslim Brotherhood are being armed by Obama. We are very close to being destroyed if we do not

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
RJJinGadsden
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:32am
Not only have several SCOTUS rulings already disagree with this attempt. But, consider this. Did our founding fathers add this Amendment then set about to disobey it once the revolution was over, or maybe the War of 1812? According to these people the public should have been disarmed then to maybe rearmed with the outbreak of the Civil War. Makes no real sense. Other than another attempt to twist semantic wording again as Madalyn Murray O’****’s attorneys managed to pull off in 1964!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- LameLiberals
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:40am
  A conservative Supreme Court justice Bork JUST DIED TODAY.
  
  OBama will replace him with ANOTHER ANTI-GUN judge like SOtamayor and that ther lesbian he appointed. THE USA REPUBLIC is DEAD.
  
  Report this comment
- Cavallo
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 10:10am
  @Lame, Dude, he wasn’t sitting on the court. He was the nominee the Dems first orchestrated a campaign to deny him a seat on the court. Which coined the phrase Borking a nominee. Bobo the Wonder Marxist doesn’t need another supreme court judge to do whatever he wants.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 11:15am
  Simmer down, LL
  
  Report this comment
Carlinpa
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:31am
This is written in no uncertain terms
“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"

If something is specified (i.e. people, state, congress") then that is what precisely is meant. IF they had only meant "A" militia, then they would have said only a "militia"

and the supreme court has already reiterated it's clarity in 2008
". the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia"

This is just another tactic by liberals where IF you can't change the text of the Constitution then change the meaning of the words. Atheist have been doing that for years/

Plus NON of these liberal would dare go a single day without there armed escort. They would most certainly want to disarm the citizenry but NOT the precious armed security.. which would get a waiver of course.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- WarMunger_Al
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 11:19am
  everyone should form their own militia, even a militia of a single person. Easy enough to print out militia ID cards, that should be enough to silence the militia requirement. They of course would try and re-define what militia means. Maybe we need a United Internet Militia…
  
  Report this comment
lookes2003
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:31am
How about….. No.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ResistSocialism
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:30am
yes I want one of those tanks or helicopters

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
stacie01872
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:29am
if the left wants a second civil war then this is surel;y the way to get it. the government will have to pry my gun from my cold dead fingers

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Mil-Dot
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 12:00pm
  Stac,
  Why don’t you adopt the policy of the people prying THEIR weapons from THEIR cold dead hands.
  
  Report this comment
RIGS
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:28am
LIBERAL SOCIALIST are over inflated gas bags that want their nazi/marxist agenda forced on people just like the two leading mass killers in history and were SOCIALIST/ ADOLF HITLER and JOE STALIN.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
scrapadapolis
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:26am
A nice long pointhess artical.Every private citizen is a milita in itself.Hence every man whom owns a gun is in the milita.We weren’t called Minutemen for nothing,So please although I feel bad for what happened,But that was not MY or YOUR fault.It wasn’t even the guns fault.So blaze please keep your liberal writers off your staff.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- searching for the Truth
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:55am
  I really wish they would !
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 12:58pm
  Militias were fluid things.
  
  People like the Green Mountain Boys would show up for a campaign or a battle, disagree about who was elected leader of the militia & leave, taking their guns with them.
  
  Militias like the the one that tore the British a new one at Kings Mountain marched miles fought one battle & they melted back into the woods west of the Appalachians.
  
  Report this comment
caleejr
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:21am
Pennsylvania constitution – section 21:
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

pretty straightforward if you ask me! and seeing as the Federal Constitution had to coincide with the state constitutions, and could not conflict with each other….there’s the answer.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- JazzGuy
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 6:55pm
  Indeed. Insomuch as Delaware is so close in proximity to PA (but has ALL liberal idiots for its political representatives), I hereby apply to the First Pennsylvania UIM (United Internet Militia), and pray hither and forthwith to be so accepted into its numbers, for the purpose of so-defined defense, of myself, my family, friends, state and country! Thank you.
  
  Report this comment
DougHuffman
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:21am
The law and jurisprudence is well settled. Move on.

“From my cold, dead hands” works for me.

Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and Guns and the Truth. God Bless Bitter Clingers, damn know-nothings, progressives.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
GuruMeditation
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:20am
No.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
progressiveslayer
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:19am
Of course liberals say it applies to militia only so they can say who can own a firearm but it applies to the people as well because it’s the only thing that keeps the government from becoming tyrannical.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
chucksue351
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:18am
the right to keep and bear arms is only to persons, not to militias which are made up of persons, it would not make sense to keep the arms in an armory, the federal government could confiscate them all at once, or a foreign power could target them, the idea is to have them dispersed over a wide area, namely in the control of persons in the militia, i think israel has a model very similar to the founders ideas

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
RaydocX
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:18am
sorry, Lefties, but the language can be read with no extrapolation to indicate that the MILITIAS, the military arm of the newly formed government, would or could need regulation…

that is, without the certainty of a potential armed response from the citizens, the MILITIAS could have staged a coup and created a military headed regime in the entire US or in a given state.

Our individual rights to own and carry firearms do NOT apply to militias, alone. Further, if they appear to succeed in making that arguement to a court that has clearly stepped away from the Constitution, the language does not specify a state sponsored militia.

Hence, I recommend the foundation here and now of the Blaze interstate militia. We can all be lowly privates, but it will guarantee our right to keep and CARRY firearms throughout the US by the Left’s own argument.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- travlman77
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:37am
  Where do I sign up?
  
  Report this comment
- GuruMeditation
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 10:36am
  Show me the charter.
  
  Report this comment
IndyGuy
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:18am
Gee….Let me give this a try…bolded below for emphasis….
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

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:35am
  Yeah, you’d think that anybody with a real brain could easily understand that. Then again, there are just too many lawyers out there ready to made a name for him/her self.
  
  Report this comment
- Thighmaster
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:39am
  “THE PEOPLE” not militia, not feds, not soldiers, the people…..
  
  Report this comment
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:18am
I still expect Obama to do the usual end-run around Congress and just regulate and executive order away more of our rights to bear arms and of self-defense across the board. Nothing is beyond the insanity of Obama in the White House.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- momrules
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:25am
  In full agreement with you SNOW.
  
  Report this comment
- RaydocX
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:35am
  spot on, Leopard… EPA can regulate the powder or the bullet as an environmental hazard…
  they’re exotic clubs when a single round is $5 or $7.
  
  Report this comment
- mrsclark
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:52am
  Watch for it….
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.