The liberals are trying to spin the Supreme Court's dramatic decision in the gun case as creating a "new" constitutional right. They couldn't be more wrong; the Supreme Court simply restated the individual right that the Founding Fathers wrote in the Second Amendment which has been part of the Constitution since December 15, 1791.
The decision in District of Columbia v. Heller was a victory for the view (often expressed by Justice Antonin Scalia) that the Constitution means what it says. The liberals, who believe that the Supreme Court can invent new rights, seem to think that a right stated in the Constitution doesn't exist until the Supreme Court ratifies it.
The Heller decision was a victory for our written Constitution over the blathering by activist judges who pretend that the Constitution is a "living" document which they can reinterpret according to their personal biases about "evolving standards." It was also a victory for the active advocacy of private citizens who understand the Constitution and can effectively refute judicial heresies.
For the first century and a half of our country's existence, the right of individuals to own firearms was generally accepted. The militia referred to in the Second Amendment consisted of all able-bodied men, and they were expected to possess and use their own firearms.
James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, No. 46: Americans have "the advantage of being armed" — unlike the citizens of other countries where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." During Virginia's Convention to ratify the Constitution, Patrick Henry said: "The great objective is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun."
In the middle of the 20th century, when the liberals began to restrict our liberties and propagate the notion that government knows better than individuals how to run our lives and spend our money, proposals for gun control became politically correct. From about 1950 to about 1990, law professors and judges who wanted to be P.C. adopted the erroneous view that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with an individual's right to own a gun and that the "militia" refers only to government-appointed law enforcement groups.
One academic's prize-winning book claimed that guns were not widely owned by individuals at the time of the American Revolution, but his book was exposed as a fake. By 2001, the United Nations tried to demonize the private ownership of guns and get governments to confiscate all privately owned guns.
Fortunately, the United States not only enjoys widespread gun ownership, we also have large numbers of citizens who understand the Constitution and are willing to speak out for their rights.
Gun rights advocates, working entirely outside the legal profession, actively promoted the common-sense truth about the plain meaning and historical context of the Second Amendment by publishing articles in gun magazines, law reviews and other journals. At first, the legal community scoffed at these people as ignorant "gun nuts," but eventually, the weight of their logic and historical evidence became overwhelming.
Then came a couple of breakthroughs. On May 17, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a statement that read in part, "Let me state unequivocally my view that the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms.... This view of the text comports with the all but unanimous understanding of the Founding Fathers."
Ashcroft cited many writings by the Founding Fathers as well as Supreme Court decisions from the early years. He concluded, "In light of this vast body of evidence, I believe it is clear that the Constitution protects the private ownership of firearms for lawful purposes."
On October 16, 2001, the Fifth Circuit ruled in U.S. v. Emerson that "It appears clear that 'the people,' as used in the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, refers to individual Americans." Yes, it is clear; but the liberals had been pretending otherwise.
The Democrats then had a great awakening about why Al Gore lost the presidency to George W. Bush in November 2000. Gore lost three traditionally Democratic states, Tennessee (Gore's own state), Arkansas and West Virginia primarily because Gore was a gun-control advocate and those states have lots of voters whom Barack Obama has insulted by saying they "cling" to their guns because they are supposedly "bitter."
Obama is now backpeddling all over the place to try to defuse the gun issue. He hopes people will forget that he originally defended the DC gun control law that the Supreme Court knocked out in the Heller case.
The Supreme Court is still a major problem because four liberal justices are diehard supremacists who believe they have the right to repeal the Second Amendment. The biggest issue in the upcoming election is whether the newly elected President will fill court vacancies with supremacist or constitutional justices.
Disclaimer: Worldview Weekend, Christian Worldview Network and its columnists do not necessarily endorse or agree with every opinion expressed in every article posted on this site. We do however, encourage a healthy and friendly debate on the issues of our day. Whether you agree or disagree, we encourage you to post your feedback by using the feedback button.
Did anyone hear the recording that was somehow obtained, and played on nationwide radio by Rush Limbaugh? It was a recording of a high ranking official of Communist China giving a speech in which he ranted and raved about America. He was cursing us, and calling us numerous foul words that I won't repeat, along with saying we were stupid, and that the only reason that they hadn't taken us over yet was because there were "Too many guns in the hands of the American public!" Then he also said that they (The Chinese) owned our president (Bill Clinton), that they bought, and paid for him. How ironic that after Bill Clinton takes charge of the country, all of this "Gun Legislation" starts really happening with full force. Clinton owed the Chinese for winning the election, so now he must help to disarm Americans. Clinton was the worst thing that ever happened to America for a long time. Click here to reply to this post
WE ARE ALL CALLED TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT
Posted On: 07/10/08 12:50:55 PM
Age 64, OH
I preach every 1st day (Sunday) in a Quaker church. Most of the people are pacifists but I and a few others are not. I have learned much about real peace in an exchange with them. We are all called to pick up our cross and follow Jesus daily. But we are not called to crucify ourselves as Jesus did not crucify Himself. This was an evil act done by evil men. Temptation must come, but woe to those it comes through. We are certainly not called to nail our own children to the cross or to leave someone else to do it. It is not the act of dying a physical death that is to our benefit. But it the act of giving up our life to Jesus Christ that we have eternal life. So dying has no benefit unless the life is given to Jesus Christ. So if someone gives their life to an evil cause it does them no good. Even if someone dies in a war for good causes, no good can come to the person who died unless they made a willing sacrifice. It is not in being OVERCOME that we have life; but it is being OVERCOMERS that we have eternal life. So every man has the God given right to defend his life and the life of his family and the life of the innocent. I do not allow some servant of Satan to take the life of my child and with it, his opportunity to give his life to Jesus Christ. I do not allow some servant of Satan to take my life and no longer be able to teach my children. God never FORCES His will upon us. So we can easily see it is the one who wants to force their will upon someone who is NOT the servant of God. We are called to oppose this evil and are called to protect the innocent. This is done because if their life is taken from them, they lose the opportunity to give their life to Jesus Christ. I take the responsibility to protect the innocent very serious and have taken action to improve my ability to do so. I own a 44 mag revolver and have put six shots out of six into a four inch bullseye at 100 meters. This is with open sights and no scope. Even the liberal Thomas Jefferson said it is the responsibility of every man to own a gun and to know how to use it. No man can know what action is always right; so it is necessary that we follow The Holy Spirit of the Lord Jesus. Lou Click here to reply to this post
Bless God
Posted On: 07/14/08 12:32:01 PM
Age 47, MO
Lou: Very well spoken and insightful. Indeed God speaks truth into our hearts and thru His followers. Thanks, John Click here to reply to this post
There is another verse...
Posted On: 07/10/08 08:48:44 AM
Age 43, TX
With some saying that Christ would not be advocate of the 2nd Amendment, you may get your Bibles out and verify the following: Luke 22:36-38, KJV, "Then said He unto them, 'But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. 37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.' 38 And they said, 'Lord, behold, here are two swords.' And He said unto them, 'It is enough.' It has been noted by some that this may have been to fulfill the need to tell Peter to put away his sword, later, in the Garden of Gethsemane, but it is there, all the same...Let the twisting begin. Click here to reply to this post
You missed the 2nd half of it.
Posted On: 07/10/08 08:27:55 AM
Age 48, CA
I do believe I also said that while Christ would not be an outright advocate of the 2nd Amendment, niether is he an advocate of Public disarmament. I know of cases where criminals had the nerve to call upon thier victims to turn the other cheek. I seriously doubt that such a person would be able to present himself before Christ saying "Lord! I tried to rape this mans wife and he shot me!" We can start with the fact that if he wishes to comit rape, Christ is not his Lord and we can go on from there. Click here to reply to this post
Being an avid firearms owner myself.......
Posted On: 07/09/08 09:15:06 AM
Age 48, CA
I can agree with the ruling but it does not stop here. As armed gangs roam the streets, kids take a gun and shoot up our schools as well as other locations, and overall crime is far higher than ot should be, screaming for gun rights makes about as much sense as perverts screaming for thier sexual rights in the midst of the AIDS epidemic.
As much as I myself would like to believe differently, Christ is not an advocate of the 2nd Amendment. Niether does Christ call for public disarmament. He did order Peter to put his sword back in its sheath, not turn it in to the authorities.
What is needed is for the nations firearms owners to come up with an alternative to Liberal disarmament. The 2nd Amendment provides just such a tool which is needed.
The 2nd specifies "In order to form a well regulated Militia" It is thie "Well regulated part we tend to neglect. Liberals use it to justify restrictions and regulations. If taken literally, this clause should mean:
- Every armed citizen is not a civilian but a militiaman. As such, a Militiaman is not only under civil Law but to some degree, military Law. Thus, the UCMJ should apply to any militiaman.
- Under the 2nd Amndment, when any weapon involving the right to keep & bear arms is involved in a criminal case, all of the local Gun owners have the right if not duty to form a Court Martial against the criminal involved so in addition to his civil penalty, a militay penalty can be added to his sentence. The courts have already affirmed that double jeoprody does not apply since civil Law and Military Law are two different jurisdictions and doubel jeoprody only applies within the jurisdiction.
- Anybody bearing arms under subversive colors, be they gangs, rebelious militia, hate groups, or any organization in opposition to the nation or its laws should be declared an enemy combatant. A gang member should be condisered no different than a German Storm Trooper who set foot upon or east coast or Japanese soldier on our west coast in 1941.
- The firearms safety rules taught in every safety class need to be codified into Law.
"I didn't know the gun was loaded! I shot him but didn't mean to kill him! The gun just went off by its self!" and any other such excuse which blames the gun and not the person wielding it should be inadmissable. Such excuses should be sternly reduked the momnent they are brough fourth.
Until we bring fourth a viable alternative, the next battle will be for the repeal of the 2nd and unless WE do something different, it will gain support. Click here to reply to this post
Christ wasn't for self-defense...
Posted On: 07/10/08 09:18:29 AM
Age 44, KY
46, you make some interesting points, though some of your conclusions are wrong, they are interesting, nevertheless.
When the founding fathers drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights, every male between the ages of 16 and 60 were considered a "Militia Member", but the Militia isn't a military organization, that was what the Contential Army was. Basically, the military is to defend from foreign invaders and to fight our battles abroad. The Militia was to protect the home front from domestic threats - indians, foreign invaders who had managed to make it to our shores, and last but not least, a tyrannical government trying to take away our liberties. Basically, the military fights for our sovereignty and the militia protect our liberties.
As for Christ wasn't for or against self-defense, then why was his disciple, a fisherman by trade, carrying a sword? If or savior wasn't keen on the idea, don't you think He would have had Peter get rid of the sword? I have never found our Savior to be at a lost for words, when He didn't approve of something.
As for accidents not being permissible in court, that is ridiculous, to put it mildly. Accidents do happen, where no malice is intended, thus a person involved in an accident shouldn't face the same penalties a person who uses any thing to harm or threaten harm to another person. You way of thinking, says that if I am hammering a nail in a piece of wood, and the hammer slips out of my hand and hits someone in the head and kills them, is no different from someone taking a hammer an bludgeoning someone to death, and thus I should be charged with murder! How silly?!
I grew up in a home with several firearms around, not locked in some case or with trigger locks, and some of them loaded. We were taught, as children, from the time we were big enough to understand, that we were never to tough a firearm without adult supervision, and to treat all firearms as "loaded" firearms, and never to point it at anyone, or at anything we didn't intend to kill. Amazingly enough, me and my 2 brothers and sister, never shot anyone growing up, despite fighting among each other as brothers and sisters often do. When I was in High School in the late 70's and early 80's, being a rural area where hunting was big, we often came to school with firearms in our trucks and cars. We would bring firearms into shop class and refinish the stocks and forearms on our shotguns and rifles as part of shop projects. We would have knock-down-drag-outs with other classmates, but you know, none of us offered or even thought about going to the parking lot and retrieving a firearm to take revenge. We even got corperal punishment when we did something wrong, but no one ever plotted to kill that teacher, as far as I am aware. When my parents were in school, the local hardware stores sold dynamite to anyone who wanted it, but you didn't hear about kids getting mad and blowing up a school. Before the late 60's attack on the Washington monument by a lone nut, you could order a bazooka and live rounds, machineguns and even 37 millimeter anti-tank cannons from the back of Popular Science via mail order, but you never heard of massacres or blood running knee deep in the streets! So affirming our rights to bear arms as individual citizens aren't likely to result in any blood baths or such events!
Just tossing my dollars worth in on this subject (we used to say "2 cents worth", but since our dollar is worth 2 cents, it means the same). Mark Click here to reply to this post
Sin loves denial
Posted On: 07/11/08 08:42:52 AM
Age 47, MO
Mark:
I'm thinking that you don't understand liberal evolution and the nature of sin. Don't you know that we are getting better, nicer, smarter, more tolerant, loving, and accepting? Aren't we today slower to anger and to fly off the handle? ...Indeed, sin never satisfies and only a fool denies reality while clinging to perceived truths. Today, a Christian must arm himself as an equalizer to harm. A gun speaks even if unfired and the shooting is only in response to an attack. Therefore, the blame, sin, and guilt lies with the attacker, not the defender. Let us not fear defense but always defend true rightousness. John Click here to reply to this post
You quote me out of context
Posted On: 07/10/08 03:04:46 PM
Age 48, CA
Negligent discharge is negligence and I never advocated otherwise. What I do stand against are cases where like in Florida, a kid was expelled from school, went home, stole his parents gun, returned to school, entered the classroom, aimed the pistol at his teacher, and killed him. After being sentenced to 40 years, ther was public support for his teary eyed appeals of "I really didn't mean to kill him!" And "The gun just went off by its self!" Likewise, we have drive by shhoters offering the same excuses.
As far a Christ and the second Amendment. Once again while I do not believe Christ himself would place much priority on it, niether would he place any such priority on liberals seeking public disarmament. As I have said previously, I doubt that any criminal would be able to plead to Jesus "Lord! I tried to rob/ rape, asault / or kill this man and he shot me!" And get a favorable response from Christ. First off, if Christ was this mans Lord, he wouldn't be trying to commit a crime.
Bottom line: Arming or disarming people is not the goal of Christ's followers. An armed person who is in Christ poses not threat to anybody except those who seek to do evil. An evil person cannot be disarmed. He will seek and obtain wht he needs to acomplish his aim. Click here to reply to this post
GOOD POINT
Posted On: 07/12/08 11:22:43 AM
Age 64, OH
You bring up a good point. We do not know if the kid meant to pull the trigger but we do know that the kid meant to go home after the gun, he meant to bring it to school, he meant to carry it inside, he meant to point it a the teacher; now he is surprised that it went off in his anger. He is responsible for this teachers death and no else is. Lou Click here to reply to this post
GUN SAFETY
Posted On: 07/10/08 12:05:54 AM
Age 64, OH
See there, you can say something that makes sense. The only problem with what you say though if there are restrictions of any kind on gun ownership it will be an unjust and full of errors and also used to keep some form unjustly owning guns. Lou Click here to reply to this post
What restrictions are reasonable?
Posted On: 07/10/08 08:34:40 AM
Age 48, CA
The current restrictions onlyserve to disarm the innocent while the justic system continues to excuse the guilty. The assault weapons ban is a prime example. It is based on the myth that the weapon makes the man.
Feedback from Iraq says otherwise. One of the sayings of soldiers is that the safest place to be is right in front of your attacker. North Hollywood is another example. Had those criminals been armed with "Regular rifles", They would have taken careful aim and actually killed severl officers instead of wounding a few and losing the fight. Likewise, had the officers not fallen to the myth, one would have taken a rifle in major caliber instead of the Bushmaster carbines and the shootout would have ended much sooner because any major caliber rifle would have not only penatrated thier body armor but they would have had exit holes out the back of thier vests. Safety should rest in the person, not the object. An evil person is no safer with a lesser weapon. Click here to reply to this post
An issue of self defense
Posted On: 07/09/08 05:58:15 PM
Age 61, MO
It might appear that Christ would be against the 2nd Ammendment which protects the rights of citizens to own firearms, because of several things that he said regarding "vengeance is mine," and "not repaying evil with evil." But I think we need to have a contextual understanding of what these passages mean in terms of agape love. Even though self defense is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, it has validity in that God meant for man to be able to protect himself. Self defense does not connotate vengeance or repaying evil. These things are premeditated. Self defense is not premeditated. Actually, self defense can be a form of agape love. God wants to call the shots as far as our lives are concerned: when they will be terminated. It may very well be God's will that some heathen, exercising his own will who want to kill us, be killed by us. George Cancilla Click here to reply to this post
Indeed George,
Posted On: 07/10/08 09:26:20 AM
Age 47, MO
All of God's creation has some type of self defense mechanism. Plants have a toxic enzyme, animals are skittish and quick, or armored and slow. Humans have intelligence to take flight or stay and fight. No animal dies without a fight. ONLY Jesus gave his life willingly but on HIS terms! We do not know when our time on earth is over and are to defend life to the end. When Jesus calls us home is glory, but to stay is rightousness. John Click here to reply to this post
