Citizens or Subjects, that is what this boils down to.

Patrick Henry:

The Militia sir, is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it… The great object is that every man be armed… Everyone who is able may have a gun.

This says it all..

Should such a ruling come down before the election, the Democratic nominee won’t have a chance. 49% of households own guns and they want their right to own them to be protected. Money and votes will surge to the Republican side.

Even if it comes down after the election, there will be a strong grass-roots movement to protect gun rights by amending the Constitution. This will makes things very difficult for the dems in the next presidential election. Remember that 38 states have passed some form of “must issue” concealed carry permits. That’s over 3/4 of the states – if a reasonable amendment gets out of Washington, it will pass.

If the ruling goes the other way, there is zero chance of changing it by amendment. IF the case is heard, it’s a no lose for conservatives…..

More likely, they won’t even hear the case.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the so-called ‘Justice’ System, optimism is counter-intuitive. Having faith that the ‘Supreme’ Court will truly do the right thing is a setup for disappointment. There aren’t 5 true American patriots on that Court, let alone 9.

That being said, it’s nice to dream about fairy tales that America’s Constitution will one day mean something.

The first item is the right to own a gun or firearm, and it is, why own a gun?

The answer is the Founders believed every soul has an inalienable right to effective self-defense. Such a right starts at the individual level, but comprehends an alliance of souls defending themselves (the militia).

Then as now, a firearm is the best means to this end. The words “arms”, “keep” and “bear” are terms of art in law and phlosophy about effective self-defense as a core freedom/right long before 2A or the broad personal use of firearms.

2A therefore is not about guns but about a human right essential to freedom: you have no rights when oppressed by superior force other than what that force will allow you. If that force can be turned back or neutralized, the only way for it to affect you is with your consent. This is a civilizing concept. The alternative is simply jungle law.

When firearms are obsolete, the concept of a human right to effective self-defense will still be vital to a free society.

My second point comes out of John Edwards’ recent fakery regarding the “2A rights of hunters”. IMO, Edwards does not understand or want to recognize that the Constitution and BoR are an allocation of poltical powers.

Hunting is not a political power or issue on par with self-defense. Hunting was not under consideration by the Founders, especially given the fight they had just won to earn this country’s freedom, in writing a political blueprint of the future.

Edwards’ tactic here is to make firearm possession a question of sports, and further limit it accordingly, while appearing to the less-informed as a “gun-rights” supporter.

My $.02.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-gangs17oct17,1,4360151.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8G6U2KO8&show_article=1

He is the World’s preeminent
expert on the 14th Amendment.
I surely think he might know
what he is talking about.

Best,

Marc

Even before perusing the US Constitution, there is a natural right to individual defense of self or others which is not dependent upon any document written by man. Weaponry, being integral to defense, is a necessary part of this natural right. The beasts of the field bear fangs and claws. Being endowed more with brains and less with brawn, man makes the tools for his defense and bears those.

Now, turning to the US Constitution, the very first thing to note is that the rights in the Bill of Rights aren’t a list of all of your rights you are entitled to and you have no more than that. Quite the contrary. The Bill of Rights simply affirms and discusses some of your innumerable rights, but you still retain all of the rest of your innumerable individual rights nonetheless. Amendment IX clarifies that distinctly: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” You have a natural right to individual defense of self or others and the tools of necessity for it. You retain it. It is not denied or disparaged. So affirms the Constitution of the US.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments provide that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. While liberty and property that are taken illegally (without due process of law) may be regained by means other than physical individual defense, the thing that many times protects life from being illegally deprived, by criminals or otherwise, is physical individual defense. This amendment affirms that my life may only be taken legally. Therefore, I have the right to defend my life from illegal attempts to deprive me of it, with such tools as are necessary for such defense.

The Second Amendment affirms the individual right to keep and bear arms. It is the second amendment among ten amendments concerning individual rights, commonly referred to en masse as “The Bill of Rights”. The phrase “the people” in it means the same thing as “the people” means in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments: individual citizens. In fact, the Tenth Amendment distinctly references the federal, collective, and individual entities as “the United States”, “the states”, and “the people”.

Secondly, if the USSC does by chance find for DC against Heller, this eliminates any chance that DC will ever get voting rights based upon the city’s argument in court.

I can’t believe for an instant that the USSC will find for DC after reading both the appeal by the city and the well written and comprehensive decision by the lower court. DC’s argument is lacking severely in legal precedence and it is based almost solely on emotion and fear.

Given that both parties have asked for a hearing and specifically asked for the USSC to “define” the 2nd, I believe and hope that they will incorporate it and rule broadly so that the issue will be removed from the political spectrum as it doesn’t belong there to begin with.

Mike

The right to vote in federal elections is nowhere to be found in the US Constitution but deemed such an essential right that no state today would attempt to deny any citizen the right to vote in national elections, save for those states that deny felons that right.

By the same token, any Court that ruled a constitutional right embodied in the US Constitution could be infringed in the manner that DC has infringed may as well admit that states have the right to reinstate Jim Crow laws that infringe upon certain groups of citizens.