“American Hunters and Shooters: Your Desperation is Showing”

1. On February 25th, 2008 at 5:54 pm Alcibiades McZombie Says:

   I thought that Zumbo was still working. He was seen on the cover of some magazine shooting an AR-15.

   Also, Remington was about to release an AR-patterned rifle and Zumbo’s words came at a bad time. They had to drop him.

   Do they even have actual members, or is it a donation-only scheme?

2. On February 25th, 2008 at 5:57 pm Bitter Says:

   No, they don’t. They count people who entered a contest for a free hunt as members. I think I’m a member because I signed up for email. I think they are desperate for any kind of measurable to show their relevance. They definitely got some on the media front a couple of years ago, but it’s died down and now some board members probably want to see other evidence that Ricker is doing something, anything.

3. On February 26th, 2008 at 11:42 am Kristopher Says:

   The person doing the heavy lifting on the shooting on Forest Service lands issue was Michael Bane, a gentleman who produces cable/satellite TV shooting programs.

   He got set off by a local District Ranger trying to forbid target shooting by calling a fire road or foot path a “structure”, and singlehandedly gathered support and forced a ruling against this mis-interpretation by the Secretary of Agriculture.

   These clowns mention the issue … but had nothing to do with it.

4. On February 26th, 2008 at 12:01 pm Bob Ricker Says:

   You dance around the edges of the AHSA email and do not get to the real point Ray Schoenke message. NRA leadership is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of hunters and shooters. When a group of real hunters/conservationists take on the NRA on their own turf, the NRA gets their butt kicked and admits they were defeated. Why did NRA admit the defeat? The American Association of Political Consultants (of which Wayne LaPierre sits on the board)awarded the AHSA Missouri mail campaign the “Best Democratic Direct Mail Campaign of 2006″.

5. On February 26th, 2008 at 2:10 pm Sebastian Says:

   So how many members are up to so far Bob?

6. On February 26th, 2008 at 3:43 pm Bob Ricker Says:

   More than enough to cause the “whackos” in the gun rights movement serious problems.

7. On February 26th, 2008 at 4:02 pm Sebastian Says:

   That must be why I’m having trouble sleeping.

8. On February 26th, 2008 at 4:31 pm Kristopher Says:

   Thank you, Bob, for admitting that you have no large numbers in your paying members base … just sporadic donations and foundation support.

   You are losing … the only beef most gun owners have with the NRA is that they aren’t rabidly pro-self defense weapons enough to suit us.

9. On February 26th, 2008 at 5:12 pm Nate Says:

   I got this same email It must’ve been because I used the contact form on the AHSA website to send them a FOAD letter. I noticed that Senator McCaskill DID NOT sign the brief on behalf of Heller in the Heller V. DC case. Big win for gun rights getting her elected.

10. On February 26th, 2008 at 9:23 pm SayUncle Says:

    Is he really trying to get converts with his “whackos” rhetoric?

    Kinda like how the brady camp never discloses membership numbers as it indicates they have none of significance. But at least the brady bunch doesn’t have to pay protesters.

11. On February 27th, 2008 at 10:52 am Bob Ricker Says:

    You’re right, Claire McCaskill is a big AHSA supporter and I’m confident that she feels her views on the Heller case were better represented in the amicus brief filed by AHSA.

12. On February 27th, 2008 at 12:47 pm SteVe Says:

    Hey Bob, why don’t you try & address some of the other fisking? Who gets to vote for your ‘board members’? Perhaps the Joyce Foundation just dictates to you how to run the organization?

    How did the NRA effect Zumbo’s career when he was already fired by the time the NRA actually sent out a press release?

13. On February 27th, 2008 at 1:29 pm Sebastian Says:

    Yeah, seriously. The Zumbo thing was over before NRA even realized what was going on. That was probably the genesis of their realization that maybe they need to pay more attention to this blog thing.

14. On February 27th, 2008 at 1:31 pm Bob Ricker Says:

    I don’t understand why you self defense whackos are so concerned about how AHSA elects its directors or our how the organizations finances work. Let’s see if NRA will disclose it’s contributor or membership list. Our dirctors and oficers are elected the same way the Second Amendment Foundation and Gun Owners of America elects their board and officers. As far as the Joyce Foundation is concerned, I wrote on several blogs sometime ago that AHSA has never solicited Joyce for a contribution nor have we ever received any money from Joyce. That information is easy to confirm. At AHSA, we value quality over mere quantity and let me asure you there are plenty of very wealthy “progressive” gunowners out there who understand AHSA’s mission. You know, NRA in over 100 years has only signed up about 4 million of the 70 million gun ownres out there and it’s not like the other 66 million gun owners have not heard from the NRA- clearly a huge majority of gun owners have rejected NRA’s message. That leaves a huge market for a group like AHSA that has a more reasoned and rational approach.

15. On February 27th, 2008 at 1:36 pm Sebastian Says:

    Bob,

    If you guys have so much influence over McCaskill, and if your organization is serious about being against the DC gun ban, why isn’t her name on the Congressional Amicus brief in support of Mr. Heller?

16. On February 27th, 2008 at 1:55 pm Sebastian Says:

    Or a huge number of gun owners just own a gun and don’t give a flying crap about politics or the kinds of organized sports shooting NRA promotes. There are certainly discontents out there with NRA (both for being too mellow and too extreme), but I doubt you’ll have much more luck capitalizing on it than GOA has had going at this from the other side of the spectrum.

17. On February 27th, 2008 at 6:31 pm Alcibiades McZombie Says:

    Does Bob Ricker know that .50 BMGs are legal in whaling? And I hear that South African game wardens use them to cull elephants.

    I think the AHSA should update it’s website to reflect these facts.

18. On February 27th, 2008 at 6:39 pm Sebastian Says:

    Doesn’t matter… they are used for long range precision shooting. An organization calling themselves American Hunters and Shooters Assocation is apparently willing to sell out shooters who’s guns they think are too scary.

19. On February 28th, 2008 at 4:34 am SteVe Says:

    Us whackos just want to point out the difference between an organization that is primarily financed & run by dues paying members as opposed to an astroturf group that pretends to represent average gun owners.

    Membership in the NRA would be higher if the media didn’t constantly demonize them. A few years ago I asked my brother-in-law why he wasn’t a member & he told me he read something about the NRA supporting ‘cop killer bullets’. I explained the fraud that had been perpetrated by politicians and the media over that. He was quite surprised that misinformation was so widely promulgated.

    I however, am never surprised by the depths anti-gunners & the media will sink in order to spread disinformation.

20. On February 28th, 2008 at 1:29 pm Ted Novin Says:

    This link will take you to the National Shooting Sports Foundation — the trade association of the firearms and ammunition industry — fact sheet on AHSA.

21. On February 28th, 2008 at 1:30 pm Ted Novin Says:

    http://www.nssf.org/share/pdf/AHSA_Fact_Sheet.pdf

22. On February 29th, 2008 at 3:14 am Regolith Says:

    Hmmm….from the link posted by Ted Novin:

    [i]While AHSA purports to be a pro-hunting, pro-conservation and pro-gun organization, its leadership and board would qualify as a blue ribbon committee of activists who are anything but friends to the hunting, shooting sports and firearms community. Let’s take a look at who runs this “hunters and shooters” organization:
    Robert Ricker (Executive Director, AHSA)
    • Paid witness against the firearms industry for cases where plaintiffs attempted to hold gun manufacturers liable for the criminal misuse of their products by third parties.
    • Monthly salary of $3000; AHSA claims no more than 150 members who pay $25 dues. The rest of the money comes from “individual contributions” with the largest contributors on the AHSA board of directors.iv
    • Paid an hourly fee of $225 to $250 dollars for testimony, depositions, and meetings with the Brady Campaign.v
    • Consults for the Educational Fund to End Handgun Violence (the “educational” arm of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence).vi (http://www.csgv.org/)
    • Consults with Virginians for Public Safety (http://www.vapublicsafety.com/) (lobbying for additional restrictions on law abiding gun owners).vii[/i]

    Interesting. Very Interesting.

    [i]During one case in which Ricker testified for the NAACP against 68 gun manufacturers and distributors, he was asked about statements he made while representing the firearms industry denouncing lawsuits aimed at holding manufacturers responsible for the criminal misuse of their products by third parties. Ricker’s response was, “I was paid to put forth that position.”iii He then admitted that he was being paid $225 an hour by the NAACP to testify on its behalf.[/i]

    So, in other words Bob, you’re a paid shill for the anti-gun lobby. I take it the truth isn’t your strong suit.

23. On February 29th, 2008 at 3:14 am Regolith Says:

    Doh! Used BB code instead of HTML in that last post….

24. On February 29th, 2008 at 9:32 am Laughingdog Says:

    Actually, I suspect that most of the 66 million gun owners that aren’t in the NRA fit into one of two categories: a) apathetic about politics in general of b) not interested in joining because they don’t want another 30 pounds of junk mail a year from the NRA.

25. On February 29th, 2008 at 12:45 pm DirtCrashr Says:

    I don’t get any junk mail from the NRA, zip nada nuthing. The Astroturf Hunting and Rug-chewing Association values the quality of Joyce money it gets that sustains its front existance and the merry-go-round of directors who receive it.

26. On February 29th, 2008 at 7:36 pm creeks Says:

    I think Mr. Ricker needs to update his recruiting skills. His combative dialogue along with calling potential members whacko I would say is counter productive to gaining members for his “organization” .

    If one takes the time to do some research on Mr. Ricker’s “progressive gun owners organization” you can quickly see he is not what he “fronts” himself to be. The supporters of this organization have a clear history of being unfriendly to gun owner rights.

27. On February 29th, 2008 at 10:12 pm none Says:

    Bob Ricker, your interpretation of the second amendment is as bad as your writing. The second amendment was not written to ensure that a gang of elitist snobs from Washington could go duck hunting. It was written to ensure that a bunch of elitist snobs from Washington who go duck hunting (you) can’t use the government to screw the rest of us (us.)

    You don’t represent the majority of hunters or shooters in this country. Most of the guns sold here are not sold for hunting. The number of hunters declined steadily for the past forty years. The number of gun owners, and guns in private hands, skyrocketed. Those guns are mostly the kinds of semi automatics that your group is dying to ban.

    You represent a small, meaningless group of cannibals who are glad to throw your fellow gun owners under the bus as long as you can enjoy yourself because of your connections. This nation was created specifically to rid the population of the influence of people like you. Must you be reminded of this?

28. On February 29th, 2008 at 10:24 pm Greyghost05 Says:

    Bob, I just don’t understand how you would consider a law abidding citizen a “wacko” for wanting to use their Consistutional Right to defend their home,family and property from those who have no respect for any of our laws. It seems only natural that anyone in their right mind would do whatever it takes to repel an attack by any intruder with whatever means available. Be it an AR-15 or a sharp sword. NO ONE has a right to steal or hurt a law abidding citizen. So like Bob, if you were going to be raped would you just bend over and grab your ankles and take it like a liberal? I’m starting to see what Ann Colter is taking about when she rants about people like you. It also sounds like for a fee you’ll speak on any position. Isn’t that kind’a like being two faced ? Or are you just another bitch for sale.

29. On March 1st, 2008 at 8:33 am Jim Sperry Says:

    “clearly a huge majority of gun owners have rejected NRA’s message” Wrong. Non-involvement does not equate rejection of message.

    I have listened to NPR for 20 years, and love the product and message. I was a dues-paying member for one year only.

    Would you now speculate that I reject everything for which they stand?

    Perhaps, sir, you are the whacky shill. Don’t you wish you could be a real hand-wringing shrill liberal crying for peace and an end to the perceived violence, with a total ban, instead of a paid hack wanna-be, with no conviction or backbone?

30. On March 1st, 2008 at 10:06 am The Carpathian Says:

    Rob,

    I’ve been research director of a firearms law and policy legislative consulting service for more than 15 years. I have been solicited by both NRA and Brady to advance their positions through what I considered could be slanted research or polling. And I rejected both in favor of the absolute objectivity on this topic my firm requires to retain their “authoritative source” status.

    That said, I have never seen a more partisan group of anti-gun activists masquerading as gun rights proponents. Your distortion of facts is of Olympic Gold Medal quality, and your heroic willingness to re-define facts to support the anti-gun agenda through duplicitous “advocy” is a work of art. Too bad that such art is merely a badly-drawn cartoon.

    Yo must find it frustrating that so many individuals can see right through your pandering camouflage and call it like they see it — and call it for what you truely are.

    Perhaps if your organization published actual membership numbers of PAID memberships – not just counting all who visit your web site – and act more transparently, you will find the true level of your support among gun owners, hunters and sportsmen.

31. On March 1st, 2008 at 10:13 am Bitter Says:

    I just want everyone in here to know that I’ve put up a helpful reminder post about the number of people who actually claim to be NRA members vs. the number who actually are.

32. On March 1st, 2008 at 11:38 am R. Theriot Says:

    In my experience, those hunters and shooters who are not members of the NRA not only have their heads in the sand, but are asking for the very situations that they fear, i.e.; gun registration/confiscation/bans, etc. Many purport to not wanting to be on “lists” or known as gun owners other than by locals. As far as receiving “junk mail” from the NRA, how else do you remind your members that it costs money to fight the fight. Unfortunately, the NRA doesn’t have a Geo. Soros to fund it as he does the anti’s. People, if you want to keep and be able to use your guns, you better get off your asses and learn how to fight. One more point is that the NRA has never presented itself as anything more than an organization founded to promote individual marksmanship and the right to own and use firearms in a legitimate and reasonable manner.

33. On March 1st, 2008 at 11:44 am Ronald Harris Says:

    How many guns a have killed anyone without the human hand holding them?
    None that I know of, I’ve never seen a gun move unless there was a human involved. A gun can lay on a table, in a drawer or closet (preferably a safe)for all eternity and will never hurt anyone until touched by a human.
    If you want to stop guns from hurting/killing people you will have to get into the heads and hearts of the people doing the killing, the human is the more dangerious weapon. If you will remember people were killing people long before the gun was invented and they used things like rocks, spears, bows and arrows, poison, etc.,etc., so like I said reach the human side of the equation and you will have accomplished something. Until you do everyone has the right to defend themselves with what ever means necessary, in this case the second amendment.
    RH

34. On March 1st, 2008 at 11:44 am DR ROBERT SPRINKLE Says:

    PRIORITIES; 1 GOD 2 COUNTRY 3 FAMILY 4 NRA

35. On March 1st, 2008 at 1:41 pm CJ HSA Says:

    “Bob Ricker | 26-Feb-08 at 3:43 pm wrote:

    More than enough to cause the “whackos” in the gun rights movement serious problems”

    I just want to make sure this gets preserved here for all to see. The agenda of the AHSA is quite clear to me.

36. On March 1st, 2008 at 1:58 pm Jerry Richardson Says:

    If there were no guns anywhere the bad guys would use sticks,ballbats,etc. i prefer to keep my weapons close. If your door was being kicked in NOW, would you want a weapon or the telephone? I know my weapon is much faster than the police.

37. On March 1st, 2008 at 3:41 pm Bill Says:

    Bob’s “a helpful reminder post” states A pollster asked people if they are NRA members, and got numbers indicating that about 33 million Americans would answer “yes.” NRA of course has maybe a tenth of that number. This was confusing.
    I’ll tell you what’s confusing Bob. What pollster actually polled 33 million people. Who funded the pollster and how many people work for this pollster? And what’s a little more confusing, did the 33 million people say they WOULD answer yes or did you mean they DID answer yes. The WOULD is what a pollster perceives from the way a framed question is put to an individual. The DID answer yes is a firm answer from the individual polled.
    So here again we see how the AHSA can distort spin the truth.

38. On March 1st, 2008 at 3:52 pm creeks Says:

    I guess Mr. Ricker means you and I?? Hey

    What a guy!

    “Bob Ricker | 26-Feb-08 at 3:43 pm wrote:

    More than enough to cause the “whackos” in the gun rights movement serious problems”

39. On March 1st, 2008 at 3:59 pm Bitter Says:

    Bill,

    I’m not sure you comprehend that this blog is not written by Bob Ricker, nor did he claim that statistic. In fact, that statistic was posted to refute Bob’s claims.

    Please, take some time to read the original post which “fisked” an AHSA email, and Bob’s comments which appear in the blue fields, much like your post did.

    In addition, reread the post about the poll again. You might also find this FAQ paper on how polling is conducted from Gallup helpful in answering some of your questions.

40. On March 1st, 2008 at 4:10 pm Level_Head Says:

    To Bill (#38)

    The poll referred to was not actually given to 33 million people. Generally, these polls involve somewhere in the thousand to ten-thousand range.

    But you can look at the demographics of a poll and extrapolate from that to see what the population thinks, in general. That’s how all polls work, and what they did in this case.

    So, there were no 33 million people who DID say that they were members of the NRA. The poll suggests, based on the number that DID say this in their sample, that they would expect to get these numbers if they could poll everyone.

    I’m not surprised, actually. I have a number of friends who support the NRA’s mission but are vaguely embarrassed that they are not actually current members.

    Still, several million members is impressive! And the NRA has shown itself to be effective. I wonder if that poller even asked about the AHSA, or had heard of it — or if the people he was talking to would have.

    I suspect that the name AHSA including “hunters and shooters” was chosen as an intentional subterfuge, somewhat like the “Democratic” and “People’s” words that appear in the names of many Communist countries.

    ===|==============/ Level Head

41. On March 1st, 2008 at 4:17 pm Level_Head Says:

    *chuckle*

    You and I had the same thought — but it’s your post, and your right. ];-)

    Thanks for the introduction to the AHSA, and the opportunity to see them in action here. I’d heard vaguely that they were anti-gun and anti-Second Amendment, but decided to see what else I could learn. Your resources were valuable.

    Sometimes it’s hard to post about the second amendment without getting sidetracked. But at least that discussion convinced an Englishman that the right to keep and bear arms was crucial (though initial quite alien to him) — and that, sadly, his people would likely never have it.

    ===|==============/ Level Head

42. On March 1st, 2008 at 5:05 pm Dusty Says:

    It was enlightening to learn from an AHSA spokesperson that those of us who believe the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was drafted to protect an individual right, and that those of us who believe in the use of a firearm for self defense…are “wackos.” I’m not always pleased with positions the NRA takes, however I can say with complete confidence that the AHSA most certainly does not represent me. I also sense that the AHSA tries to mischaracterize themselves with respect to the issues at hand. It takes more than a title with the words “shooting” and “Hunting” to make an organization that really is prepared to defend any kind of right. The more I look at the AHSA, I can see perhaps an organization whose purpose is really to draw off gun owner and hunter support from Republican and/or conservative voters. Even some of the most liberal minded people I know are leery of the AHSA.

43. On March 1st, 2008 at 7:39 pm gekimber Says:

    I am bookmarking this discussion so I can send it to the people who have not yet figured out the agendas of some of the “shooting organizations.” I try to tell them the NRA is working for them.

    Life member for the last 25 years, iirc

44. On March 1st, 2008 at 9:54 pm Pro2A Says:

    Mr Ricker,
    On this page you have said, “More than enough to cause the “whackos” in the gun rights movement serious problems”.

    So what you are saying is, if someone supports and agrees with an Amendment to The Constitution of the United States they are a “wacko”?

    I guess you also feel that a 110 lb woman has the right to fight off a 210 lb rapist with her bare hands! I wonder if you would feel that way if it were a member of your family who was in need of protection. It’s a good bet you would want your family member or someone around her to be armed.

    You remind me of Hollywood actors. Most of them are totally against anyone having and carrying a gun while being protected by a Bodyguard carrying a gun. I guess that’s because they are more important than us and the rules they want us to live by don’t apply to them.

    FACT: Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.’s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.

    Here is another fact that can’t be refuted, where ever strict gun control laws are enacted VIOLENT CRIME GOES UP! While the proof is overwhelming you won’t hear it because the Media is in the tank for the “Progressives” who want a new world order.

    All of this is true yet you call us “wackos”?

45. On March 1st, 2008 at 11:04 pm Ian C. Lytle Says:

    Yeah, this all makes sense… take away OUR guns, and free up the drug dealers,robbers,child molesters,gang bangers,felons,and all the other less than desirable people to practice their crafts, while we legitimate owners are stripped of our means to protect ourselves…it just makes more sense if good people die, than to have the poor policeman having to fill out extra paperwork…we second class citizens,believe it or not, have a right to protect ourselves,and our own,without the worry of governmental repercussions…or do we? If the Democrats win the exalted seat,we might as well adapt the swastika as our national emblem…

46. On March 1st, 2008 at 11:06 pm Ian C. Lytle Says:

    GUNS DON’T KILL PEOPLE, DRIVERS WITH CELL PHONES DO!!!

47. On March 2nd, 2008 at 2:48 am Charlie Johnson Says:

    Let’s stop all the rhetoric and “smoke and mirrors” comments and look at the “very big” picture here.
    Folks like Bob & AHSA incorrectly think that cancelling the rights for American citizens to own and bear arms will somehow reduce the crime committed by bad men with guns when over and over it has been proven to do the opposite. The people that own firearms obtain them by legal means and purchase them from gun shops, etc. Are you so blind to see that drug dealers buy there illegal guns on the street and will NEVER be effected by any prohibitions they get passed through congress?
    They also think that people that do own and bear arms are violent natured rednecks. The fact is: when a crime is committed against me and my family such as a home envasion or car jacking, the police aren’t there at that moment to protect me and my family. Police are reactionary and show up AFTER the crime and not during. Therefore, the responsibility for the protection of my family must be mine. Gun owners are typically peace loving and respectful of the self-protection ability firearms provide.
    The “big picture” result of their anti-gun is the loss of a democracy. One of the ingredients in the process of changing a country from a democracy to a communist government, is the dis-arming of the citizens.

48. On March 2nd, 2008 at 4:55 am John Wolf Says:

    All of these postings over a nonentity like AHSA?? These transparent liars and con artists had a little booth outside the NRA convention in St. Louis last April-which was studiously ignored, except of course by the media. Shame on gun owners who decline membership in real gun rights organizations like NRA, GOA, CCRKBA, etc. Newsflash-if you own a gun, your name IS ALREADY ON A LIST!!! Get over it, join a REAL pro-gun organization, and defend the right that protects all others!

49. On March 2nd, 2008 at 9:41 am Daniel Zarrella Says:

    I,m heartened by the show of intelligent support for the 2nd ammendment, and for the ability of the vast majority of gun owners and rights supporters to see through the bs that is AHSA. It will always bother me, however, the attention these people are given, the creedence paid to their agenda, and the thought that there are people out here who really believe I am an idiot, I can be easily persuaded, I have no real ability to form and hold an intelligent opinion.
    I am every American. You can not tell me how to think, what to believe, who to support. I decide these things on my own, after examining the facts, the history, and my personal beliefs on the subject.

    Go F yourselves!
    

50. On March 2nd, 2008 at 12:14 pm Boots Hawks Says:

    I for one am glad that we have the NRA. I am a proud member of this organization that supports the freedom that our founding fathers invissioned. We have the right to protect ourselves from not just the bad guys but from bad government. I know that their are people that can not understand why it is so important for the good responsible gun owners to have the right to own a weapon. That is why it is so important for the rest of us that do to join and support the NRA or GOA,, I will stop being a member when their are no people left oppossing my ownership of a weapon, I support the “from my cold dead hand” belief, and that is the only way you will get my guns. Say it can’t happen,, look at Waco, then say we don’t need to protect ourselves. It only takes a couple of Cowboys in the government to put us in jepordy,, that is why everyone needs to register and vote,, The only problem is who do we vote for this year? To me it is more of who I won’t vote for that decides who I will vote for.

51. On March 2nd, 2008 at 12:33 pm Daniel Says:

    Hey BOOB (otherwise known as AHSA) After doing a little digging and hacking to find this info, seems that the MAJORITY of your funding comes from shell companies that have a trail right back to the Joyce Foundation and Handgun Control (can you say ooopppsss? BUSTED!) Not to mention that your group has sent reps to promote what you can “sane gun registration laws” like national gun registration. Did it ever bother you with your head shoved up your arse, that under USC Title 18 Sec 926 (that is federal code/law for you Boob) that if ANYONE does this other then the BATF (and they can only do it for informational purposes according to the law) that person/persons/group/politician or state, can be fined up to $50,000. a day for every day they do this and or face a 5 to 10 year prison sentence? Or that according to federal laws and statutes, this is now tripled to $150,000 a day and or 15 to 30 years in a federal prison for EACH AND EVERY DAY THE LAW IS IN VIOLATION AS EACH DAY THE LAW IS IN VIOLATION IS A SEPERACT CHARGEABLE OFFENSE?!!

    And Einstien, we are in talks with the gun makers as well as the ammo makers and are very close to having ALL cities and states where they enact bans or laws in direct violation to the 2nd Amendment, to CEASE ALLOWING THESE TWITS TO PURCHASE ANY GUNS OR AMMO. Lets see just how you are going to enforce the laws when you have either empty guns or no guns. What’s next. throw rocks at the criminals? The Civilians will still be able to buy guns and ammo, but not the cities nor states that deny us our guarenteed Constitutional rights.

    So tell you what boob, you go back and kiss the ass of your anti 2nd Amendment masters and we will kick BOTH your asses in June when the USSC agrees with the lower court in the Heller case and shuts you and your moronic butt buddies down once and for all.

    Give me a few more lines and I will tell you how I REALLY feel about you.

52. On March 2nd, 2008 at 12:53 pm dbs Says:

    bob said.

    “clearly a huge majority of gun owners have rejected NRA’s message. That leaves a huge market for a group like AHSA that has a more reasoned and rational approach.”

    sure it does bob, keep drinking the brady bunch kool aid, and we’ll se ya in november.

53. On March 2nd, 2008 at 1:05 pm William A. Laird Says:

    After reading all the above postings, it is hard to say something that hasn’t been said.

    I ask those who will not admit to my right of self defense to allow themselves to become victims in my place. Come to my side of the street and take the knife or be raped and robbed then come tell me how much they enjoyed not being allowed, much less being able, to protect themselves.

    This country was not founded on the right to be a victim. This country was founded on unalienable rights paid for in the blood of those who believed in those rights. In the two hundred plus years since this country was formed the blood of this has been spilled to protect those rights. I for one will not allow those rights to be taken from me by those who wish to relagate my to a sub-servient class.

    It is beyond my comprehension that people believe that if we are completely disarmed that crime will cease. Washington, DC and New York City are cases in point.

    I refuse to accept the label of “wacko” because I will protect my self and my loved ones from those who wish to cause me harm. ANYONE that would label me in that manner is not someone that has my well being in my best interest and I will consider that person an attacker and I will act accordingly.

    Sorry about the phrasing but I get REALLY upset at these loonies that claim to represent me while they are sticking a huge knife in my back.

54. On March 2nd, 2008 at 1:38 pm Tomme Liam Bradaigh Says:

    Bob,
    Your organization hypocritically quotes our Founders Second Amendment on its home page, mendaciously stating its support for the invioate right of Americans to own and use guns which it protects; but considering its well established anti~ self~defence attitude which your comments here clearly reflect, do you also classify our Founders as “self~defence whackos???”

55. On March 2nd, 2008 at 1:55 pm Ray Jefferson Says:

    Mao Tse-Tung was only able to maintain rule in
    china for 2 reasons:
    (1) Support of the treasonous bastards in the U.S. government, and
    (2) His governement agents actually set up most of the “opposition” groups that proliferated during his reign. Thus the government was able to contol outbreaks against it which could have overthrown it, and many of th 64+ million chinese people killed by the government were those who were betrayed by the trojan hors leaders of the “revolting” citizens.

    The same technique is still frequently used in the USA with the results that you see in political diappointments. AHSA is only one example of it.

    The only solution is to vote for candidates for legislatures who are clearly going to vote for lower taxes, less government, and more individual freedom, including, but not limited to, firearms issues. And to get the US out of the communist UN and the communist UN out of the US.

56. On March 2nd, 2008 at 3:48 pm Lester Maddox Says:

    Removed by editor. Threats aren’t tolerated here.

57. On March 2nd, 2008 at 3:51 pm gun rights wacko Says:

    I’m sure “very wealthy” gun owners can afford bodyguards to protect them.

    What about the not-very-wealthy gun owners like me who want to keep our rights? Do you really think I am a “whacko” for supporting the NRA’s efforts to secure my rights and those of my children?

    The second amendment does not exist solely to keep rich shotgunners shooting skeet, pheasants and lawyers.

58. On March 2nd, 2008 at 4:31 pm Law abiding citizen Says:

    Im sorry but it seems alot of people are dancing around what the real problem is. Time and time again we have found that gun bans to nothing. If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns. Now im not saying that it should be legal for a citizen to own a full-auto mac-10 or anything. But it should remain legal for me to take my sks out and go shooting on the weekend for a little fun….and stress relief. If these politicians/buisiness men are not checked then we will wind up losing alot more rights that just to own guns. And as far as bob ricker and his “views” (that he is paid to have). They are transparent and anyone with a shred of common sense and responsibility will see right through. C’mon bob our nation as a people can see right through you and your political attack dogs. Just remember you are walking on a very thin line between defending freedoms and promoting oppression.

    And im not the first person to say it…and im sure I won’t be the last…But they can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands.

59. On March 2nd, 2008 at 4:42 pm gun rights wacko Says:

    “Now im not saying that it should be legal for a citizen to own a full-auto mac-10 or anything.”

    It is legal. And why shouldn’t it be? If we can trust a $15 an hour government employees with an automatic pistol why not yourself?

60. On March 2nd, 2008 at 5:11 pm MSGT Rick Swain Says:

    The only people that label otherpeople are extreen Left wing Democrats and COMMUNIST who would like nothing better then to tale away the guns from every law abiding citizen in the United States or even the world. But, I still would give the 22 years of my life defending freedon for Mr. Ricket to say that NO MATER HOW STUPED HIS COMMENTS WERE!

61. On March 2nd, 2008 at 5:15 pm Daniel Says:

    “Now im not saying that it should be legal for a citizen to own a full-auto mac-10 or anything.”

    Jeeze, yet another statement from someon that does not know any better. Gun Rights Wacko is correct. Under federal law if you go through a background check and get fingerprinted, have a check on the NCIC and pass interviews from your local police and sheriff as well as your state police, then you too can own a fully automatic weapon after paying the $200. fee and obtaining your license.

    maybe the person who originally made this statement should actually do some research before posting again?

62. On March 2nd, 2008 at 6:26 pm billy lang Says:

    Comment edited for human decency.

63. On March 2nd, 2008 at 7:00 pm republicanhack Says:

    why hasnt mr bob responded to any of this? he kinda went away

64. On March 2nd, 2008 at 7:53 pm Zermoid Says:

    Good Riddance?
    The Constitution says the right to keep AND Bear Arms, why does everyone seem to think that means own small caliber weapons? Is not a 50 BMG machine gun and RPGs “arms”? Is not carrying same “bearing Arms”? When is the NRA going to start pushing for the repeal of un-Constitutional restrictions on law abiding Americans?
    “Under federal law if you go through a background check and get fingerprinted, have a check on the NCIC and pass interviews from your local police and sheriff as well as your state police, then you too can own a fully automatic weapon after paying the $200. fee and obtaining your license.”

    WHY do you have to go thru this to exercise a RIGHT?
    Are journalists put thru something like this before they can exercise their Constitutional Rights?
    How about priests?
    What part of “shall not be infringed” is not understood?

65. On March 2nd, 2008 at 7:59 pm Alan C, Los Angeles, Says:

    Gentlemen (and ladies),
    I’m a Republicrat. I’m also a Life Member of NRA, an Ex-GI and 71. I didn’t get to be 71 through stupidity. So when I am told that someone wants to diminish, remove or alter my Civil Rights through clever manipulation of the Constitution I swore to defend, I get a bit testy. Love it or leave it alone, unless you have the votes to change it.

66. On March 2nd, 2008 at 9:27 pm Alcibiades McZombie Says:

    Holy crap, where are all these comments coming from?

67. On March 2nd, 2008 at 9:38 pm Sapper72 Says:

    

    Why don’t all those people who want to repeal My right to defent myself, my loved ones, property and community all gather together in a little town of their own where gun ownership is illegal and see how long it takes for their first murder, rape, or other violent crime involving a firearm to happen? Perhaps all the criminals will move there too, since they know none of their victims will be armed.

    OEF, War on Terror Veteran

68. On March 2nd, 2008 at 9:59 pm Christopher Says:

    Congratulations, Rob Ricker; your calling us “self-defense whackos” is the NRA’s “Outrage of the Week”

69. On March 2nd, 2008 at 10:29 pm Bitter Says:

    Alcibiades,

    What Christopher said. It got linked in NRA’s weekly email to activists.

70. On March 2nd, 2008 at 10:32 pm Dusty Says:

    I have always found it interesting that those who argue that the 2nd Amendment only protects the right of the states to maintain a miltia, yet somehow manage to contend that the same amendment does not allow automatic weapons.

71. On March 2nd, 2008 at 11:55 pm joe ciizen Says:

    It seems to me that when the Second Amendment was written,the arms most citizens bore were “military style” weapons.So now they want to stop us from not only bearing other,various types and calibers,but also the “military style” weapons that the law was based on.
    Am I missing something here or what?
    All the Way NRA!

72. On March 3rd, 2008 at 12:36 am Joe Mallard Says:

    One has to ask. If they succeed in taking away the second amendment what will be our next right these people will want to take. Maybe the right to speak out against goverment nut jobs.

73. On March 3rd, 2008 at 12:56 am jimmyjet Says:

    Ricker is gun banner, a liar and a thief. Don’t waste your time trading words with the scum. Just put his name on the list.

74. On March 3rd, 2008 at 1:37 am LT Drogo Says:

    The Second Amendment clearly connects civilian gun ownership to militia duty (which is not to say the Founders ever intended citizens to own arms SOLELY for that purpose; self-defense and common defense from tyranny were frequent themes). Simply stated, if we are to have a competent, effective (well regulated) militia, the people MUST own and know how to use guns. We haven’t mustered the body of the militia for some time (as we did via Selective Service), but the effectiveness of the infantry still depends on pre-existing civilian firearms expertise among trainees, especially among occasional soldiers, the National Guard and Reserves. Eight or sixteen weeks and several hundred rounds does not a rifleman make (the Founders were of course familiar with the historical English problem of maintaining longbow proficiency among their potential “draftees” during peacetime). Anyway, all of this to say that owning and shooting military weapons is that activity which most nearly complies with the clear intent of the Second Amendment, and should be honored, protected, and cherished. Polish your skill by shooting ducks if you wish.

75. On March 3rd, 2008 at 1:51 am Hal M. Onea Says:

    Probably the reason only 4 million people are signed up with the NRA is because their worried some commie anti-gunner like Ricker is going to get information on them for future.

76. On March 3rd, 2008 at 11:54 am John Says:

    Hal -

    Amen. The perfect example of why the wolf in sheep’s clothing AHSA people don’t represent gun owners is that they don’t understand that the NRA’s base is not it’s membership, it’s the 75 million non-member gun-owners who are too concerned that AHSA and their ilk will use an NRA member list to target confiscation efforts.

    It’s not hard to spot someone who doesn’t “get it,” and not “getting it” is the mark of an anti-gunner.

77. On March 3rd, 2008 at 12:37 pm straight-bullet Says:

    It seems to me that people have differ opinions of what the Constitution means and why it was written. My opinion is it was written so that our government could not disarm us such as in other countries where they have total control over the people. How many of you want that to happen here. It was also written so we the people could defend ourselves or our neighbors from harm. Just think what it would be like if we were disarmed. We would have not only other countries trying to take over the US, but we would have all the thugs of this country killing and mamming our families. Think this all of the way though before your make your final decision. I do not understand why people are worried about people carrying a gun . After all they have been checked out by the government. Would you rather have only these thug carry that don’t give a dam about you are themselves. I know we don’t have a
    militia but we have a right to start one if seen that we need one. We have all of these rights that other countries only dream about and people want to just give them up. I don’t understand it.

78. On March 3rd, 2008 at 1:21 pm Daniel Says:

    #75 LT Drogo 03-Mar-08 at 1:37 am
    The Second Amendment clearly connects civilian gun ownership to militia duty (which is not to say the Founders ever intended citizens to own arms SOLELY for that purpose; self-defense and common defense from tyranny were frequent themes). Simply stated, if we are to have a competent, effective (well regulated) militia, the people MUST own and know how to use guns. We haven’t mustered the body of the militia for some time (as we did via Selective Service), but the effectiveness of the infantry still depends on pre-existing civilian firearms expertise among trainees, especially among occasional soldiers, the National Guard and Reserves. Eight or sixteen weeks and several hundred rounds does not a rifleman make (the Founders were of course familiar with the historical English problem of maintaining longbow proficiency among their potential “draftees” during peacetime). Anyway, all of this to say that owning and shooting military weapons is that activity which most nearly complies with the clear intent of the Second Amendment, and should be honored, protected, and cherished. Polish your skill by shooting ducks if you wish.
    ————————
    You are NOT helping anything LT as you clearly are mistaken in your statement that the 2nd Amendment links to the militia. Here is your error. The VERY FIRST official Militia did not exist until 1805 according to records available in the Smithsonian. Since the Constitution was ratified in 1787, that means that the Militia COULD NOT be what it ment nor could it be connected as the very FIRST official Militia did not even exist until 18 years AFTER the ratification of the US Constitution. Nor could this mean the National Guard or State Guard as neither of them existed, according to Pentagon and US Department of War Records; until they were officially created in the 1950’s. That is over 187 years AFTER the Constitution was ratified.

    And please look at the first 10 Amendments. Since only one or two refer to the state and the rest, including the 2nd Amendment refer to the people; please tell us just how you can justify saying that when the crafters of the Constitution ment the people in all the other Amendments, even though they used the term “the people” in the 2nd as well they really did not mean this and it was only to be connected to the militia? ARE YOU SERIOUS??????????
    maybe you should read the 400+ lower court rulings that say the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and NOT connected to any military or militia service, and the over TWO HUNDRED decisions by the US Supreme Court since 1850 that say the exact same thing.

    I am not trying to be rude here LT, but with you making statements like that all you are doing is clouding the issue and giving false information and defeating the reason for the 2nd Amendment in the first place.

79. On March 3rd, 2008 at 1:26 pm Kate Says:

    We support and are members of the NRA. We specifically joined to help support our 2nd amendment rights. This has been a very interesting forum. Bob, if you don’t GET IT yet, you are in the big minority here. We have the right to OWN and BEAR arms. What on earth makes you think that you or anyone else has the right to take that away from us? Our founding fathers knew that there would be “whackos” like you out there, and that is why we have the 2nd amendment. Why don’t you and your “friends” utilize another USA freedom, and leave!

80. On March 3rd, 2008 at 1:51 pm David Dale Says:

    One thing that seems to be overlooked in the entire thread is that the Constitution does not give us the right to bear arms. The Constitution presumes that the right of defense and preservation is given to us by God and the Second Amendment exists to prevent men and governments from encroaching on the God-given right.

    Mr. Ricker overlooks that the Second Amendment protects the First Amendment and his right to run his mouth as he pleases.

81. On March 3rd, 2008 at 3:10 pm Daniel Says:

    #

    David Dale | 03-Mar-08 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

    One thing that seems to be overlooked in the entire thread is that the Constitution does not give us the right to bear arms. The Constitution presumes that the right of defense and preservation is given to us by God and the Second Amendment exists to prevent men and governments from encroaching on the God-given right.

    Mr. Ricker overlooks that the Second Amendment protects the First Amendment and his right to run his mouth as he pleases.
    ——————
    No David, the Constitution does INDEED give us the right to bear arms and upholds the right that was granted free men by the Magna Charta. Now this was clearly stated in the US Supreme Court decision Acers v. United States • Ð; 1896; 164 U.S. 388; 238 and again in Staples v. United States •; 1994; 511 U.S. 600; 486 and yet AGAIN in the Emmerson decision.

    You, like LT; seem to be chopping all around the tree instead of going right up the middle of the trunk. In short you have the right idea, but you are phrasing it in an incorrect way.

82. On March 3rd, 2008 at 3:47 pm LT Drogo Says:

    Daniel,
    Whoa. Settle down. We are largely in agreement, except to the extent that you misinterpret my post. I don’t know how you can believe that the amendment does not relate the right to the militia, given the plain wording of the first clause. As I noted parenthetically, the Founders made clear in their writings and in the evolution of the Second’s wording their approval of private ownership of arms for private defense, and as a curb on governmental tyranny. Nonetheless, the purpose of assuring an effective militia is the purpose they chose to enshrine in the amendment. Please note that, grammatically and syntactically, this clause in NO WAY diminishes the force of meaning in the second, independent, clause, which is to defend from any infringement the right of THE PEOPLE (just as in Amendments I and IV) to keep and bear arms. It merely gives one reason, among several, for preserving the right; the reason most germane, after all, to our nation’s founding document.
    I must take you to task for your understanding of the militia concept, however. You are correct that the (as-yet-nonexistent) National Guard is not the militia meant in the amendment. The National Guard is what the Founders would call a “select militia”, organized and controlled by the state and subject to federal control. The Founders were quite as leery of select militias as they were of standing armies. No, the amendment refers to the militia of the Constitution, the whole body of the people (I believe, in fact, that this precise phrase was used in the penultimate revision of the amendment), who were subject to call for the common defense, and who were expected to muster bearing their own arms, and with the proficiency necessary to function as soldiers (i.e., “well regulated”).
    So, you see, we can still be friends. If you’ll read my post again, perhaps more carefully, you’ll see that I have said nothing to cloud the issue, and nothing to diminish the Second Amendment. The whole point of my post is simply that those who own and shoot military weapons should be held in special esteem among gun owners, because it is they who best exemplify the “well regulated militia” on which our country’s military effectiveness still depends. As supporters of the Second Amendment, let us never stand silent while the “legitimate sporting purpose” “assault weapon” “nobody has a need for . . .” crowd attempts to isolate and demonize those who stand tallest among the “well regulated”.
    Finally, Daniel, thanks for your post. I count you an ally, and hope that I didn’t cause you too much distress.

83. On March 3rd, 2008 at 4:03 pm LT Drogo Says:

    Daniel,
    P.S. You’ve also misunderstood David Dale. He is correct that the Second Amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms, but rather recognizes it as a pre-existing right and prohibits its infringement. I would quibble about “God-given” (I don’t do God, myself), since Deists and atheists were well represented among the Founders. All were familiar, however, with the Enlightenment concept of “natural rights”, which is how I prefer to think of it.
    Again, best wishes.

84. On March 3rd, 2008 at 4:59 pm Daniel Says:

    Lt, I can state that the 2nd Amendment does NOT relate to the military because of the simple phrase “the people”. That phrase pops into eight of the 10 Amendments and with each and every one of them, it clearly designates a right that was guarenteed by the US Constitution and is held by the individual. Such as the 5th Amendment. And the 10th Amendment clearly states that if the Constitution des not CLEARLY authorize the state or federal government specific powers, then these powers reside in the individual citizen. And since the 2nd Amendment does not specifically state that this is a right exclusive to the Militia, then by the 10th Amendment, that right belongs to the Individual. Basic Constitutional Studies 101. And I have been doing this for over 38 years so I do have a fair bit of knowledge of what I speak.

    And no, David Drail is incorrect as well. All either of you would have to do is read Printz v. U.S. 1997 521 U.S. 898″ and you will see it clearly states this is an Individual right guarenteed by the US Constitution. Yet another case that says the exact same thing “U. S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez. 1990″ case and you will see that the USSC clearly stated that the US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment was a Constitutionally GUARENTEED INDIVIDUAL RIGHT of the people.” Here is a direct quote from the decision itself pay special attention to the bold print! You can locate the decision here http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=494&invol=259

    “The Fourth Amendment provides: [494 U.S. 259, 265]

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends its reach only to “the people.” Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae that the Framers used this phrase “simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy,” Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 12, n. 4, “the people” seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by “the people of the United States.” The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to “the people.” See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 (“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble”) (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ”

    Now with this staring you directly in the face LT, I do not logically see how you nor David can state that the Constitution does not guarentee a right to keep and bear arms even when the USSC says that it does.

    Might I suggest that both of you read a very good book that would help break it down more for you? Supreme Court Gun Cases by David B. Kopel. Without legal training you would not understand the wording of a decision as the legal phrases are difficult for even lawyers to understand sometimes (and no I am not a lawyer but I did have some legal training while in Service) So Kopel breaks it down in laymens terms for you.

    And since the USSC said this was part of the Constitution…the ONLY way for this to be changed Constitutionally is by a Constitutional Amendment and since over 2000 of these have been tried since 1787 and less then 30 have actually made it into the Constitution…care to guess how much of a chance that they or anyone else is going to have to get this changed?

    Again…no matter how you or david think, this IS a Constitutionally Guarenteed right and has been stated as such by the highest court in the land. And their decisions carry more weight then yours or Davids or mine or all three of ours together!

85. On March 3rd, 2008 at 5:25 pm Tarvis Says:

    I only read the first few posts, but it seems that Bob changed his mind about posting; maybe his hands hurt from pressing backspace so many times to fix teh wurds eh mizzpeeled, or maybe he ran out of witty things to say.

86. On March 3rd, 2008 at 6:01 pm Jeff Says:

    Happiness is a warm gun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

87. On March 3rd, 2008 at 6:53 pm RON Says:

    just found this site and it seems like bob ricker and his name calling (self defense whackos) is right out of the liberal playbook. iam am ex-army retired police officer who is proud to be a self defense whackos and a life member since my father signed me up when I was a baby. oooh yea mr ricker, i would glady defend you anytime your life is threatened.

88. On March 3rd, 2008 at 7:33 pm LT Drogo Says:

    Daniel,
    Didn’t read my second post, either, eh?
    P.S. “Give” and “guarantee” (however you choose to spell it) are NOT synonymous.

89. On March 3rd, 2008 at 8:59 pm gun rights wacko Says:

    We are some of us so hung up on the second amendment, anyway? This is not the beginning of our rights to keep and bear arms. The second amendment does nothing but affirm a right that was assumed to exist long before the constitution was written.

90. On March 3rd, 2008 at 9:01 pm PatriotMark Says:

    One could think we may be walking right into the trap the AHSA would like us to be in! We who as citizens of United States of America who believe in OUR Constitution should unite our voices against “All Enemies both Foreign and Domestic”. Those words are part of the oath “our” Government officials take when they go into office. They are swearing to protect US from many of THEM!
    No matter your affiliation WE have a serious problem facing US today and every day. That problem? Those who would presume to divide us so they can conquer us. Bickering in a forum over the meaning of words that were written in plain English is ridiculous at best. Leave the buffoonery and posturing to the real lawyers! Get it together and back the people who put our interests forward on a daily basis, promoting our freedoms while others try to legislate them away! We only have ONE CONSTITUTION and WE need to demand that those who WE send to represent US never forget that without US they would not be where they are. We The People! And YES, I am a Life Member of The National Rifle Association and a member of The NRA Golden Eagles.

91. On March 3rd, 2008 at 10:41 pm Level Head Says:

    I’m with LT Drogo and David Dale.

    It’s curious to assert that militias, such as those that the American colonists took over from the British in the times leading up to the Revolution, didn’t exist until the next century. The term had already been in use for hundreds of years by that time — since the 1500s in English, even — and the English “Militia Act” of 1757 would have been well-known to the Founders and within their living memory.

    The Constitution’s Second Amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed”. It’s not exactly “granting” the right, but it is acknowledging the right as a pre-existing one that deserves (and got!) Constitutional protection. It’s not a right to a militia, nor a right to serve in a militia, but the right to keep and bear arms.

    But the Founders did “connect” it, as LT Drogo suggested, with a militia — and Hamilton, Madison, and Jay wrote extensively on the topic in the Federalist Papers. They were worried about any attempt to disarm US citizens, because of the possible need to form a militia — and also that the citizens right of self-defense was crucial. They didn’t imagine a threat there, such as what we’re facing today — but a large amount of modern shenanigans would surprise our Founders, I’d bet.

    I completely support the individual right to keep and bear arms — for self defense, for sport, for hunting, and for defense against a common enemy — and so did the founding fathers. It’s unfortunate that the clauses of the Pennsylvania Bill of Rights — about the militia and about arms — got string together into one somewhat tangled sentence, but they did. Still, the intent is clear enough, and made more clear by the Founders’ other writings.

    Here was Pennsylvania’s Article XIII:
    “XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

    ===|==============/ Level Head

92. On March 3rd, 2008 at 11:59 pm Boots Hawks Says:

    I am blown away reading all this, and I think one thing is clear for 95% of the posts here, we have the RIGHT to our weapons,, it does not say in the Constitution we have the Privilege, a privilege can be taken but a right can not. Now, why? I ask myself and I have asked Diane Fienstein this also, if a public servant swears to support the Constitution of the United States how can they not support the 2nd Amendment? But is saddens me that the NRA is not 100 million strong, They should be impeached for treason. I know it drives me crazy getting the extra political fund request and money for this and for that, but in the end it is still worth it to me to belong to the NRA, because they at least bring so many together with a like belief. We need more members and if my name is on a list so be it. I know I will be on many lists before I die, and if I have my choice it will be the lists like the NRA. Because there is strength in numbers and without the NRA I am affraid we would be fighting as individuals. Every time I talk with a shooter I ask if they belong to the NRA, if they say yes, they get my respect, if they say no, they get my lecture,, because we need every gun owner we can get to join. There are too many actors, and left wing nuts like Bob, even if he is lips for hire, the brady bunch and so on and so on, Ted, Diane, Hillery and so forth. If the NRA becomes 100 million strong we will have the power to where they will listen to us. As far as the 2nd Amendment, I believe that it was writen for the main purpose of the people having a way to preserve our freedoms, without the second how can we insure any other rights. Believe me in this day of the crazy liberals and criminals being so brazen to rob steal and kill in the light of day. To break into someones home and invade without fear. To jump into a auto at a stop light or approach a person on the street and just take what ever they want. Police are outnumbered by the bad guys, and like others have said, I will reach for my gun before I reach for the phone to call the police.

    All I can say it SHAME on you Bob, and Shame on anyone who dares to defile our Constitution that so many have died to protect. If you have no self respect or honor as a man or an American I am affraid any money you make will never fill the empty hole you have created inside yourself.

93. On March 4th, 2008 at 9:12 am Daniel Says:

    One questions level headed? What part of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” are you missing? Does it say the right of the state/militia/federal government to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed? NO! It clearly states “the people” and as I told David and LT, seven other Amendments of the 10 Amendments also state “the people” and in so are giving “the people” a specific right.

    I have still not read anywhere where we should consider seven of the eight Amendments that clearly state “the people” and give the people specific rights, then all of a sudden we are now suppose to ignore the either amendment that is worded the same way?

    I am waiting and I as well as others on this thread, clearly want to know just how you three came up with that bit of logic? I will in turn take you reasoning and place it in an e-mail and send it to my list of other Constitutional Experts (the same list I gave to the NRA and who ALL state that the 2nd Amendment is a Constitutional Individual right) and invite them here. maybe if you refuse to believe one telling you that you are wrong, you will have no problems with 5000 posts telling you that you are wrong.

    You think?

94. On March 4th, 2008 at 9:26 am Daniel Says:

    Dont worrk Boot Hawks, the only way for the anti 2nd Amendment people to remove the wording of the 2nd Amendment that gives and protects an individuals right to keep and bear arms, is by a Constitutional Amendment. That means that 2/3rds of the US Congress MUST agree with this and pass it out to the states, and then 32 states must ratify this in a set time period or the measure will fail.

    For example, you might have recently heard that the Femi’s are trying to get the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) restarted. The chances of that are slim to none as it is well past the 10 year time limit they had and quite a few states want to remove themselves from this thus dropping the 21 states they originally had back down to 14 states. Even if this was allowed (and Constitutionally it cannot be) there wouls still be no way they could convince other states (18 in all) to ratify this before the 10 year time limit was up thus forcing them to start all over at square one.

    This is what a Constitutional Amendment faces and the main reason why 99.9% of them failed. The only other way to do this is to have 38 states call for a Constitutional Convention, and the press will not allow this and will be trying very hard to stop this. Why? Because they know very well that if they call for this Convention that this opens up the WHOLE Constitution for revision, not just the 2nd Amendment and as such the people who are tired of the liberal bias of the press could very well re-write the 1st Amendment to place restrictions on the Press as well as to remove the much misused and misquoted “Seperation of Church and State” which clearly states that the Government shall not set up a state religion, it says nothing about a Religion being in Government as some insist as if it did, there are many members of the Clergy that are already in Congress in both parties that could be made to resign one office or another.

    So as for your fear of them removing the 2nd Amendment..dont. They have a very high wall they have to go over before that can happen and people like you and myself and millions of others are going to prevent this any legal way possible.

95. On March 4th, 2008 at 9:44 am Bitter Says:

    Daniel,

    The time limit is something that’s added by Congress at their whim, not a mandate. Otherwise, how would you explain the 27th amendment?

    You also don’t address the role of the Courts, assuming they will support your view. Nor do you address what happens if you get a meaningless interpretation. (In other words, it’s an individual right, but bans are reasonable.) Until you can answer those two remaining issues with absolute authority, I don’t think it’s appropriate to tell people they don’t have to worry.

96. On March 4th, 2008 at 10:58 am Level_Head Says:

    Daniel wrote:
    “One questions level headed? What part of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” are you missing?”

    What is missing is the rest of the sentence: “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.”

    The word Militia is there. Had the Founders not included superfluous commas, the meaning of this would be more clear. It is “connected” or “linked” to the Militia — the question is: what does that connection mean? I hold that the usefulness of a Militia was advanced as a reason (not the only one, but the only one mentioned here) why the /individual’ right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed”. Despite the comma, that last clause cannot be referring directly to Militia as its subject; one cannot “infringe” a Militia, only a right.

    Daniel wrote:
    “You are NOT helping anything LT as you clearly are mistaken in your statement that the 2nd Amendment links to the militia.”

    As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper #10, “As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves.”

    We are each passionate about the Second Amendment, you and I, and we are each in support of the individual right to keep and bear arms that it describes. It is inevitable, as Hamilton wrote, that there would be differences of opinion — but this does not make me your enemy.

    ===|==============/ Level Head

97. On March 4th, 2008 at 1:43 pm LT Drogo Says:

    Daniel,
    Again and again you tell us that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. I’ve scanned this entire thread, and I can’t find ANY statement by ANYONE that contradicts that assertion (I have no idea what Bob Ricker thinks, but he hasn’t broached that subject here). Oddly, the three correspondents you mention in your #94 post have been especially clear in agreeing with the individual right interpretation. To whom do you protest?

98. On March 4th, 2008 at 2:46 pm Daniel Says:

    Never said you were my enemy level, and in fact I would like to consider you a friend since both of us seemingly want the same thing. But you still have to understand that in the first 10 Amendments there are eight that use the phrase “the “people” and in each of the seven amendments that use this phrase, it grants the individual a stated “right”. The only difference between the seven and the 2nd, is that they have “a well regulated militia” but if you will look at the defining statement of a militia and even look under the US Draft laws, a Miliria is described as “ALL able bodied men and boys from the age of seventeen to 35″ So even IF we were to go by what you are trying to say, that would mean that ALL people between 17 and 35 would be required to have weapons the same as the military uses in case they were called up for action and even Handgun Control admits this, So the question is…no matter how you look at it, ALL men and boys from 17-35 are part of the militia. And considering that during that era, the life span of a person was usually in the early 40’s, that would equal out to the ages today of between 17 and 70. And since 70 is the required retirement for Military officers according to the UCMJ and 65 is the required retirement for NCO’s accroding to the same UCMJ. It clearly is obvious that even including your statement of the militia, the right for a man to own a gun between the ages of 17 and 70 is clearly evident.

    As such, the Constitution gives you th right to own a weapon. basic Constitutional law 101.

    Be glad I gave this for free, I usually charge $65. a credit hour for these kinds of lessons

99. On March 4th, 2008 at 2:50 pm Daniel Says:

    No Lt, they have not and neither have you. All to a person say the US Constitution does not grant a right to own a weapon. Sorry LT, but many a better man then either of us that has sat on the US Supreme Court as well as many of the founding fathers from Washington to Adams to Jefferson and so on, have all stated that this is an Individual right granted by the Constitution. Any other statement to the contrary, is clearly in error especially when we have the words from the Founding fathers stating this in the Smithsonian and their individual museums.

    Since these men (the founding fathers) wrote the Constitution and they know what they ment better then we do, and you can clearly see this in the papers they left behind; I will stand by their wisdom in this issue.

100. On March 4th, 2008 at 3:05 pm Daniel Says:

     #

     Bitter | 04-Mar-08 at 9:44 am | Permalink

     Daniel,

     The time limit is something that’s added by Congress at their whim, not a mandate. Otherwise, how would you explain the 27th amendment?

     You also don’t address the role of the Courts, assuming they will support your view. Nor do you address what happens if you get a meaningless interpretation. (In other words, it’s an individual right, but bans are reasonable.) Until you can answer those two remaining issues with absolute authority, I don’t think it’s appropriate to tell people they don’t have to worry.
     —————–
     Bitter, the 27th Amendment was allowed to proceed because ALL of the parties involved were in agreement. This is something that you would never have in this case and as such it reverts back to the 10 year time limit.

     As for the courts agreeing with me or not in the haller case, well all I can say on that is even Sarah Brady and Handgun Control believe they will lose this case most strongly. I have seen their mailings and read where they begged the DC mayor not to take this any further as this would open up cases all over the US on the gun laws already in existance including the laws banning the owernship of a machinegun without a license from the BATF. It would also kill once and for all all gun control groups as what exactly are they going to protest or demand new restrictions on when the USSC agrees with the lower court in a 5-4 decision that the lower court was right in the haller case? It will also kill all new gun control bills unless it can be proved that it does not violate the 2nd Amendment’s guarenteed right to own a weapon. And that would kill well over 99.9% of all the new ones as they do indeed violate the 2nd Amendment. For instance a large amount of communities and a few states are now saying that you may only buy one gun a month. Ok, now how does that effect a collector? And does this not violate his or her right to own a gun under the 2nd Amendment? California and New York and Ill are three states that are going to lose a massive majority of their gun control laws in one stroke of the pen. And factor in that you have well over half of the Senate and a,most 2/3rds of the House demanding that the USSC uphold the Haller decision (suprisingly even Boxer and scheumer and Kennedy and Clinton are on this list) The chance that the Court will overturn the Haller case decision is so remote as to be better then a 0.00000000000001% chance of them overturning the Haller decision and a 99.9999999% chance that they will uphold it. Once it is upheld and it is clearly stated that this is an individual right, the ONLY way to overturn it is by either a Constitutional Convention or a Constitutional Amendment. And with over 78% of the citizens of the US clearly stating that this is an individual right in the last ABC/Time/USA Today poll…the politicians know what side their bread is buttered on and would not dare try and change it for fear of their political lives.

     So I am very comfortable in my statements.

101. On March 4th, 2008 at 3:16 pm Daniel Says:

     LT here are your quotes that you asked for.

     “#75 LT Drogo 03-Mar-08 at 1:37 am
     The Second Amendment clearly connects civilian gun ownership to militia duty (which is not to say the Founders ever intended citizens to own arms SOLELY for that purpose; self-defense and common defense from tyranny were frequent themes). Simply stated, if we are to have a competent, effective (well regulated) militia, the people MUST own and know how to use guns. We haven’t mustered the body of the militia for some time (as we did via Selective Service)” So you are linking thepersons right to own a gun to the Militia? That is NOT what the 2nd Amendment says LT.

     Here is yet another one
     “David Dale | 03-Mar-08 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

     One thing that seems to be overlooked in the entire thread is that the Constitution does not give us the right to bear arms.” Sorry but yes it does.

     Here is another one from you LT
     “LT Drogo | 03-Mar-08 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

     Daniel,
     P.S. You’ve also misunderstood David Dale. He is correct that the Second Amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms, but rather recognizes it as a pre-existing right and prohibits its infringement.” Sorry LT, better men then you or I completely disagree with you. Read the Printz v. U.S. 1997 521 U.S. 898 and you will see even the US Supreme Court disagrees with you and they have the final word on anything Constitutional.

     You can try and say I took it out of context, but your exact words were and I quote “LT Drogo | 04-Mar-08 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

     Daniel,
     Again and again you tell us that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. I’ve scanned this entire thread, and I can’t find ANY statement by ANYONE that contradicts that assertion” I have posted three different statements that clearly state what you said did not exist.

102. On March 4th, 2008 at 3:20 pm Daniel Says:

     Ok LT here are your quotes that you say do not exist:

     LT Drogo | 03-Mar-08 at 1:37 am |
     The Second Amendment clearly connects civilian gun ownership to militia duty (which is not to say the Founders ever intended citizens to own arms SOLELY for that purpose; self-defense and common defense from tyranny were frequent themes). Simply stated, if we are to have a competent, effective (well regulated) militia, the people MUST own and know how to use guns.
     No it does not LT and you know that.
     2. “David Dale | 03-Mar-08 at 1:51 pm
     One thing that seems to be overlooked in the entire thread is that the Constitution does not give us the right to bear arms.” yes it does David

     LT Drogo | 04-Mar-08 at 1:43 pm |
     Daniel,
     Again and again you tell us that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. I’ve scanned this entire thread, and I can’t find ANY statement by ANYONE that contradicts that assertion

     Then you really did not look that hard LT as I found two in less then 5 seconds.

103. On March 4th, 2008 at 7:38 pm Dusty Says:

     Daniel, the Bill of Rights does not grant any rights, it guarantees them. This is a basic tenet of American jurisprudence. The framers knew that rights granted could be easily revoked by legislative action. However, by placing certain and select rights in the Bill of Rights those rights are thus guaranteed as privileges and immunities.”

     “The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the “Bill of Rights,” were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain GUARANTIES and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors… – - Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897),

104. On March 4th, 2008 at 8:17 pm Bitter Says:

     Daniel,

     If it was a matter of agreement, it wouldn’t make sense that the 27th amendment would pass since those originally involved were long dead. The reason it wasn’t relevant then was because at that time, Congress chose not to add time limits. Again, it’s a choice, not a mandate.

     Of course, your premise about ERA is wrong anyway since women’s groups aren’t supporting it anymore. Curiously, when someone searches for information on time limits for amendments, they will find one of the top results is a NOW page outlining why they don’t want to work with ERA, the time limit being one issue.
     

     1. Why can’t we use the old ERA?

     ANSWER: The wording of the ERA has already been interpreted and recorded by Congress as meaning very specific things, and constitutional protection likely would be limited to those interpretations. It would not cover reproductive rights or lesbian and gay rights.

     So they aren’t even trying to raise it again. But, they even acknowledge that there’s a time limit problem, which, by the way, was initially seven years, not ten.
     

     4. What is the Madison Strategy?

     ANSWER: The “Madison Strategy” calls for trying to get the last three states needed to make up the 38 necessary for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment and then present it to Congress for certification. Some people believe this strategy will work because in 1992, Congress certified the Madison Amendment (which concerns congressional pay raises) as still viable and therefore considered it ratified when passed by the thirty-eighth state 203 years after its original presentation to the states by Congress.

     However, several issues must be addressed when considering this strategy, including, but not limited to, the following: 1) Congress in its original certification gave the ERA only 7 years for passage, then later amended the time limit to 10 years for getting the required 38 states to ratify; no such limit had been attached to the Madison Amendment; 2) the remaining three (3) states necessary to ratify the ERA are among those states which are strongholds of traditionally conservative attitudes toward women’s rights and/or are states where a “super” majority of votes are needed to pass, such as Illinois. Even if successful we would end up with an amendment that, according to its history in the Congress, excluded some of the most important features like lesbian and gay rights and a guarantee of reproductive freedom.

     However, given your clear attitude against the group, I would also point to this history on the broader subject of time limits.
     

     It has been accepted that Congress may, in proposing an amendment, set a reasonable time limit for its ratification. Beginning with the Eighteenth Amendment, save for the Nineteenth, Congress has included language in all proposals stating that the amendment should be inoperative unless ratified within seven years. All the earlier proposals had been silent on the question, and two amendments proposed in 1789, one submitted in 1810 and another in 1861, and most recently one in 1924 had gone to the States and had not been ratified.
     …
     Article V says nothing about time limits, and elsewhere in the Constitution when the Framers wanted to include time limits they did so. The absence of any time language means there is no requirement of contemporaneity or of a ”reasonable” period.
     …
     Nothing in the status of the precedent created by the Twenty- seventh Amendment suggests that Congress may not, when it proposes an amendment, include, either in the text or in the accompanying resolution, a time limitation, simply as an exercise of its necessary and proper power.

     Whether once it has prescribed a ratification period Congress may thereafter extend the period without necessitating action by already-ratified States embroiled Congress, the States, and the courts in argument with respect to the proposed Equal Rights Amendment. Proponents argued and opponents doubted that the fixing of a time limit and the extending of it were powers committed exclusively to Congress under the political question doctrine and that in any event Congress had power to extend. It was argued that inasmuch as the fixing of a reasonable time was within Congress’ power and that Congress could fix the time either in advance or at some later point, based upon its evaluation of the social and other bases of the necessities of the amendment, Congress did not do violence to the Constitution when, once having fixed the time, it subsequently extended the time. Proponents recognized that if the time limit was fixed in the text of the amendment Congress could not alter it because the time limit as well as the substantive provisions of the proposal had been subject to ratification by a number of States, making it unalterable by Congress except through the amending process again. Opponents argued that Congress, having by a two-thirds vote sent the amendment and its authorizing resolution to the States, had put the matter beyond changing by passage of a simple resolution, that States had either acted upon the entire package or at least that they had or could have acted affirmatively upon the promise of Congress that if the amendment had not been ratified within the prescribed period it would expire and their assent would not be compelled for longer than they had intended. Congress did pass a resolution extending by three years the period for ratification.

     Litigation followed and a federal district court, finding the issue to be justiciable, held that Congress did not have the power to extend, but before the Supreme Court could review the decision the extended time period expired and mooted the matter.

     To further address your Court points, I do have to point out a flaw in logic for those who don’t work in non-profits and understand their unique marketing techniques:
     

     …even Sarah Brady and Handgun Control believe they will lose this case most strongly. I have seen their mailings…

     I can assure you that no revelation of perceived win will ever come out in those mailings. Under no circumstance do they want you to think they’re going to win – regardless of probable outcome.

     But to the root of your first comments about the Heller case potential success and what that would mean, I believe your view to be quite naive. The gun control groups will not go away, nor will all of the restrictions you cite suddenly be up in the air. I can assure you that no court will agree without a fight that restrictions on fully automatic firearms are the same as an outright ban on any functioning gun.

     Assuming that a win will mean anti-gunners will stop introducing anti-gun legislation is outright unbelievable. If you go into this case with that assumption, you’re letting your guard down and hurting us all. In fact, I don’t know anyone who believes that. Most believe a strong win in Heller will result in more gun control than you can imagine being introduced since anti-gunners will need to “find” their line in the sand with the courts.

     I also don’t know where you get the idea that Clinton, Kennedy, Boxer, and Schumer support the Respondent. If you look at the brief you’re referencing, you won’t find their names on it. And those percentages of a win vs. being overturned, where did you come up with that? Buddy, just because you believe it doesn’t make it true. Honestly, not even the most optimistic court watcher supporting us would make anywhere near that claim, especially given twists like granting the Administration time to speak when they will advocate that the Court shouldn’t really rule on much and send it back down to lower courts.

     I’ll be honest, you really seem to be living in a gun owner fantasy land with your claims and assumptions about the Court. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a nice idea, but it’s just not based in reality and we can point to actions that contradict the things you believe.

105. On March 4th, 2008 at 9:54 pm LT Drogo Says:

     Daniel,
     Nothing new. The posts you’ve quoted support the individual right interpretation. You’re still confusing what the Second Amendment grants (nothing) with what it guarantees (a pre-existing “natural” right). A number of correspondents have attempted to explain; perhaps it’s time for you to consult your Constitutional experts. I want to be perfectly clear, though, that I still regard you as an ally in the cause, and wish you all the best.

106. On March 4th, 2008 at 10:51 pm Daniel Says:

     Yep, just as I thought. Just because LT does not believe what the US Constitution says and what they US Supreme Court has stated all because he seemingly does not believe that anyone but him can interpret the decision (for his information I got my interpretations from the NRA HQ in Virginia and other places), they are wrong because LT says so. How presumptious of him. Now since the 9 justices of the USSC say I am correct (as I get the information from their archives) I would guess that no matter what you try and say, the USSC still trumps anything you wish to say about this. All you have to do is check at their website http://www.supremecourtus.gov and see for yourself. Or are you going to continue to say they are wrong in what they said and I quoted from because you dont believe it?

     Dusty, Please…I would not say it if it was not easy to check. Go here and see that they ARE trying to restart this, just as I said. And pay attention to the date when the page was updated, on 11-07.
     http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/

     And Dusty, you really should have paid more attention to history when in school. before we broke away from England, we were under its laws and even the Magna Carta. But once we broke away from England, we were a new country and no longer subject to the laws of England. As such when the Constitution was written, it GRANTED us the right to keep and bear arms. It could NOT affirm a right that we had while citizens of another country. The ONLY way Constitutionallly for us to do this is by treaty or have our Congress write a bill and pass it and the President to sign it. That would have been a tad difficult to do as we had no president at the time the Constitution was written. We did have one in 1787 when the Constitution was ratified but by then it was too late. hence you are totally wrong in your assumptions and any scholar of the Constitution or attorney will tell you the same thing.

107. On March 4th, 2008 at 11:33 pm Bitter Says:

     Daniel,

     I think you’re mixing up who you’re responding to in this thread. Dusty didn’t bring up the ERA, I did.

     Why would you assume that some random website that doesn’t have a professional or coherent presentation is going to be able to put together the political and grassroots campaigns to get it passed? In theory, it could happen, but it hardly seems likely in the current political environment. Of course, I’d still like to see how you’d respond to the litigation that was pending on time limits, and how their efforts would likely fare in that situation.

     I’ll be honest, I’m not clear on what you’re arguing re: SCOTUS archives. Granted, I haven’t been following every detail of the debates on here – just generally making sure things don’t get out of hand – but I’m not sure what archives you’re talking about or what it proves.

108. On March 5th, 2008 at 10:23 am Daniel Says:

     Why do some of you insist on arguing? I was told no one made the statement that the Constitution does not guarentee the 2nd Amendment, I proved it wrong with the quote from the posters. I was told that My interp of the Supreme Court decisions were wrong, I not only proved they were right by posting quotes directly from them but gave you the site as well. I mentioned the ERA Amendment and was told that was dead and gone, yet the site I gave clearly shows it is alive and trying to be passed.

     With all of this…WHY do some of you keep arguing? You know you are going to lose, so why keep up an exercise in futility? I have been doing this for over 40 years and that is longer then probably most of you have been alive so my sources have been tested under fire already and have come out strong. So what is some of you posters problems? Is it the facts do not agree with your views and thus force you to change them unwillingly? What??

109. On March 5th, 2008 at 10:42 am Bitter Says:

     Daniel,

     I think I asked some very valid follow-up questions. It’s not arguing, but pointing out some very important concerns or facts. Feel free to address them if you like, but claiming that you’re providing detailed links and quotes isn’t quite accurate. In the above comment I made, I was responding to a comment where you only pasted the general SCOTUS website.

     Again, I haven’t followed every little post, so it’s valid if you want to say that in post number X, you did link to something very targeted that relates to a point I’m bringing up. However, I will continue to question on your perception of ERA. I asked for your opinion, and I’d be curious to see what you have to say:
     

     Why would you assume that some random website that doesn’t have a professional or coherent presentation is going to be able to put together the political and grassroots campaigns to get it passed? In theory, it could happen, but it hardly seems likely in the current political environment. Of course, I’d still like to see how you’d respond to the litigation that was pending on time limits, and how their efforts would likely fare in that situation.

110. On March 5th, 2008 at 11:02 am Daniel Says:

     I answered them and gave you the links to the USSC’s webpage for you to look for yourself. I also quoted directly from the decision and gave you names and dates when decided. I cannot take your hand and force you to read them, that you have to do on your own. When you do, then ask me again and we can have a discussion. But I see no need to keep filling this space with info directly from the sources and giving you links to same if you are just going to ignore it or say it does not say what it said, or not bother to check the links themselves.

111. On March 5th, 2008 at 11:04 am Bitter Says:

     I can go back and check the SCOTUS arguments, but I don’t think you’ve addressed the ERA/grassroots/political/litigation challenges.

112. On March 5th, 2008 at 1:54 pm David Dale Says:

     Daniel,

     I never intimated that the Second Amendment was anything less than an individual right. The United States is about the laws of men, not the laws of groups. Time and time again from the Federalist papers forward the Constitution has been redefined as laws for individuals. The original amendments were all considered pre-existing rights protected by the written word of the writers and upheld by adjuducation later.

     David Dale

113. On March 5th, 2008 at 1:59 pm LT Drogo Says:

     Daniel,
     We’re only trying to help. Let’s simplify. You have stated that the Constitution GRANTS the right to own guns. With your 40+ years of experience (including the two you apparently picked up between posts #85 and #109), you should find it easy to tell us where and in what words the Constitution grants this right. A very short quote will suffice. If you can’t answer this simple question, simply, I will continue to believe that the NRA and I are right, and you are simply wrong.

114. On March 5th, 2008 at 3:49 pm Level_Head Says:

     By the way, LT Drogo, I’ve enjoyed meeting you, our hostess, and the other posters here. I think that we’re pretty close, philosophically.

     Your point earlier, that rights (in the Constitutional view) are not /granted/ by governments, but protected. I think we’re even in the same place as to their ultimate source. ];-)

     It’s curious, the misunderstandings over “granted” versus “protected” — and the confusion over “connected to” and the concept of a militia. Ah, well.

     But before someone comes along [omitted] and winds up shutting down this comment thread, I wanted to say hello, and that it has been a pleasure.

     ===|==============/ Level Head

115. On March 5th, 2008 at 11:02 pm Boots Hawks Says:

     It is way to easy to think that we don’t have anything to worry about. I am sure that is exactly what the anti gun people want. We let our guard down and they move in for the kill. Sure they might not be able to get rid of the 2nd Amendment but they pick away at our rights other ways. Like my Governor here in California signing the micro stamping of shell casings fired.. There is a ways that they wack away at our right without getting rid of it.. I can’t believe he dares to call himself a republican,,, I guess being a friend of Bloomberg should tell it all.

     We need to keep the NRA and GOA strong and get more members,,, and we need to vote and vote wisely,, or yes our right can be at risk.

116. On March 6th, 2008 at 1:53 am Daniel Says:

     I quote them as they are printed or posted. If you never ment this “Post 81 David Dale | 03-Mar-08 at 1:51 pm | One thing that seems to be overlooked in the entire thread is that the Constitution does not give us the right to bear arms.” then why did you post it? LT swore he never saw this, though it was clear and easy to find as well as others.

     Again, nothing you or LT or anyone else is going to convince me that I am wrong about these cases when I am reading it directly from the USSC site and I am getting the answer I seek directly from Steven in the USSC Clerks office as well as the Public info office of the USSC. I mean my God if you would have just looked, there is even a number for decisions {Opinion Announcements: 202-479-3360)
     As such I am more then confident in my opinion and my reading of the decisions. And so far nothing here has shaken me from these opinions

117. On March 6th, 2008 at 2:40 am Level_Head Says:

     Daniel, you’re hung up on the words, but seem to be missing the point.

     Various people you’ve referred to, including me, pointed out that:
     “The Constitution does not GRANT the right to bear arms.”

     Or, as you put it, “does not GIVE us the right to bear arms.”

     This is completely true, and it’s an important point. The founders of the country, and specifically the authors Hamilton, Madison and Jay, held that WE ALREADY HAVE THOSE RIGHTS.

     That it is NOT within the power of a government of men to “give” or “grant” natural or God-given rights. This is clearly expressed by Jefferson, who considered it “self evident” that Man was endowed with “certain inalienable Rights”…

     Do you see? The Declaration of Independence does not grant rights. The Bill of Rights LISTS them, and PROTECTS them — it doesn’t “grant” them because it is not within the power of the government to do so: Those “inalienable” rights were already there.

     You’ve reacted as if the other posters — including me — had suggested that there WAS no right to keep and bear arms. But each of us holds that we HAVE that right. And that this right pre-dates the Constitution, and is not “granted” by it.

     Do you see what’s going on? You’ve taken this semantic difference, this attempt to be true to the Founders’ notion of Man being “created” with rights, and you’re interpreting this as if we said there were no rights.

     Not once have any of the ones you’re referring to said this. Each of us has affirmed that we have, individually, the right to keep and bear arms. This right is PROTECTED by the Second Amendment. And it was PROTECTED earlier by various state constitutions and bills of rights, including Virginia’s and Pennsylvania’s.

     None of them use the word “grant” referring to rights, and this was a sensitive issue with them. Jefferson’s early drafts used different words, but in each case the rights were “inherent” and “inalienable” — and not granted by humans or their governments. But to secure these rights (he originally wrote “secure these ends”) a government is established — and they did so.

     In missing the difference between a right granted and a right protected, you’ve caused yourself to think that we don’t believe the right exists. That is unfortunate — and it’s completely incorrect.

     Look back on all of the quotes you’ve been using, and watch for the usage of words like “grant” and “give”, as opposed to words like versus “protect” and “secure”. You’ll see what has happened.

     ===|==============/ Level Head

118. On March 6th, 2008 at 7:42 am Black belt Says:

     Dear Bob
     in your term “Self Defense whackos” did you include the people who study martial arts , Karate, Kung fu and so on? some of us spend much of our lives studying,practicing and teaching self defense.
     To the rest of you guys, don’t spend so much time debating the Second Amendment that you forget to vote, the one right we need to use to keep the rest.

119. On March 6th, 2008 at 9:06 am Daniel Says:

     No level head, you seem to forget that we HAD these rights as members of the English Kingdom as it was granted to us by the magna carta, one we broke away from England, we no longer had these rights as we we no longer under English rule. Thus we had to do something to make sure we kept the rights and as such the US Constitution when it was written Granted-Gave (you say potato, and I say pototo) these rights back to us under AMERICAN law, not English law. Read Hamilton-Jay-Jefferson-Washington-Madison or any one of the founding fathers papers that they left behind and this will become clear and evident to you.

     The whole point that you seem to be missing is that you cannot break away from one country, and then try to claim the same rights you had while a member of that country’s laws, unless you somehow make sure the same rights were GRANTED/GIVEN under the laws of the new country you are in. It makes no sense to break away from one country and then still try to say that you have the same rights of the original country while you are in another totally different country. That logic does not fly even today.

120. On March 6th, 2008 at 9:52 am Level Head Says:

     Thomas Jefferson wrote, in an earlier draft of the Declaration of Independence:

     “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable…”

     According to this gentleman, Man derives rights — inherent rights — as a result of his creation, not the fact that he was a former English subject.

     The final version is not much different:

     “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”

     In other words, that a person has rights from birth. All do.

     Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, nor in the Constitution of the United States (nor in the organizing documents of the Confederation in between these points) will you find reference to “granting” or “giving” these inherent rights to people.

     You presuppose that the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment “grants” these rights — and by implication, Constitutional changes could take them away.

     Just try it. You will find that others hold, as I do, as the Founding Fathers did, that we ALREADY HAVE basic rights — and woe betide someone who decides that they’re going to just legislate them away.

     It is not for nothing that the right to keep and bear arms is called the right that guarantees all the others.

     These rights do not come from the whims of a government or a ruler, however benevolent or despotic. You can call them “natural rights” or “God-given rights” depending upon your own philosophy — but they are NOT FROM man. They are NOT “granted”.

     All we can do, when attempting to set up a government, is try try to establish rules that will PROTECT and SECURE the rights already held. Or, as Mr. Jefferson put it:

     “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

     That Man is BORN with rights is a crucial key in the America philosophy. And it remains true in philosophy today — you have organizations complaining about “human rights” in the prison camps of North Korea, where they torture their dogs and political prisoners horrifically and in about equal measure. Kim Jong Il did not “grant” those people rights — but still we hold that ALL men and women were born with them, and thus we rail against these injustices. Yes, they’re in a different country — but they still HAVE rights, regardless of their current circumstances.

     It is dangerous, in my opinion, to suppose that all of our rights are granted to us by a government. What is “given” could be taken away, and if you’re convinced that you ONLY have rights because the government gives them to you, then you are in the sway and thrall of a system that you SHOULD be the master of. As our founders intended! Hence phrases like “the consent of the governed.”

     You reference the Magna Carta — but this is exactly the effect that the American founders did NOT want. We don’t know what the Articles of the Barons contained in 1215 — but eighty years later, that version of the Magna Carta made clear that King Edward owned his land and people outright, and thus HE could grant rights to them.

     In this arrogant mindset, Edward in the Magna Carta grants rights to God. Seriously: ” In the first place we grant to God and confirm by this our present charter for ourselves and our heirs in perpetuity that the English Church is to be free…” (Article One of the 1297 version)

     We do not work that way, and wanted no part of an owner who completely dominated us and then deigned, literally, to give us back scraps of freedom.

     We are truly free. Many of the enumerated rights overlap — but they are protected by our government, not granted by an owner — and that makes all the difference between freemen and “subjects” who simply called themselves free. The word “subject” — subject to the King’s rule — shows the state of affairs that we were done with and will not submit to again.

     This is not two different pronunciations of “potato” — it is a concept at the very heart of the American phenomenon, and the wellspring from which ALL of our system of government is derived.

     ===|==============/ Level Head

121. On March 6th, 2008 at 5:19 pm LT Drogo Says:

     Level Head,
     You’ve said it all, and better than I could, for which I heartily thank you. If the concept is not yet clear to Daniel, I fear there is nothing anyone, anywhere could say to make it so. I think it very important that we think about these matters, not least to understand our responsibilities as citizens. I may be overly sensitive just now, because I live in Minnesota, where we have a comedian vying for a seat in the U.S. Senate, whose reading of the Second Amendment has led him to “think there’s something in there about ‘well regulated’” (from an interview on public radio). Anyway, I’ve enjoyed participating in this exchange and thereby meeting you and the other posters. Thanks again and best wishes.

122. On March 9th, 2008 at 9:07 am Dusty Says:

     As already mentioned by other astute comentators, nothing in the Constitution even glints at the suggestion that the framers were “granting” rights in the first ten admendments. Indeed, the challenge for anyone contending otherwise is a daunting task. Only by some manner of anfractuous conclusion could a contradictory theory be hatched, regardless of whatever some later legislature, court, or some self-serving politician has said. The framers, all awashed in the sentiments of John Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau…all advancing the concept of Natural Rights…were bound by their profound influence. Of the various and plentiful resources at hand not one has been forthcoming that stems from original documents. In a search of nineteen web sources I could not find any commentary that supports such a view. Six are included below that clearly and unequivocally support the well known decision that the Bill of Rights provided guarantees to pre-existing rights:

     http://edsitement.neh.gov/monthly_feature.asp?id=92

     http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/instructional/resources/LandMarkSupremeCourtCases/index.htm#

     http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-bin/page.cgi/jb/nation/bofright_4

     http://www.billofrights.com/index.htm

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

     http://score.rims.k12.ca.us/score_lessons/bill_of_rights/index.htm

     With respect to the U.S. Supreme Court, the historical record is quite clear. The argument has never been that the Bill of Rights “granted” anything. The early court’s view held that the Bill of Rights “protected” the rights of citizens (Barron v. Baltimore, 1833) but that the Federal Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. This was intended to be corrected by the Fourteenth Amendment, except that some Amendments, including the Second, are not perceived to be incorporated or abliged by the Fourteenth. (Now in true antebelum circular logic state courts contend that the right to keep and bear arms is not federally protected, and thus open to state encroachment.)

     For those still found to be prisoners of their own mind and believe that all rights spring forth from the whim of government, I suggest the following:

     The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court, pages 823-825, State Constitutions and Individual Rights

     State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights (Brennan) Harvard Law Review 90 (1/97)

123. On March 9th, 2008 at 9:47 am Dusty Says:

     Another point germane to this very subject. If the contention is that the Crown “granted” individual rights prior to the independent existance of the American states, under what theory of English Common Law did this condition exist?

     Specifically to the subject at hand, what laws existed concerning the purchase, carrying, and ownership of weapons under Crown rule?

124. On March 9th, 2008 at 3:34 pm Daniel Says:

     Specifically, the right to personal defense was granted to the BRITISH layman and serfs under the Magna Carta. But this was and is BRITISH law. What some here do not seem to understand, is that once we broke away from England, we were no longer subject to British law nor could we claim any rights or protections under same that were granted as we were NO LONGER BRITISH SUBJECTS.

     Hence the Founding Fathers GRANTED us these rights under the US Constitution. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that and every major legal expert and decision in the last 200 years has stated the exact same thing. These so called “prior rights” people would know that if they would have spent just a few hours in a law library or had bothered to read the papers left behind by Washington-Adamn-Jefferson-etc.

     As such, by trying to claim a right still existed to a person from one country who gave up citizenship in that country to accept citizenship in another country; or that you could demand the rights from your former country in the country you just accepted citizenship in, is beyond the limit of rationality and sane reasoning and US Law. Even in the US when you give up your citizenship, you LOSE ALL rights and protections under US Law, just as when you accept citizenship in this country, you are now bound by OUR laws and not the laws from your old country. And that has been the rule of law in every country for over 1000 years from the kingdoms to present day Government.

     Maybe they are not as astute or germane as you would like to believe Eh Dusty? Even my 4th grade great nephew understands this and finds it difficult to follow the “prior rights” claim some have placed here. Not to mention that Justice Marshall (and a host of other USSC Justices) all have disputed this claim in numerous decisions and papers.

     So far the people who are claiming this are showing nothing in the way of US Law that would back them on this. Nor any prior papers from the Founding Fathers that would show legal structure for the statement or claim. As such they are batting zip.

125. On March 9th, 2008 at 6:32 pm LT Drogo Says:

     Daniel,
     So you are under the impression that a foreigner in our country, with a student visa, say, or a green card, lives here without the legal protections of the Bill of Rights? Clearly, then, we could lock up or execute any ILLEGAL immigrant without any due process at all, right? The further you defend your stance, the more absurd your stance becomes. I’m beginning to wonder if you and I are talking about the same species on the same planet. PLEASE go back and read Level Head’s posts once again. You will find them a clear and simple explication without even a hint of dissonance with the main stream of USSC jurisprudence. We who read your posts, on the other hand, find it impossible to imagine how you could read what you claim to have read and arrive thereby at your stated conclusions. This leap of logic approaches that of the anti-gunners who insist that US vs. Miller (1939) supports a collectivist notion of the right to keep and bear arms.

126. On March 9th, 2008 at 8:55 pm Daniel Says:

     LT…please. Others may allow you to put words in their mouth, but I will not allow you to do it to me.

     YOU go back and re-read what I stated. The same goes for anyone that is here on a visa or anything else. While you are here you abide by the laws of THIS country. You DO NOT get to do something here that we say is illegal juat because you may be able to do it in your country. And if you decide to become a citizen of this country, you DO NOT get to still demand that your prior country’s laws apply to you, you will abide by OUR laws.

     The same thing for your so called “prior right” claim. Let’s go through this one more time since some people seemingly or willingly do not want to understand. The rights that were granted to England’s freemen and surfs STAYED in England once we broke away from them. As such WE DID NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE UNTIL THE FOUNDING FATHERS STATED AS MUCH IN THE US CONSTITUTIO IN THE 2ND AMENDMENT. Once they placed/granted us these rights and it was ratified, then and ONLY then did we aquire the rights we had before as this was and is an completely different country then the one we broke away from.

     I dont know how much clearer I can make it. I dont know how much clearer the USSC can make it. I dont know how much clearer the Founding fathers papers and works can make it and I dont know how much clearer Former Justice marshall and other USSC Justices past and present can make it.

     When you have all these people who are better men then you or I saying this by works and deeds and papers, and you (as well as others)keep insisting that they are wrong; one has to wonder if you (as well as others) are doing this intentionally just to argue or if you (as well as others) are doing this because you (as well as others) really cannot seem to grasp this simple concept.

127. On March 9th, 2008 at 9:38 pm Dusty Says:

     There is a dissonance here all right, and I think its cognitive.

128. On March 9th, 2008 at 10:33 pm Dusty Says:

     “As opposed to non-constitional forms of government,individual rights are distinctly derived from Natural Law and form the basis of a Republic.” [The Growth of the American Republic 1763-1865 Vol. 1, Liberty and Empire (Oxford University Press, 1937) Samuel Eliot Morison & Henry Steele Commager]

     [The following is exerpted from "Individual Rights" @ Wikipedia and all emphasis in caps have been added]

     “Individual rights refer to the rights of the individual, distinct from civil rights, legal rights, and group rights (or privileges) GRANTED by government and varying with the organization and administration of the government. Individual rights identify a boundary of just social interactions, in the PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF GOVERNMENT.”

     Rights are often coded into law so that they may be PROTECTED by IMPARTIAL THIRD PARTIES such as the government.”

     “With respect to individual rights the role of the government is as a THIRD PARTY PROTECTING, identifying and enforcing the rights of the individual while attempting to assure just remedies for transgressions.”

     “The definition and UPHOLDING of individual rights is the core responsibility of any modern government.”

     “In the United States, the Constitution outlines individual rights within the Bill of Rights. In Canada, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms serves the same function. One of the key differences between the two documents is that some rights in the Canadian Charter CAN BE OVERRIDDEN BY GOVERNMENT if they deliberately do so and “the resulting balance of individual rights and social rights remains appropriate to a free and democratic society” after the change. In practice, no Canadian government has ever chosen to face the political consequences of actually overriding the Charter. In contrast, in the United States, NO SUCH OVERRIDE EXISTS(not even in theory, as is the case in Canada), and judicial activism has been the norm in the interpretation of the Bill of Rights; even a constitutional amendment could not remove these rights entirely, as they are CONSIDERED INALIENABLE UNDER THE NATURAL RIGHTS PRINCIPALS the Constitution is founded upon.”

     “Individual rights” are the rights of individuals BY VIRTUE OF THEIR HUMANNESS, i.e. their nature as rational beings.”

     “Individual rights are an individual’s MORAL CLAIM TO FREEDOM OF ACTION.”

     “Individual rights are distinct from civil rights; civil rights are rights granted by government and INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ARE ASSUMED PRIOR TO [the existence of]GOVERNMENT.”

129. On March 9th, 2008 at 11:11 pm Level_Head Says:

     Dear Daniel,

     I have been reading your responses with interest, and I remain puzzled. You wrote, in Comment #82:

     “No David, the Constitution does INDEED give us the right to bear arms and upholds the right that was granted free men by the Magna Charta. Now this was clearly stated in the US Supreme Court decision Acers[sic] v. United States • Ð; 1896; 164 U.S. 388; 238 and again in Staples v. United States •; 1994; 511 U.S. 600; 486 and yet AGAIN in the Emmerson[sic] decision.”

     While I’ll happily assume your references to the Constitution are intended to include the Bill of Rights, I’d assume that your expression “clearly stated” would include the concept of being /mentioned/.

     However, none of these three cases mentions the Magna Carta (not “Charta”, by the way).

     The English Bill of Rights is mentioned in Emerson, but this dates to four hundred years AFTER the earliest version of the Magna Carta still on the books. (This is the version usually referred to; the wording of the original Articles of the Barons is lost, and that first document lasted, apparently, only days: King John and Pope Innocent III disclaimed it as soon as the barons were out of sight.)

     But speaking of mentions, the first two cases do not even mention the Second Amendment or the Constitution or the right to bear arms. I am puzzled how this lack of mention is included in your concept of “clearly stated.”

     Acres does not mention the Constitution, “grant” or any variation, “right” or any variation (other than the copyright), or any Amendment.

     Staples contains a very brief mention of a petitioner’s comment: “there are laws that affect one’s rights of gun ownership.” That’s the only appearance in Staples that even obliquely touches the subject of the right to bear arms. No Constitution, Amendment, “grant”, or other reference as to “the right that was granted free men” (your phrase).

     Emerson quite strongly speaks the other way — that the Constitution *guarantees* a pre-existing right. From Emerson:
     “A historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right.”

     Emerson refers to evidence of the right, not granting of it: “Statutes in effect bore evidence of an individual right to bear arms during colonial times.”

     The closest you could get to support for your position comes from the Emerson court quoting the argument of gun opponents:
     “Some scholars have argued that even if the original intent of the Second Amendment was to provide an individual right to bear arms, modern-day prudential concerns about social costs outweigh such original intent and should govern current review of the amendment. However, there is a problem with such reasoning. If one accepts the plausibility of any of the arguments on behalf of a strong reading of the Second Amendment, but, nevertheless, rejects them in the name of social prudence and the present-day consequences of an individual right to bear arms, why do we not apply such consequentialist criteria to each and every part of the Bill of Rights?”

     Emerson insists that the Second Amendment codifies the protection of the right — it makes no mention of “granting” the right:
     “The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected.”

     So — constitutional considerations are not in the dicta of the first two cases, and the third does not support that the Second Amendment “grants” rights. It says the opposite, that it “recognizes” rights. This is what exactly what Dusty, David Dale, LT Drogo and I have contended.

     If you have a version of these cases that DOES support your contention here, I would very much like to see it.

     For convenience, here are the cases:
     ACERS V. UNITED STATES, 164 US 388 (1896) — US Supreme Court
     http://supreme.justia.com/us/164/388/case.html

     Staples v. United States (92-1441), 511 U.S. 600 (1994)
     http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1441.ZO.html

     And here, I think, what you meant by the “Emmerson decision”:
     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TIMOTHY JOE EMERSON 46 F. Supp. 2d 598
     http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/emerson.html

     Just provide a quote from these cases that “clearly states” that “the Constitution does INDEED give us the right to bear arms and upholds the right that was granted free men by the Magna Charta.”

     Or any part of it.

     I believe that you are mistaken, and badly so, on a central principle not just of American law, but on the Western philosophy of human rights.

     I would hope that your next response here would be either
     — an admission that your quoted statement above was in error, or
     — quotes from each of these three cases support that the Constitution *grants* instead of *protects* rights.

     What say you, sir?

     ===|==============/ Level Head

130. On March 10th, 2008 at 6:09 am Daniel Says:

     I state facts and quote directly from the USSC decisions. I am sooooo sorry if reality has intruded on some of the posters beliefs (sarcasm intended)

131. On March 10th, 2008 at 7:58 am Level_Head Says:

     Daniel wrote: “I state facts and quote directly from the USSC decisions.”

     Yes! Yes! That’s EXACTLY what I’d like you to do. I have provided the links to make it easy.

     (Only two of them are US Supreme Court decisions, incidentally. But quote Emerson to support your contentions, if you can; that’s fine.)

     So — go ahead. Quote directly from the three decisions you referred to in your comment #81. Show the words that support the “grant” of rights by the Constitution/Bill of Rights, as you contend, instead of the protection of pre-existing rights as the commenters here have done.

     And not just us. Attorney General Edwin Meese, writing in the textbook “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution” on page 10: “The Ninth and Tenth Amendments briefly encapsulate the twofold theory of the Constitution: the purpose of the Constitution is to protect /rights/, which stem not from the government but from the people themselves; and the powers of the national government are limited to only those designated to it by the Constitution on behalf of the people.”

     I stress again “rights, which stem not from the government…”.

     A trivial aside: My copy of the above book is inscribed to me by the excellent gentleman Mr. Ed Meese. We’ve had dinner together a few times, and I have tremendous respect for Ronald Reagan’s former attorney general. One of those dinners together is this occasion — and yes, the unhandsome one is me:
     http://www.impactedwisdom.com/level%5Fhead/gallery/Freedom%20Cruise%202007/FrCr07%20People/images/HPIM3009.JPG

     If I have made a mistake in interpreting the Founding Fathers’ intent from their writings, I have come by it honestly. And I am prepared to examine with interest the quotes that you will provide from these three cases in order show my putative mistake.

     Best wishes.

     ===|==============/ Level Head

132. On March 10th, 2008 at 2:35 pm Charlie Tall Says:

     I’ve crossed swords with Daniel before. He is woefully uneducated. Most of his “authorities” are simply conclusions he makes single-handedly without consulting historical records.

     His contention that the Bill of Rights created or conferred certain rights flies in the face of all learned discussion of the Constitution.

     You see, Daniel does not understand that rights given by God, inalienable rights, are superior to rights granted by a king or document. The Constitution and Bill of Rights recognized this difference. Daniel has yet to stumble over it.

133. On March 10th, 2008 at 4:28 pm LT Drogo Says:

     Daniel,
     Pardon me while I enjoy your outrage at having words put in YOUR mouth for a change. I’m guessing you read my post and had NO idea how I derived those notions from what you said. Some of us other posters have frequently experienced this in reading your posts. At least you weren’t accused outright of stupidity, or compared to a four-year-old (of course, I couldn’t do that to you if I wanted; I don’t have any nephews anywhere near that young).
     I think it’s time for me to give up the effort of any rational discourse with you, but perhaps I might venture one final question. Are you participating in this discussion on behalf of some anti-gun organization, attempting to provoke some otherwise reasonable person into flying off the handle and providing the opposition with the spectacle of an irrational “gun nut”? I watched Sarah Brady do that in an auditorium about equally divided between pros and antis, so I was just wondering.
     Bye.

134. On March 10th, 2008 at 4:59 pm Level_Head Says:

     Charlie Tall wrote:

     “You see, Daniel does not understand that rights given by God, inalienable rights, are superior to rights granted by a king or document. The Constitution and Bill of Rights recognized this difference. Daniel has yet to stumble over it.”

     Indeed. And the concept of “natural rights”, to an atheist or Buddhist, works for this as well.

     The important thing here is, regardless of whether one views rights as a tangible gift or a “legal fiction” (and no less real for all of that!) these basic rights are NOT “granted” by our government’s documents. They are protected, preserved, guaranteed, preexisting rights.

     And quite independent of each American’s personal philosophy, the Constitution is what it is and the framers of it were quite clear that their intent was to guarantee inalienable rights, just as you said.

     Militias placed important roles in the Revolutionary War. I don’t think it would have occurred to any one of our Founding Fathers that our citizens had no right to possess firearms between July 2, 1776 and December 15, 1791. One wonders how we fought the British if we had no rights at all during that period.

     In any event, Article 4 of the Bill of Rights — what we now call the Second Amendment (the first two articles didn’t make it) is clear; it protects a right from being “abridged”, and its language saying nothing about “granting” a right.

     You know all of this; I remain puzzled at our anti-natural-rights correspondent.

     ===|=============/ Level Head

135. On March 10th, 2008 at 6:20 pm Charlie Tall Says:

     Throughout the history of this country, citizen groups have played enormously important roles in the survival and advancement of society.

     There were, of course, the militias, which existed from the very first days of white settlement. Then there was the posse comitatus in its many forms. The non-military counterpart of the militias, it provided crime control and kept the civil peace in areas where the government could not or would not provide it, or where there was no government.

     It is sheer stupidity to even consider the proposition that either the militia or the posse comitatus could exist or function without arms. Therefore, Daniel’s contention that the right to keep and bear arms sprang from the fruits of the revolution, Indian wars, and frontier advnacement, is ass-backwards.

     The right to keep and bear arms is founded on the even more basic and undeniable right to self defense. From this right flows the right of self determination, i.e. freedom.

     Both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton maintained (in the Federalist Papers) that as long as a militia existed, no national dictator could long endure. Tench Coxe said, “The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty…Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves…Congress have no power to disarm the militia…The 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.”

     The Constitution, we must remember, is nothing unusual. It is merely a contract between several independent and sovereign states [nations] for the purpose of forming a central government to serve them…not rule them.

     So, unless one disregards the purpose and definition of the Constitution as well as disregarding the order and flow of history, it is impossible to conclude that the right to keep and bear arms stems from the Constituion.

     No, it is the other way round: the Constitution is based on the rights to keep and bear arms, to self defense, and to self determination.

     Daniel wrote, “I state facts…”

     No, Daniel, you do not.

     My advice to you is, as before, read history.

136. On March 10th, 2008 at 7:09 pm Black belt Says:

     I see Bob isnt paying any attention,
     Intresting debate guys, however we have our “rights to keep and bear arms” they can be taken away in any session of congress,State or federal, if we do not keep up with the PRESENT laws trying to be passed. and contact our representatives to tell them how to vote.

137. On March 10th, 2008 at 9:59 pm Daniel Says:

     I do read history and I have been doing this for over 40 years as well as teaching classes in Constitutional History for over 20 years At Toledo University, not to mention being a legal aide for the JAG in the US Army (1980-1985 Ft. Benning).

     Now care to tell me and the rest of the posters here just what YOUR expertise in this issue is since you and others seem to question mine? Any of you that can prove you have been teaching Constitutional History longer then I have and have more time in the legal arena then I have, then we might be able to talk. Till then Nothing you have said has disproven one thing I have posted here. As I said, I quote directly from USSC decisions as well as papers left behind by US Justices and Founding fathers. Since they know more about this issue then you or I would ever hope to know. I bow to their intelligence and wisdom on this issue.

     Maybe you should go back to school and stay awake this time?

138. On March 10th, 2008 at 10:04 pm Bitter Says:

     No offense Daniel, but if you want people to believe you worked in the legal profession and taught, you might want to take a minute or two to clean up the grammar. I don’t want to seem rude, but it really doesn’t help your case in an online world in which little can be verified.

139. On March 10th, 2008 at 10:06 pm Sebastian Says:

     Dude, there are people who read and comment on this blog who have argued cases before the US Supreme Court. You really don’t want to get into a qualifications battle with the folks on here.

140. On March 10th, 2008 at 10:13 pm Bitter Says:

     I do have to admit that Sebastian has a point. This is, shockingly, one blog that has an audience that really shouldn’t name drop or battle on qualifications. I can’t understand why the people who would “win” read my musings, but they are always welcome and wonderfully entertaining!

141. On March 10th, 2008 at 10:31 pm Daniel Says:

     No offense, but this is the way I have always spoken and wrote. My superiors did not seem to have a problem with it and I think it very petty that instead of trying to disprove my statements or show that you have more experience Then I have in this issue, you deem to pick at my “grammar”. I have always had a problem with saying what I want and then cleaning it up afterword.

     And Sebastian, you made a statement that some of these people have argued before the USSC. Ok PROVE IT. Provide cases and docket numbers and dates, provide if this was an amicus or if it was a case they brought from a lower US District court, and if it was a lower court; then name the court and what district it was as well as the Justice that made the decision that caused it to be sent before the USSC and the reasoning behind the appeal to the USSC. Provide the name of the defendant and the plaintiff and the reason for the case. Provide if it was a single Justice who hear the case and who, or if it was the full USSC that heard the case and when. Be VERY careful, since I have access to the USSC Archives, I will know if my leg is being pulled or not.

     Again, I quote from the USSC decisions and papers left behind by USSC Justices as well as the Founding Fathers. If that disturbs your view of reality, then tough too bad. maybe you should have paid more attention.

142. On March 10th, 2008 at 10:45 pm Bitter Says:

     Okay, Daniel, tread carefully. Seriously, you came here by way of an NRA link just days ago and yet you come on here and start questioning with attitude the people who have been reading and participating for more than five years. I’m not saying you can’t question, but don’t cop an attitude with people who have far more contextual knowledge than you do. (Oh, and if you need proof that this blog has been around for more than five years, we have archives links so your leg can’t be pulled.)

     And the tips about your grammar and spelling are just to point out that if you want to be taken seriously when nearly every commenter on here disagrees with you and argues with more citations, it’s one step in the right direction.

143. On March 10th, 2008 at 10:49 pm Sebastian Says:

     You’ve never heard of Dave Kopel, Dave Hardy, and other such pro-gun legal and academic scholars?

144. On March 10th, 2008 at 11:34 pm Dusty Says:

     Daniel, you may claim that you’re the Attorney General of New York or that you clerked for Oliver Wendell Holmes (although I would suspect it would more likely be Roger Brooke Taney) for that matter. Whatever, these too are claims that are quite hollow and equally faceless.

     On the very merits of what you present you have not represented your client well at all. All you offer is the bland suggestion of cases and what appears to be your hallmark argument that the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken, as if by proclamation. You’ve offered not one cite of supporting language, not a modicum of evidence, much less empirical. Indeed, with your latest claim of credibility…that by the way is also unsupported…we are expected to be completely overwhelmed by your mighty experience and poised to succumb to your superior legal mind. Case closed and all that.

     Not quite!

     May I suggest to this more astute audience that this barrage of opaque and sinister notions has been nothing more than an exercise of shameless vanity or a thinly veiled attempt at some of the latest anti-gun legal perversions. May I suggest to the Court that we are wasting our time!

     Fortunately there are those among us in the year 2008 that really do understand the basic concept of rights and the clear intentions of the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution. Despite any claim otherwise, the concepts of individual rights are still largely favored over amateurish distortions. The preponderance of evidence clearly indicates that this “granted” proposition remains a distinctly obscure legal theory, very much like its advocates.

     Dusty

145. On March 11th, 2008 at 12:23 am Level_Head Says:

     Dusty wrote:

     “May I suggest to the Court that we are wasting our time!”

     Agreed. Daniel does not, it seems, ever intend to actually provide quotes. It would have been interesting.

     Bitter wrote:

     “This is, shockingly, one blog that has an audience that really shouldn’t name drop or battle on qualifications.”

     Ouch. I did “name drop” our former Attorney General, as I had his book in my hands. But the intent was not to hype /my/ credentials; I have none. Rather, Mr. Meese — and the others on the Freedom Cruise — are a lot of fun and extraordinary (and in many cases, quite celebrated) people, and I suspect that all of the gang here — well, almost all — would greatly enjoy these cruises, as I have.

     There will be no Freedom Cruise this year, though — as when it is regularly held (late in the year), many of the participants will be busy with a little thing called an election. ];-)

     There are indeed impressive people here, too. The conversation has been good exercise, and I continue to learn and enjoy. Thank you all!

     ===|==============/ Level Head

146. On March 11th, 2008 at 12:25 am Bitter Says:

     Intent is everything in name dropping, Level Head. If it’s perceived to be in the “I’m better than you so shut up” manner, it’s not going to hold up well here. If it supports an argument or just factual, it’s generally fine.

147. On March 11th, 2008 at 12:31 am Boots Hawks Says:

     I am sorry guys, but I am 55 years old and although you all seem smarter than I will ever be this is getting very silly to me. Bottom line, is it a constitutional right or a god given right. It is the right that I feel in my heart as an American. If I were British or French maybe I would not feel like I have this right, but thank you God for letting me be an American. I just want people who have the knowlege to fight a good fight when we need it. Now to admit being lawyers and I am not trying to attack lawyers but I tend to believe that a lot of your ideas are placed in your heads by others. I just want you to search your hearts and find your answers there, what comes from your hearts it truth, and you never have to defend it because it will defend itself. I want you guys on our side, I don’t want to see you argue amongst yourselves. I respect all your opinions but in the end it is my own that I must live with, so not to cause our founding fathers to turn in their graves any more, Lets just agree to band together on this. I have found it very easy sometimes to over think something when all along the answer was right in front of my face. We have got to the point that it is more about ego and who is right rather than what is right.

     With respect for all of you
     Boots

148. On March 11th, 2008 at 12:54 am Charlie Tall Says:

     Daniel wrote, “Hence the Founding Fathers GRANTED us these rights under the US Constitution.”

     No, Daniel. The Founding Fathers granted nothing. They recognized an inherent right in free men and protected this right with Amendment II.

     The king might “grant” his subjects some right; in the United States, the right was seen to have always been there, given by God, and merely protected by Amendment II.

     Daniel wrote, “VERY FIRST official Militia did not exist until 1805 according to records available in the Smithsonian. Since the Constitution was ratified in 1787, that means that the Militia COULD NOT be what it ment [sic] nor could it be connected as the very FIRST official Militia did not even exist until 18 years AFTER the ratification of the US Constitution.”

     This is a clever, but disingenuous, use of the English language. The accuracy of the statement hinges on the word “official.” In this context, Daniel implies that the militias that protected the early colonies from the depredations of the French and their Indian allies were “unofficial.” He also implies that the militias that participated in the Revolutionary War were “unofficial.”

     This is, of course, totally without merit.

     Why?

     Recognition of a basic truth does not make it official. Supporting it with a law does not make it official. That appears to be Daniel’s idea of official.

     However, official really implies no more than acceptance by the society, that something is policy. And policy is merely a decision made in advance for the benefit of the organization, entity, or group.

     In this light, it can be seen that most, if not all, militias since the beginning of the white settlement of this continent were accepted by the government, what there was of it, or society, and hence (I like that word) were official.

     Finally, note that Amendment I recognizes and protects five separate rights: speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. Why is it such a stretch for people to ralize that Amendment II recognizes two rights: militia and arms?

     Daniel claims to be a teacher. Okay.

     I once had a teacher tell me that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves. Several teachers, in fact, have repeated that mantra. Yet most scholars know that it is merely an excuse to justify war crimes committed by the Union.

149. On March 11th, 2008 at 1:52 am LT Drogo Says:

     Just for fun, I searched “Toledo University”. The vast majority of hits related to the University of Toledo in Ohio. That seems to be an established and reputable institution, though, which pretty well rules it out. They likely require instructors in law courses to hold advanced degrees, and Daniel has not made any such claim (my guess, based on English fluency and reasoning ability, would be a high school diploma or GED, acquired with a struggle). If he’s even older than he claims, though, he might be a holdover from the Toledo University of Arts and Trades, which became part of the University of Toledo. Other possibilities include the Toledo University Center of the University of Belize, serving the Toledo district at Punta Gorda, or perhaps a similarly named institution in a remote location in Brazil. Perhaps Daniel will enlighten us. Maybe he’ll answer my final question, too, posed in my #134. Or maybe he’ll just continue to amuse(?) us with off-the-wall harangues with no apparent bearing on the thread at all. Do you suppose he might be one of those post-modern deconstructionists who afflicted academic scholarship in the Nineties?
     Best wishes and profound respect to all the REST of you.

150. On March 11th, 2008 at 6:54 am Dusty Says:

     He mentioned “JAG,” which I’m going to assume meant Judge Advocate General. Whatever his possible relation to JAG, founded or imaginary, there is a plausible philosophical link. Military attorneys are immersed in a coded environment and many seem to be under the impression that everything must start with government, including rights. There is a population of our fellow Americans that believes all legal concepts come from Congress.

     Of course, Daniel may simply been trying to exclaim that his legal expertise is based in watching all fifty-four episodes of JAG.

151. On March 11th, 2008 at 9:32 am Daniel Says:

     I see I have struck a nerve here. OK I will ask this one question and then that will be it.

     Who’s word carries more weight, Yours? Mine? Or the 9 Justices that sit on the USSC-The Founding Fathers and the papers and decisions they have left behind? Who are people going to believe? You? Me? or the 9 Justices sitting on the USSC and the papers the Founding Fatjhers left behind? And what is better? To actually POST what is written and what was said, or to try and give the impression that you know better then the people who actually MADE the decisions?

     Do ANY of you really wish to debate that proposition? You know darn well that you would lose in a new york second. But hey…feel free to keep disputing me if that floats your boat. I have the papers as well as the archives as well as my 40 years of doing this including my 20 years of teaching this and over 230 years of American history to back me up. Compaired to what exactly that you are saying is backing you?

152. On March 11th, 2008 at 9:39 am Bitter Says:

     By struck a nerve you mean started down the road of behaving poorly as a guest, correct? Just want to clear that up.

     And if you’re so intent on proving how many citations you’ve supposedly proven, I’m still waiting on answers to my questions from comments 105, 108, 110, and 112.

153. On March 11th, 2008 at 10:20 am Daniel Says:

     Awww. Poor LT. I never said I was on staff at the TU now did I? I said I taught courses there for 20 years in Constitutional History. Ever hear of an ELECTIVE course?? Or Visiting instructors? Sort of blows you post out of the water now does it not?

     And using your logic, pitiful though it is; Einstein would have had a job as manual labor clearly since “some” people thought he was mildly retarded. Elvis and the beatles both were told they would not amount to anything because they were no talent hacks, wonder where the person that said that is today? At NDU in Indiana, we had a football player that was constantly told he was too short and would never make the team, Rudy became the ONLY player in NDU history to be carried off the field for making the biggest touchdown in that University’s History. My whole point to you LT is do not attempt to judge people that are whipping your butt all over the thread on any issue. You very well could end up highly shocked and in my case, you WILL end up shocked.

     Dusty, your arrogance is showing. Go to any military base and mention the word JAG and they instantly know who you are speaking of. The JAG Corps were there long before the TV show and will be there long after it is in the dustbin of history.

     Charlie Tall, I have provided names and links as well as copy and paste of decisions that say different from the Founding Fathers to USSC Justices. My apologies if this does not fit what you believe.

     And as for you trying to disprove me, let me just say that quite a lot of people say that the Miller case of 1939 is the one that says we do not have a Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms and that this was the last gun decision made by the USSC in over 70 years. Yet completely ignoring the post I made to discredit that (and used a quote from a decision to back up my statement that the Constitution GRANTS us the right to keep and bear arms) Printz v. U.S. 1997 521 U.S. 898″ decision, it clearly disproves that whole statement that was made in your article. In fact it clearly states that the Miller case DID NOT decide the issue” “U. S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez. 1990″ case and you will see that the USSC clearly stated that the US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment was a Constitutionally GUARENTEED INDIVIDUAL RIGHT of the people.” Here is a direct quote from the decision itself pay special attention to the bold print! You can locate the decision here http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=494&invol=259

     “The Fourth Amendment provides: [494 U.S. 259, 265]

     “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

     That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends its reach only to “the people.” Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae that the Framers used this phrase “simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy,” Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 12, n. 4, “the people” seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by “the people of the United States.” The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to “the people.” See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 (“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble”) (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ” So try and dispute this if you can, not to mention that here is yet ANOTHER quote from a decion that was claimed I never made.

     Oh and the one poster that claimed some of you argued before the USSC…I am STILL waiting on case and docket numbers-the name of the lower District Courts and the Justices that heard the cases and the reasons for them refusing to decide for you-if it was an Amicus plea or if it was a regular case and what originally started it-the names of the plaintiff and the defendant-dates on when it was decided and what the decision was and links to same. So far, nothing. And this does not suprise me in the slightest.

154. On March 11th, 2008 at 10:28 am Daniel Says:

     And for you who say that the US Constitution did not give you and protect your rights to keep and bear arms, let me say this. You may think you have a right to privacy granted by the Constitution. Ok, SHOW ME where in the Constitution it says you have this right. Some think that there is a “Separation of Church and State” in the Constitution…SHOW ME that phrase ANYWHERE in the Constitution. My point is that while many of you have foolish notions of what is and is not in the Constitution and what it may say; unless you can quote directly from it AND the Decisions from the USSC AND from the original writers of the document…your opinion is flawed. Case Closed, Class Dismissed.

155. On March 11th, 2008 at 10:28 am Bitter Says:

     Daniel,

     I think we found the problem. I’m not sure you’ve been reading other comments very closely. Sebastian never claimed to argue before the court. He said, and I quote:
     

     Dude, there are people who read and comment on this blog who have argued cases before the US Supreme Court.

     He did reply with:
     

     You’ve never heard of Dave Kopel, Dave Hardy, and other such pro-gun legal and academic scholars?

     There are other top scholars and lawyers who regularly read this blog, many of whom have commented. You can search the archives and find most any top name in Second Amendment scholarship.

     At this point, you’re either missing important points or willfully ignoring those who do refute your points.

156. On March 11th, 2008 at 3:23 pm Charlie Tall Says:

     Daniel, are you serious? Number 155 has got to be the silliest yet.

     You use the example of privacy NOT being in the Constitution as proof that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RTKBA) is in the Constitution.

     Okay, that might have some logic; maybe you’re trying to illustrate that people misunderstand the Constitution.

     No argument there; your posts prove that.

     The point that I made is that the Constitution did not GIVE the RTKBA, it only recognized and protected it. The right was already there.

     If there was any validity to your rather unusual position that Congress must pass a law to make something “official,” then they’d better get cracking on breathing, eating, and reproduction. These need to be made official so that some later law won’t infringe on them.

     I nearly choked on your naive statements about the the great and glorious justices of SCOTUS. Who are you trying to kid? The Supreme Court is as politicized or more so than the rest of the federal government; their decisions reflect the prevailing political winds and little else.

     As far as I am concerned, they are merely nine old farts (9OFs) appointed to perpetuate the policies of the currently sitting president. Or, it grieves me to say, they are arrogant elitists out to force their beliefs on the rest of the nation. I’d vote for the latter.

     A quick review of Roe vs. Wade makes it obvious that the best that can be said about the 9OFs of SCOTUS is that they write excellent fiction.

     I am sure that you are aware that in addition to the Supreme Court, the states had other remedies for unconstitutional law: nullification and secession. The Civil War ended two of these remedies by force of arms, not learned jurisprudence.

     Since then, the government has assumed the task of determining what its powers and limits are. So far, the answer is that the government’s powers are unlimited.

     In other words, the fox is in charge of the hen house, and you seem to think that’s proper.

     As I said before, read history.

157. On March 11th, 2008 at 4:09 pm Alcibiades McZombie Says:

     According to Wikipedia, JAG had 227 episodes.

158. On March 11th, 2008 at 5:13 pm Daniel Says:

     If the truth hurts you, then that is not my problem. I was accused of not posting quotes and then when I do I am told they are silly, even when they come directly from the USSC case and archives.

     So if any of you think for one second that you can do better then the Founding Fathers or the USSC, hey…feel free to either run for Congress or go to law school. Till then your opinions are nothing more then that…opinions. The only things that count are the Constitution-Founding fathers and the Justices at the USSC that have clearly stated what I posted here as I copied and pasted their words. You have a problem with that then you need to tell the Court they are not deciding to your liking. I know exactly what they will tell you and in plain english it will be “get bent” So your choice is to abide by their decisions including the Founding fathers; or start your own country if you think you know better then they do.

     Oh and I am still waiting for the so called experts who might have argued before the USSC to actually speak up.

159. On March 11th, 2008 at 5:16 pm Daniel Says:

     thats ok Alcibiades McZombie, the poster that made the post probably thought the Judge Advocate Corps that has been around since the Military started, was named after the TV Show. Not to mention that he probably thinks that these are real cases instead of actors.

160. On March 11th, 2008 at 5:25 pm Bitter Says:

     Daniel,

     I’m usually pretty understanding when someone learns about the nature of blogs for the first time, but you’re pushing that limit. I’ve pointed out that we have archives. You can search the archives, an invitation I extended before. As for why they haven’t appeared in this thread, I can’t answer. Usually, they don’t bother with lost causes like you this discussion. If you expect them to appear in every thread, then you’d have to live up to the same expectation and comment in every single thread on the blog. (I’ll warn you now that if you go wasting my bandwidth with mindless comments just to prove a point, you’ll end up moderated and only relevant topics will be approved.)

     You’ve been invited to participate in the norms of blogging and commenting, and yet you refuse to do so.

     Oh, you still haven’t answered my questions about ERA litigation and the political viability of reviving that based on your one reference vs. other competing groups with more political and positive social movement capital.

161. On March 11th, 2008 at 5:41 pm Daniel Says:

     Oh, you still haven’t answered my questions about ERA litigation and the political viability of reviving that based on your one reference vs. other competing groups with more political and positive social movement capital.
     Bitter
     —————–
     I gave you a link that clearly shows that there are numerous different groups trying to revive this. And no one has yet to prove that this is needed nor that it would be a positive social movement.

     And if my replies offend you, then I am truly sorry as it is as I stated before. I post directly from the archives as well as Current USSC decisions and papers left by the Founding Fathers. While I do try to be polite, it is not my fault that some are obtuse and you have to hit them repeatedly with the truth to have it sink in. If people do not like the answers I am posting, then they nedd to take it up with the Founding fathers and the USSC Justices past and present. I can only show what was stated, and as you can see no one can make them believe it unless they actually do the reasearch on the sites I provided.

162. On March 11th, 2008 at 5:46 pm Bitter Says:

     Seriously, stop and read. The blatant misrepresentation of other people’s words and responses is unreasonable at this point.

163. On March 11th, 2008 at 5:49 pm Daniel Says:

     I misrepresented nothing. I posted exactly where they made the statements in my replies.

164. On March 11th, 2008 at 5:53 pm Sebastian Says:

     I think it’s high time the troll stopped being fed.

165. On March 11th, 2008 at 5:58 pm Daniel Says:

     I agree, it is high time that some of the trolls that are arguing with me stop being fed. When they can show they have been teaching Constitutional History for 20 years, then we can talk, until then, they need to be placed on a strict diet of trutth and not fantasy opinions.

166. On March 11th, 2008 at 6:07 pm Bitter Says:

     Troll muzzled, except for posts that prove to be reasonable and don’t attack other commenters who have been more than generous with their time and conversation. Play nice, and you get to speak. Start acting like the punk on the playground, and you have to wear a muzzle.

     Just as a note: He’s free to make statements that show a serious misunderstanding of history and political knowledge, partnered with a rather naive view of the world and what it “should” be to him. However, the rudeness is going to stop right now. Be obnoxious to me all you want, but don’t be an ass to the other guests. After you are, your welcome to this site is on a case-by-case (aka moderated) basis.

167. On March 11th, 2008 at 7:52 pm Dusty Says:

     It appears yet another historical source has got it wrong:

     “In the summer of 1787, delegates from 13 new American states, recently British colonies, met in Philadelphia to write a constitution for a unified nation. By September, they had produced a document that then began to circulate among the state legislatures for ratification. The new constitution provided a blueprint for how the national government would function, but it did not contain a section specifically outlining the rights of individual citizens. A public debate quickly arose. Advocates of the draft constitution argued that GUARANTEES of individual rights were not needed. Others, however, aware of the explicit rights GUARANTEEDin earlier documents such as the British Bill of Rights (1689) and the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776, believed that some specific provision stating the rights of individuals was necessary.

     “Jefferson’s position gained advocates, and a compromise was reached. State legislatures agreed to ratify the draft document with the understanding that the first national legislature meeting under the new constitution would pass amendments GUARANTEEING individual liberties. THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT OCCURED. By 1791, these 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, had become part of the supreme law of the land.

     http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/homepage.htm

     Not one time is the word “granted” used.

168. On March 11th, 2008 at 7:59 pm LT Drogo Says:

     Daniel,
     How nice to hear from you again. I know you’re a very busy man, and have no time to read others’ posts before responding to them. I didn’t say you were on staff at Toledo, either, did I? I just wondered which Toledo you were talking about. As for the rest of my comments, I was just being polite. There are, after all, objective standards at large in the world by which a person’s intellectual competence may be assessed, regardless of the standing such a person might claim. This may come as a shock to you (and may not be so apparent from your end of the continuum), but there are a lot of ninnies and feebs out there holding various sorts of doctorates. You may claim whatever you like, but argument from authority requires credibility. When you say you’ve taught constitutional law for twenty years, all it elicits in me is mild disgust and profound pity for any student who might have blundered into your path.
     Oh, dear, I haven’t slipped away from polite discourse, have I? Let me get right back on that straight and narrow path. Thank you very much for your concern that I might judge someone “whipping my butt all over the thread”. Actually, I prefer a civil exchange of ideas. If you’re apologizing for waxing wroth and possibly giving me the impression of being “whipped”, please be assured that you didn’t even begin to engage my ideas, much less inflict any psychic damage. Having followed the thread for some time, I can assure you that any “whipping” you did took place entirely between your ears.
     And finally, it didn’t even occur to me that you might be a manual laborer (though I wouldn’t rule it out; what’s wrong with manual labor?), regardless of what I might think of you. So I must be using some other logic, perhaps opaque to you. I think you needn’t worry about shocking me, either. Excepting my reaction to the thought of your teaching, I regard you as quite benign, and I anticipate more very polite conversation, if you care.

169. On March 11th, 2008 at 9:06 pm Alcibiades McZombie Says:

     I know that JAGs exist independently of the television series. I was just pointing out that the television series lasted a lot longer than people thought.

     Really, I thought it was cancelled by 2000 or something. It was a surprise to learn it lasted until 2005.

170. On March 11th, 2008 at 9:57 pm Dusty Says:

     The plight of our systemically polemic education lobby notwithstanding, below is a gentle reminder that just because someone claims to teach history, does not mean they are either credible, intellectually honest, or qualified:

     Gun Week, July 20, 2001
     Journalists, Professors Show Why Teens Don’t Know History
     by Joseph P. Tartaro
     Executive Editor

     “In his recent book, Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, Michael Bellesiles, a history professor at Emory University, argues it’s a myth that gun ownership was widespread in the America of the Revolutionary War.”

     “Simon then summarizes Bellesiles’ arguments, never mentioning the many challenges to his research—not just by pro-Second Amendment scholars—but by disinterested historians who were unable to replicate his research. (It didn’t help that Bellesiles claimed his notes were burned—the academic equivalent of the “dog ate my homework.”)

     “When Bellesiles’ book first came down the chute, it was pretty clear that he, his publisher and his supporters were knowingly perpetrating a hoax as part of their continuing polemic against legal, private gun ownership and the Second Amendment. Bellesiles and the Chronicle’s Simon are part of an organized revisionist approach to history that has infected the educational system at all levels since the early part of the 20th century. As our educational system was being revised, so were the history books. Indeed, in more recent years, educators have shown as much interest in history as they have in the multiplication tables.”

     Professor Bellesiles’ book and his subsequent award for “great work” has since been recalled by a very embarassed academia. To say that people who teach history actually know history or can teach it without bias or preconcieved political notions is not be a universal truth. Some are in fact serious retellers of fact, others either stink or are completely incompetent.

171. On March 12th, 2008 at 12:11 am LT Drogo Says:

     Dusty,
     One little noted aspect of Belleisles’s “scholarship” astonished me at the time. Here was a man who, on his book tour, emphasized (and grossly exaggerated) the high cost of firearms in early America. And certainly he must have understood that firearms were used primarily by the young, to be put aside as various infirmities overtook their owners. Wouldn’t one surmise that such implements, ESPECIALLY if they were outrageously expensive, would tend to be passed on to younger users or otherwise disposed of well before the owner’s death? So if you’re a serious, responsible, competent historian how can you possibly justify assessing incidence of gun ownership through probate records? But then Belleisles didn’t quite match that description after all, did he?

172. On March 12th, 2008 at 3:19 am Dusty Says:

     LT,

     Of course, we can look back now and see that Belleisles was never really interested in advancing a re-examination of history as it was, but as he wanted it to be and desire to convince others of his dishonest concept of gun ownership in early America.

     There are some for which no risk is too great in the advancement of their cause, a hallmark condition of the self centered, over zealous, and the self-righteous. The anti-gun lobby is unfortunately filled with these examples, from Belleisles to Daryl Gates to Eliot Spitzer.

     Best regards,
     Dusty

173. On March 12th, 2008 at 12:07 pm LT Drogo Says:

     Dusty,
     Arming America was a particularly pathetic attempt in another amusing way. Belleisles’s shoddy research habits AND his bias are evident very early on, in the book’s second sentence. He identifies what is clearly a toy rifle on a magazine cover as a “high-powered rifle”. If he hadn’t bothered to ascertain the nature of the object (shoddy research), what would lead him to characterize it as “high-powered”?
     As far as I can see, Belleisles created the impression of fastidious scholarship by littering his writing with footnotes, a gimmick many reviewers swallowed without much attention to the texts those footnotes cited. And that, of course, is a curse for those of us who take such matters seriously. Some fool can assemble a collection of half-truths and outright lies a whole lot faster and more easily than it can be refuted by honest scholarship. I’m sure that in at least some cases this is a consciously employed tactic.
     Regards, LT Drogo

174. On March 12th, 2008 at 7:01 pm Dusty Says:

     LT,

     Yes, you are correct about footnoting, and the fact it takes a lot longer to refute lies than it does to write them.

     Academic dishonesty is probably more prevalent than we may imagine. And a good portion of it is manufacturered at the mills of the anti-gun lobby.

     Best regards,
     Dusty

175. On March 12th, 2008 at 10:18 pm Daniel Says:

     You feel the same way about my teaching a course as I feel about you posting your opinions instead of fact.

     We both can agree to disagree

176. On March 12th, 2008 at 11:10 pm LT Drogo Says:

     Hi, Daniel,
     Nice to hear from you. Are you reacting to my opinions of Michael Bellesiles? Feel free to defend him if you like. I’m probably wrong, don’t you think?

177. On March 13th, 2008 at 12:03 am Daniel Says:

     It’s impossible to defend that which cannot be defended

178. On March 13th, 2008 at 8:31 am Charlie Tall Says:

     It is my experience that some self-styled authorities will cite other websites as subterfuge. They can allude to information they claim supports their position, but to prove or disprove this, the reader must refer to the citation, read it through and through, and carefully analyse its contents.

     Why not just quote the applicable text? The answer is that obviously the reference does not fully support the proposition put forth.

     Daniel, if you simply quote the Founding Fathers where they state that the federal government “grants” the RTKBA to the citizens, I’ll be satisfied.

     But you cannot

     The only statements you will find by the Founding Fathers are those that state they believed their rights to be self-evident, God-given, inalienable, and superior to the federal government by virtue of having existed long before the US of A was ever dreamed of. And they were willing to fight that self-same government to prove their determination.

     The less government the better. Personally, I believe that if a president came along with enough courage to simply cut the federal government and budget by 25% equally across the board in all pay grades, line items, and miscellaneous expenditures, the citizenry would see a huge improvement in government services and efficiency.

179. On March 13th, 2008 at 9:04 am Daniel Says:

     Charlie, if you could get to Virginia and read the papers left behind at the jefferson Museum, or at the Washington Museum or the Adams Museum, you would see that I am quoting them directly and adding nothing therefor it cannot be subterfuge as you put it.

     So I am afraid that you will have to be satisfied with my replies none the less.

180. On March 13th, 2008 at 5:58 pm Dusty Says:

     Okay, gentlepersons, how many of Daniel’s “quotes” did you come up with?

181. On March 13th, 2008 at 6:21 pm Daniel Says:

     Check the US Supreme Courts webpage and look under Archives. That is where I found the decisions i quoted from.

     The rest you are going to have to go the the Presidential museums, unless you are lucky enough to be next to a museum that is having or will be having an exhibit dealing with the Presidential papers like the one that was at the Smithsonian for Jefferson.

182. On March 13th, 2008 at 9:56 pm Boots Hawks Says:

     I see what a lot of you are saying in your posts and a lot of it I am starting to understand more about. What I don’t understand is why we give Belleisles the time of day. A person who lies like he did does not deserve my time. I find it incredible how people who are anti gun totally believed him and make him their hero. While the pro gunners were more skeptical of what was being said. That is human nature though, believe what they tell you if it supports your personal beliefs. The people I respect the most are them that will call a lie a lie no matter what, although the lie could solidify your possition. Let the truth shine, and acts by men be guided by the light. Unfortunately a lot of that has been lost in our country. Those who can take a simple straight forward sentence and twist it to mean the opposite have sacrificed the integrity of America.

183. On March 16th, 2008 at 8:35 pm David Dale Says:

     Daniel,

     You claim that we are all wrong about the Bill of Rights guaranteeing rights rather than granting them. You are confused into thinking that rights had to be inherited from some other governmental entity or couldn’t be inherited from the countries from which the founders came. You cannot grasp the concept that the writers fo the Constitution understood that certain rights were human rights which existed simply because a person was born, among those the rights of free speech, to not incriminate one’s self, to attempt to be happy in life, to worship as one pleases- if they please- and to keep and bear arms. You have been challenged to post one single quote (NOT a nebulous reference to a paper or a website but an actual QUOTE). You have failed to do so. You have failed because you cannot. You think that Daniel is right and the whole rest of us are all uninformed. Only you, the educator could know the true answers. Daniel, I have met many educators who thought they had all the answers but in reality they had only poorly written books with incorrect or misleading references. No one has ever been right just because they were an educator. The decisions to which you refer uphold the various rights protected by the Constitution but they do not say the Constitution grants said rights. You have failed to provide any quote as challenged. You have failed. You have earned an “F” in Constitutional history. Please pick your next fight with less well informed people.

     I will post some quotes that counter your misguided claims.

     Linda Monk, “Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution”: “Some people say the rights protected by the First Amendment are the most important in the entire Bill of Rights, because they are listed before the other nine amendments.”

     Note that she says PROTECTED and not granted.

     Declaration if Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

     Note: “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights”

     I can find an endless number of texts whi refer to the Constitution protecting rights but none which excepts quotes from you which claim the Constitution grants any rights.

     David

184. On March 16th, 2008 at 9:27 pm Dusty Says:

     David, when dealing with Daniel does the word obfuscation come to mind?

     Some people receive spurious pleasure by frustrating their political or philosophical enemies with anfractuous dialog. I think we’ve found yet one more example.

     Regards,
     Dusty

185. On March 16th, 2008 at 10:05 pm Daniel Says:

     Dusty, the ONLY obfuscation I see here are from people who seem to want others to think they know more then the Founding Fathers or the US Supreme Court Justices. Rather then actually quoting from the federalist papers or other papers that Jefferson-Washington-Adams and the rest left behind that they can easily view in the Presidential Museums or in Philly as I have done, they instead quote from other people who try and say this is what was ment and in short get their info second hand.

     If this is the best they can do then people like myself will win arguments and debates with them on a constant basis thus forcing them into other areas where they can act like a big fish in a little pond.

     Below are two VERY excellent books, The Bias against Guns by John Lott and the Supreme Court Gun Cases by David B. Kopel. Both of them are very excellent authorities on this field and BOTH of them have made numerous statements that agree with the position I put forth here. Now unless anyone wishes to call these two experts frauds and imply they are lying (which would be VERY difficult to do considering they are used and quoted on a regular basis by almost every pro 2nd Amendment group and person) then I would strongly suggest that they go back to school and this time, try to stay awake in history class.

186. On March 17th, 2008 at 11:50 am Charlie Tall Says:

     Daniel,

     Post your quotation stating that the rights in the Bill of Rights are granted by the Constitution.

     Quit citing sources which you know we cannot go read such as presidential museums. If you want to use them, quote these sources verbatim, and then we can at least have something substantial to verify rather than just your vague, self-serving claims.

     Frankly, it is dishonest, unscholarly, and just plain silly to attempt to foist off on us a reference to an entire library. It goes beyond nonsense to attempt such an obvious hoax. I doubt that any honest researcher would do such a thing.

     In reality, when you try that subterfuge, you are alluding to nothing but your own claimed interpretation, which could easily be, and probably is, flawed, or simply fabricated.

     You cited Kopel and Lott, although Lott is more the statistician while Kopel is the historian. In any event, please read Kopel’s discussion of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in “The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy,”1992, Prometheus Books.

     Your own authority directly and specifically contradicts you…in several places. Your authority does not include, “numerous statements that agree with the position I put forth here.”

     This is your authority. You cited him. I read him. You mistated. You’ve been caught. Enjoy.

     I would also recommend, “More Guns, Less Crime” Lott, 1998, “The Second Amendment Primer,” Les Adams, 1996, and “The Second Amendment,” David Barton, 2000.

     You made this statement, “the ONLY obfuscation I see here are from people who seem to want others to think they know more then the Founding Fathers or the US Supreme Court Justices.”

     YOU have misinterpreted the Founding Fathers by asserting that the Constitution “granted” rights. Please read the Declaration of Independence which clearly states, “…that all men…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

     Rights endowed by God cannot be taken away by man.

     This cannot get much simpler.

     Rights granted by a business contract, i.e., the Constitution, CAN be revoked by a simple change to that contract.

     Therefore, the Constitution and Bill of Rights “granted” nothing.

     God had already been there and done that.

     The Supreme Court of the United States: inspiration for the Mickey Mouse Club. In the dictionary following the word ‘contemptible” you will find a picture of the nine justices of the SCOTUS.

     Anyone with any knowledge of the Constitution will realize and recognize that the SCOTUS makes flawed decisions more often than not. Two recent SCOTUS errors come to mind: their rulings on the Campaign Reform Act and Eminent Domain.

     The first is an obvious violation of the freedom of speech clause of Amendment I. The second is an obvious violation of Amendment V.

     So it does not take a legal scholar to identify SCOTUS errors. However, it takes a fool to have blind faith in their infallibility.

     While we are on that subject, I might point out that “legal scholars” (real or self-styled) are not immune to making foolish errors of their own.

     Example:The Brief for an Ad Hoc Group of [Fifty-two]Law Professors and Historians As Amici Curiae (Friends of the Court) at 3, United States vs. Timothy Joe Emerson (5th Cit. 1999)(No.99-10331) stated, “The Second Amendment…protects only the right to “bear arms” for the purpose of service in the “militia,” and…not…firearm ownership unrelated to militia sevice.”

     You do number yourself among the group “law professors,” do you not?

187. On March 17th, 2008 at 12:20 pm Daniel Says:

     It is not that hard to understand. In the Preamble to the Constitution, the ONLY rights you already have are “establish justice and domestic tranquility-common defense-general welfare-blessings of liberty” Any other right that you have is and was granted by the Constitution. The right to not incriminate yourself. The right not to have soldiers lodged in your home etc.

     You are making this more difficult then you should or that it is. Read decisions by both the USSC AND the US Congress. The statement “as rights granted to us by the Constitution” is used in these laws and court cases more times then you can count.

     why some are being obtuse and saying that it does not grant these rights when the facts and plain for anyone to see, is beyond me.

188. On March 17th, 2008 at 1:52 pm Charlie Tall Says:

     So you think the rights were “granted” by the Constitution.

     Therefore, according to your position, they did not exist prior to the Constitution.

     Lunacy!

     This totally disregards the facts that:
     -The Constitution established a federal government for the benefit of the states, not the other way round.
     -The states had just finished fighting the strongest empire in the world, and that they had less than zero trust in a strong central government.
     -The states did not rush to ratify the Constitution. In fact, they refused to do so until promised a Bill of Rights that recognized and protected their rights.
     -The SCOTUS decisions that you refer to are post-Civil War. Prior to the Civil War, the Supreme Court was not the final arbitrator of constitutionality; the individual states were. However, the Civil War established exactly what the Founding Fathers tried to avoid: a strong central government that was ready and willing to kill its citizens.

     Daniel, your point is arguable, but still invalid, if and only if you disregard the history of the United States prior to 1865.

     Real historians and scholars recognize the sea change that occured when the Confederacy was defeated. You obviously are not aware of it yet.

     That speaks volumes.

     You have failed to address the rest of my previous post. I have a suggestion for you. I found many documents and references that supported my position and totally refuted yours in the Nashville Public Library.

     They were easy to find, so I won’t quote them.

     You should simply go by there and find them for yourself. You will then see the error of your ways.

189. On March 17th, 2008 at 5:43 pm Charlie Tall Says:

     Daniel wrote, “In the Preamble to the Constitution, the ONLY rights you already have are…”

     I was of the opinion that the preamble was merely a statement of purpose, and did not realize that it was actually a statement of individual rights.

     I am still of that opinion, and find Daniel’s categorization to be incorrect.

     There is much precedence for the proposition that human rights are granted by some human power. Kings were particularly fond of that idea: they granted rights, and when it suited them, they revoked them.

     Daniel also likes the concept.

     It is not that hard to understand.

     The Constitution was intended to establish a federal government for specific purposes as set forth in the preamble. The powers of that government were set forth very spcifically, but the limits were not as well explained.

     The Federalist Papers discussed the proposed constitution, and outlined the pros and cons of central government. In the second of these papers we find this statement, “Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.”

     Notice the reference to natural rights of the people ceded to the government, and not the other way round.

     The Bill of Rights was originally intended to precisely specify and limit the powers of the newly-formed federal government. It corrected the omissions of the Constitution, and we can thank God that it was required by those few far-thinking individuals.

     It is not that hard to understand.

190. On March 17th, 2008 at 6:06 pm Daniel Says:

     Charlie, you can find my opinion incorrect all you wish. But since I am quoting my sources directly from the papers of the Founding Fathers and decisions from the US Congress and the USSC, then I am in good stead. Granted the USSC has made some decisions I have not agreed with and will again in the future, but until I become a sitting Justice on the USSC or can somehow get the opinions changed, then I have to accept it no matter if I agree or like it or not. That is what i am trying to tell the people here. You may not agree with the decision or opinions, but unless you can get them changed, they stand as given. The sooner you accept that the more happy you will be

191. On March 17th, 2008 at 7:45 pm Bitter Says:

     So you’ll be joining the VPC should the SCOTUS rule in favor of collective rights? I mean we have to accept any decision they issue, right?

192. On March 17th, 2008 at 8:06 pm Dusty Says:

     Charlie, you are firmly correct. Unfortunately as recently demonstrated here,the polemic mind shall not be convinced even though the weight of evidence is staggering against the contention.

     You know, I see referece to all these “quotes,” but they are conspicuously absent from the intractable messages.

     But, what the heck! The Constitution is held to be a “living document” by some, especially when the texts nor the history support the political values of those that find the original intent to be highly inconvenient to their cause.

     My daughter is trying to decide where her college life will begin next year. What a scary thought. Then again she’s a pretty smart girl and has already grasped the concept of a constitutional republic. I hope it doesn’t become corrupted by teachers.

193. On March 17th, 2008 at 10:32 pm Daniel Says:

     So you’ll be joining the VPC should the SCOTUS rule in favor of collective rights? I mean we have to accept any decision they issue, right?
     ——————-
     No Bitter, that is NOT what I said. What I said and clearly posted was that there are decisions made by the USSC as well as the Congress that I do not agree with. For instance they banned religious actions in schools and other places, yet I have not seen even ONE “Sep of Church and State” phrase or wording in the US Constitution and that is because it does not exist. All I can see is that Government shall not hold one religion above another, there is nothing in there about religious items on public property and since the Government is banned from owning clear title to any property, there is no such thing as “Government property” They (the USSC)have found a right to privacy, and yet again this does not appear in any part of the Bill of Rights-The federalist papers-The US Constitution-or the Dec of Independence, as such I do not agree with them finding “rights” where none existed before.

     As such if they rule it a collective right, then we should and will have to work to get that ruling changed. But since there are over 150 US Supereme Court cases that say this is an individual right as well as over 400 lower court cases, I dont see that happening. In fact even handgun control expects this to be a 5-4 decision for an incividual right and has clearly stated that they expect to and will lose this case in the “begging missives” they send out. So the chances of them ruling that this is a collective right, are slim to none.

194. On March 17th, 2008 at 10:37 pm Daniel Says:

     Dusty PUH-LEAZE. Read the posts and you will see the “quotes” you seemingly cannot see or refuse to see. Read the federalist papers and you will see the quotes you refuse to acknowledge exist. Read the papers from the Founding Fathers and you will again see the quotes that prove you wrong.

     Just becuse you refuse to go to the sites I told you about does not mean that the quotes do not exist. Just because you refuse to read the decisions that back up my statements does not mean that they do not exist. may I suggest you actually do something useful and purchase the Supreme Court and gun cases book that is usually at the bottom of the page? Then you will be able to read the cases I mentioned word for word and see that what I am trying to tell you is correct. It is no skin off my nose if you refuse to believe in reality.

195. On March 18th, 2008 at 1:16 pm Daniel Says:

     I dont know if any of you are watching the 2nd Amendment arguments on C-Span, but isnt that special when the US Solicitor General just stated in full argument in front of the USSC that…”The 2nd Amendment GRANTED us the same right to keep and bear arms as the English right did”

     Hmmm, seems that the US Government’s Department of Justice agrees with my stance as well as the USSC and the Founding Fathers. Must be a rude wake up call for the ones arguing with me, to have your viewpoint denounced in full court session watched by almost every person that has a point in this case

196. On March 18th, 2008 at 2:49 pm Charlie Tall Says:

     For the reasons contained in the preamble, the people granted certain powers to the federal government in the Constitution.

     The people limited those powers and protected their “natural rights” in the Bill of Rights, a part of that same constitution.

     The people came first, Daniel. How then can you say that the Constitution granted them rights? It is the other way round.

     It is not that difficult to understand.

     Frankly, I do not give a fiddler’s damn what some political appointee says when the Founding Fathers said just the opposite.

     I quoted the Federalist Papers (No. 2), please do not continue your inaccurate claims to authority based on “the papers of the Founding Fathers…”

     Even first-year historians recognize the monumental change that took place at the conclusion of the Civil War. Today, the Supreme Court alone determines the limits of the powers of the federal government.

     So far, that court has consistently ruled that there are no limits to the powers of the federal government.

     The federal government, you can bet your ass, agrees completely with that position, thus the position of the exalted US Solicitor General.

     In other words, it comes as no surprise that a federal government lacky (the US Solicitor General) would claim, as do you, that the Constitution anachronistically granted rights to the people.

     I repeat: the people granted powers to the federal government via the document known as the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights recognized the rights of the people and stated them explicitly in relation to the newly-created [by the people] federal government.

     Subsequently, the same federal government waged war on the people and usurped the position of giver of power.

     There is not a single provision of the Constitution that is not currently perverted or simply disregarded by the current federal government; not a rule that has not been broken; not a division of power or function that has not been trespassed.

     Letting lawyers create laws and then judge them is as intelligent as letting a blind spastic juggle flaming torches in a fireworks factory. Allowing politicians to determine their own powers is less intelligent, but far more predictable. Electing lawyers to legislative positions has resulted in the government we have today.

     Point, set, and match.

     What surprises me most of all about your position in this debate is the concentrated, bone-aching naivete that you express in each and every one of your posts.

     These people, the SCOTUS, are not there to properly interpret the Constitution; they are there to use all their power and prestige to maintain the supremecy of the federal government and to change America into the kind society and nation that they personally envision and favor.

     SCOTUS is a 101% political organization. The sooner you recognize that, the better off you will be.

197. On March 18th, 2008 at 5:05 pm Daniel Says:

     Charlie, if you have a problem with what I said then you need to take it up with the USSC and the US Solicitor General as he stated this in full USSC court session this morning at 10:30am and the USSC Justices did not correct him and eight of the nine stated the identical same thing. Now since they know more then either of us will know about the law, then I defer to their statements on this. As I said though Charlie…must be a very rude wake up call for you to have the USSC and the Top Attorney in the US next to the Attorney General AS WELL as the attorney representing DC ALL saying the EXACT same thing I have been telling you people here for over two weeks now. I mean when you have Justice Suter (not a conserv judge in any case) stating this as well as Alito and the Chief Justice..well, then someone has to change their way of thinking and by the looks of the people saying the same thing I said and have been saying, I dont think that I am the one that will need to change. BOOYA!!!

198. On March 18th, 2008 at 5:11 pm Bitter Says:

     Daniel,

     I don’t think most people on here are proud to stand with the DC lawyers in a case where they are defending a gun ban and claiming a collective right.

199. On March 18th, 2008 at 6:22 pm Daniel Says:

     You misunderstand Bitter. What I said is that they are saying the same thing I did and I was saying that here a good two weeks before they said anything. The people that said that the Constitution granted us the right to keep and bear arms is what I ment. And that was stated in full USSC case today at 10:30am in the Haller case.

     My whole point is that both sides agree with me as well as 8 of the 9 USSC justices and they did not know I made this statement. What that means is clear, that there are some on your site that are going to have to change their opinions on this issue as the facts do not back them. And considering that these learned men and women know more about the law then anyone else here on your site. I have to bow to the decisions they make. If I dont like them then I can try to change them, but I MUST accept them none the less.

200. On March 18th, 2008 at 8:17 pm Dusty Says:

     **”I dont know if any of you are watching the 2nd Amendment arguments on C-Span, but isnt that special when the US Solicitor General just stated in full argument in front of the USSC that…”The 2nd Amendment GRANTED us the same right to keep and bear arms as the English right did”**

     Clement used the term ONCE, but the term guaranteed or guaranteening was used six times in oral argument by both the petitioner and the respondent. I think Kennedy used to term once, as did Breyer. Clement either misspoke or was lectured in one of your classes, Daniel.

201. On March 18th, 2008 at 11:43 pm Daniel Says:

     Neither Dusty. The fact of the matter is that what I stated is documented as neither of them knew I said it and I do not know either of these men. And you forget that this was repeated by others in the arguments as well.

     Just because you may not like something Dusty, does not make it any less of a fact and you have seen today that I have not been pulling anyone’s leg, but quoting directly from the USSC. As such maybe it is you and others that need to change your way of thinking. My statements were backed up and validated today. The ones arguing with me….not so much. In fact your argument was clkearly repudiated and destroyed. The difference between your point and my point is while neither of us can do anything about our points, my point is shared by USSC Justices who can. That alone makes my point the superior one.

     Sorry to bust your bubble, but when I am correct, I am correct. Am I gloating? After all the crap responses that I have received here saying my position was wrong… You DAMN WELL bet I am gloating!

202. On March 19th, 2008 at 12:56 am Dusty Says:

     Daniel, the fact that Clement used the term “granted” once and “given” once does not validate your claim that rights are “granted.”

     As I pointed out, the reference to guaranteed rights was made better than six times by the opposing attorneys and two of the Justices. Your trying to rest your argument on selective evidence and sophistry. I would gloat until you can cite AND QUOTE a Supreme Court decision that clearly says that all rights are “granted” by the Bill of Rights. Can you do that, Daniel?

     Until then the full weight of evidence clearly opposes your view.

203. On March 19th, 2008 at 1:02 am Dusty Says:

     For those of you who wish to read the actual transcript of today’s oral arguments:

     http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf

204. On March 19th, 2008 at 10:45 am Daniel Says:

     Yes Dusty, it does indeed. Now unless you are saying that you are more experienced then the Attorneys and the Justices, then we have to accept the Justices way of looking at things. That is unless you can somehow remove the Justices that you dont agree with. Until then what they state has more weight then what you or I say.

     So yes Dusty, I am saying exactly that and it is very nice to see you trying so bloody hard to say what was said did not mean what was said. Are you that insecure in your position? Or better yet, maybe you can tell us where you received your JD and just how long you served on the USSC and when so we can rate your statements with the Justices now that have said the exact same thing I have been saying here for over two weeks. I have never claimed to be an attorney, but I do know the law and the law says that you Dusty, are wrong in your statements.

205. On March 19th, 2008 at 11:06 am Charlie Tall Says:

     Daniel,

     Ask any of the justices why the Civil War was fought, and they will likely tell you slavery.

     Ask anyone on the street who invented the traffic light, and they will likely tell you that it was a black man.

     Ask anyone the cause of global warming, and they will likely tell you that it is greenhouse gases released by human civilization.

     In other words, consensus is merely an indication that many people believe something, not that it is a fact.

     Now, let me express this in words of one syllable or less.

     The people had rights before the Constitution.

     The people existed before the Constitution. (Lincoln disagreed with this, which only goes to prove that even a demigod can be a fool.)

     The people created and ratified the Constitution.

     The people inserted the Bill of Rights into the Constitution to limit the power of the federal government that had been created by the Constitution.

     (Please note Amendments IX and X, which refer to rights not enumerated. I.e., rights that exist, but are not mentioned specifically. How could such be possible if the Constitution was creating them?)

     Therefore, these rights existed before the Constitution, so the Constitution could not grant them. It could only recognize them, and one task placed upon the new federal government was to protect these rights.

     The government, of course, has failed at this.

     Now, let’s look at the purpose of the Constitution.

     Read the preamble.

     Thank you. There you have it.

     The Constitution is intended to establish a federal government. That federal government was intended to serve the people.

     In order to assure that the federal government did not become the monster that was (and is) the British government, the Constitution specifically listed the powers, functions, and LIMITATIONS of the federal government.

     The Constitution listed the rights of the people and specifically stated that the federal government could not screw with them.

     Now here is where reality raises it ugly head.

     After the Constitution was ratified, politicians interested solely in their own self-aggrandisement immediately set about undermining the Constitution and perverting it for their purposes. Interestingly, most of these politicians, like the Solicitor General and all of the SCOTUS justices, were lawyers.

     Hmm.

     Now, boyo, consider this: what comes later does not change what went before. Ex post facto is the legal term, in case you didn’t know it.

     While this usually means that a person cannot be punished for an act that is later made illegal, it also implies that something said or done now cannot change an event in the past.

     (So the legal profession has found it necessary to coin an impressive Latin phrase to express what everyone else realizes intuitively. Wow!)

     Only revisionist historians can change the past, and they are lying when they do.

     Welcome to the ranks of the great tyrants.

     Now, in light of this, you can take your theory that the Constitution “granted” anything to the people, and reconsider it.

     The fact is, the people granted power to the federal government via the Constitution. One of the things the people did not grant to the federal government was the power to tell them what their rights were and were not.

     Unfortunately, the federal government has usurped that power, and legions of lawyers like yourself have spent their lives justifying, explaining, rationalizing, and memorializing that usurpation.

     So go ahead and gloat.

     It is your kind who have changed this country from a voluntary union to a tyrannical oligarchy. You’ve done well, for yourselves, but don’t expect everyone to swallow your misconceptions and distortions.

     Now instead of watching so much TV, go read history. You’ll learn so much.

206. On March 19th, 2008 at 1:17 pm Bitter Says:

     Dear All,

     This thread is likely to wrap up without the contributions of Daniel. For a while, I was slightly amused by Daniel’s ravings and the strange things he claimed but could never prove.

     For a while, all of his comments required admin approval after he starting hitting other commenters below the belt for no reason.

     However, his most recent response seriously made me question his connection to reality. I don’t mean that it was a strange interpretation of some bizarre quote he refuses to share. It was not working within the realm of any form of reason – secret lists and craziness.

     Since I pay for the bandwidth he’s been wasting, I’m drawing a line in the sand. Sanity has got to be restored, and it won’t be through his contributions. It’s not just because I disagree with him, it’s because I don’t want that level of reality disconnect associated with or attributed to this site.

207. On March 19th, 2008 at 1:29 pm Charlie Tall Says:

     Question: How can you tell when a lawyer is lying?

     Answer: His lips are moving.

     “US Solicitor General just stated…”The 2nd Amendment GRANTED us the same right to keep and bear arms as the English right did” [sic]

208. On March 22nd, 2008 at 6:32 pm LT Drogo Says:

     My heartfelt thanks to all but Daniel. To Daniel, a special thanks for eliciting the patient and correct expositions by others. Your incredible obtuseness and obstinacy gave many far more coherent writers the opportunity to illuminate the origins and historical interpretations of Second Amendment rights. May you always be blessed with the scrutiny of level-headed rational thinkers who don’t give a rat’s ass who, where, or how long you’ve “taught”, or what you think you’ve read.