Thread: Obama Administration's War Against The Second Amendment...Continued...

Originally Posted by onalandline

...or something that nobody should take away, since apparently anything can be taken away.

I agree totally but being correct isn't always "right" anymore. Or so it would seem.

Originally Posted by Texsdrifter

Nemo is right and to attempt an Kill the messenger for telling you bad news. Is counter productive,having a false sense of security does not make you any safer.

Thank you for your acknowledgment - I say what is, which is not what I would have it be. My views, unhappily, are not in accord with the modern outlook - I have, I fear, out-lived my usefulness (I shall be 72 next month). Ironically , having lived this long, I think that I should have learned something about life that would be of some use. One lives and learns, and learns mostly to accept things for what they are. For many, it takes a long time to learn this simple lesson in life: “too soon old, too late smart” - as the saying goes. Still, considering past mistakes, one should be glad not to be young and have to go through it all again.

Originally Posted by Nemo

Thank you for your acknowledgment - I say what is, which is not what I would have it be. My views, unhappily, are not in accord with the modern outlook - I have, I fear, out-lived my usefulness (I shall be 72 next month). Ironically , having lived this long, I think that I should have learned something about life that would be of some use. One lives and learns, and learns mostly to accept things for what they are. For many, it takes a long time to learn this simple lesson in life: “too soon old, too late smart” - as the saying goes. Still, considering past mistakes, one should be glad not to be young and have to go through it all again.

No need to thank me Sir, for it is I that owe you an apology. In what I believe my first response to you. I said I feared you were a wolf in sheeps clothing, and stated that if I was wrong I would apologize. You are indeed a fellow sheep that was only trying to warn his flock. Of the tall lush grass of ignorance
that they were feasting was infested by wolves. Your usefulness is far from
complete. Just because we are not comforted by what we learn does not make
it useless. While it would appear ignorance is indeed bliss, and obtaining
knowledge does not inspire but sorrow. I would rather have a head start on
the wolves that seek to devour me. I am but 38 yet started my quest for
knowledge only recently. The wisdom you shared cut years off my journey. Yet I fear I have too far to travel to every reach my destination. I appreciate the
wisdom you share. As well as wish you many more years to share your knowledge. I am but a simple man of both meager means and limited education. Yet I seek battle with those that overpower me in both and intellect as well. It inspires me to learn. A quote I believe from Edison as I don't have it before me it may not be exact. " I have never failed, I have just found 10,000 ways that didn't work." Thank you Sir for allowing me to learn with my pride intact.

Originally Posted by Texsdrifter

I will have to disagree one only has to look at Roe VS Wade. To see our constitution has been used to remove that right as well. While this is much to my dismay it would appear the only god-given right left is death. Even though there are many laws to try an prevent that right from being a choice. As I search to find truth it would appear the only absolute right the constitution grants us is the right to pay taxes. I do not believe that was the intent of the founders; but that does appear to be the facts.

You have made a rather profound observation. As a matter of judicial interpretation, Justice Scalia’s opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller is strikingly similar to that of Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade. A woman’s right over her body is based on privacy. In this, there is no express provision of the Constitution for a general right of privacy. Rather it is based on the decisions of the Supreme Court in interpreting the First, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments viewed through the prism of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in such cases as Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Cruzon v. Missouri Dept. of Health, and most recently, Lawrence v. Texas. It is the product of an expansive reading of the Constitution rather than a literal interpretation of its provisions. (I can remember former Judge Robert Bork stating that there was no right to privacy, which did not go down well in the Senate confirmation hearings for his failed nomination to the Supreme Court.) Oddly enough, in extending Second Amendment protection for an individual right to have firearms, Justice Scalia has done the same thing, albeit from the perspective of an original, textural interpretation. Both decisions are controversial, being driven by popular sentiment; which, as Justice Holmes observed, makes bad law.

Originally Posted by Texsdrifter

No need to thank me Sir, for it is I that owe you an apology. In what I believe my first response to you. I said I feared you were a wolf in sheeps clothing, and stated that if I was wrong I would apologize. You are indeed a fellow sheep that was only trying to warn his flock. Of the tall lush grass of ignorance
that they were feasting was infested by wolves. Your usefulness is far from
complete. Just because we are not comforted by what we learn does not make
it useless. While it would appear ignorance is indeed bliss, and obtaining
knowledge does not inspire but sorrow. I would rather have a head start on
the wolves that seek to devour me. I am but 38 yet started my quest for
knowledge only recently. The wisdom you shared cut years off my journey. Yet I fear I have too far to travel to every reach my destination. I appreciate the
wisdom you share. As well as wish you many more years to share your knowledge. I am but a simple man of both meager means and limited education. Yet I seek battle with those that overpower me in both and intellect as well. It inspires me to learn. A quote I believe from Edison as I don't have it before me it may not be exact. " I have never failed, I have just found 10,000 ways that didn't work." Thank you Sir for allowing me to learn with my pride intact.

I have found, often from hard experience, that is unwise to hold too firmly to one’s views. There are few things written in stone; and much of that debatable. A wise man is flexible in his thinking; he is steadfast in his will, not his mind. Contrariwise, every fool is fully convinced, and will brook no argument against his judgment, however wrongheaded. Indeed, it is the mark of an unbalanced mind to be unwilling to consider opposing views. There are always two sides to everything, and a balanced mind weighs them both.

Over the years, I have changed my views on a lot of things. Ten years ago, I was obliged to sell my wonderful gun collection to pay medical bills for my by-pass surgery. (I had health insurance coverage, but it only paid 70% and heart surgery can be very expensive.) It changed my views on universal healthcare; before I had not thought much about it; but the experience made me realize that most Americans could not afford a major illness and hospitalization without facing financial ruin and bankruptcy. For me, borrowing against my home or dipping into my retirement savings was not a welcome prospect. I had to choose between my guns and my artwork; and at the time I thought I would have less use of the former and more enjoyment of the latter. I don’t do much shooting nowadays. The veins used in the grafts for my heart left me with poor circulation in my legs; and I don’t get around that well. I still have my grandfather’s English shotgun, and my father’s custom-made Colt .45 National Match pistol; which I keep more out of sentiment than for practical purpose.

Originally Posted by Nemo

You have made a rather profound observation. As a matter of judicial interpretation, Justice Scalia’s opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller is strikingly similar to that of Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade. A woman’s right over her body is based on privacy. In this, there is no express provision of the Constitution for a general right of privacy. Rather it is based on the decisions of the Supreme Court in interpreting the First, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments viewed through the prism of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in such cases as Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Cruzon v. Missouri Dept. of Health, and most recently, Lawrence v. Texas. It is the product of an expansive reading of the Constitution rather than a literal interpretation of its provisions. (I can remember former Judge Robert Bork stating that there was no right to privacy, which did not go down well in the Senate confirmation hearings for his failed nomination to the Supreme Court.) Oddly enough, in extending Second Amendment protection
for an individual right to have firearms, Justice Scalia has done the same thing,
albeit from the perspective of an original, textural interpretation. Both
decisions are controversial, being driven by popular sentiment; which, as Justice Holmes observed, makes bad law.

Thank you, it was a disappointing conclusion I must say.
I will read up on the cases to learn more as try to expand my knowledge. I find it stange that 200 years ago most Americans understood the constitution.
Yet now I doubt if most lawyers truly understand what it means. I believe the original meaning is the only true meaning. Yet it is obvious that is no longer the case. It seems as most Americans dont even understand what is happening. When did it become every court decision was basically a new amendment. George Washington clearly said that we might need to change our government. Yet warned us to only do it by amendments. The constitution wasn't meant to evolve without amendments. He also warned of the danger of political parties. I know it will never happen but; I truly feel banning political parties would be the best thing for this country. I believe they create a divided
populace as well as make politicians have loyalties besides to their constituents. I agree that it seems the conservatives now play the game the liberals started with Roe v Wade. Yet I read what the dissent had to say it was far worse in my mind. I am not a lawyer but it did not comfort me.

Originally Posted by Nemo

I have found, often from hard experience, that is unwise to hold too firmly to one’s views. There are few things written in stone; and much of that debatable. A wise man is flexible in his thinking; he is steadfast in his will, not his mind. Contrariwise, every fool is fully convinced, and will brook no argument against his judgment, however wrongheaded. Indeed, it is the mark of an unbalanced mind to be unwilling to consider opposing views. There are always two sides to everything, and a balanced mind weighs them both.
I am learning to accept all sides, then make a decision some things however concern me greatly. I admire the great minds of the both spectrums. Yet when in comes to leaders I find myself choosing the lesser of two evils.
Over the years, I have changed my views on a lot of things. Ten years ago, I was obliged to sell my wonderful gun collection to pay medical bills for my by-
pass surgery. (I had health insurance coverage, but it only paid 70% and
heart surgery can be very expensive.) It changed my views on universal
healthcare; before I had not thought much about it; but the experience made
me realize that most Americans could not afford a major illness and
hospitalization without facing financial ruin and bankruptcy. For me, borrowing
against my home or dipping into my retirement savings was not a welcome
prospect. I had to choose between my guns and my artwork; and at the time
I thought I would have less use of the former and more enjoyment of the
latter. I don’t do much shooting nowadays. The veins used in the grafts for
my heart left me with poor circulation in my legs; and I don’t get around that
well. I still have my grandfather’s English shotgun, and my father’s custom-
made Colt .45 National Match pistol; which I keep more out of sentiment than for practical purpose.

Sorry to hear that I am proud you made it through. All my arms are family heirlooms for hunting and memory. They would not bring enough to pay medical bills so my decision would be easier I suppose. The few I bought myself don't deserve the same respect. I wish I could have a couple more but more press needs come first. I don't have health insurance. With the affordable care act I would receive free insurance.(at least to me) However I think the idividual mandate is to much power to allow the government to have. So even though it would benefit me I am opposed. I feel my years rather heavy for only 38 but I don't trust the government. They have too much power already I do not wish them to have more. I am always concerned when a president spends so much time to pass a bill. Yet puts off the implementation till after the election. The way I read the lower court opinions led me to believe that it will be affirmed. Not because it was right but because the republicans have plans for the precedent it will set. As well as give the best chance for victory in the fall. That will lower my opinion of the conservative judges; if it comes to pass.

Originally Posted by Texsdrifter

Thank you, it was a disappointing conclusion I must say.
I will read up on the cases to learn more as try to expand my knowledge. I find it stange that 200 years ago most Americans understood the constitution.
Yet now I doubt if most lawyers truly understand what it means. I believe the original meaning is the only true meaning. Yet it is obvious that is no longer the case. It seems as most Americans dont even understand what is happening. When did it become every court decision was basically a new amendment. George Washington clearly said that we might need to change our government. Yet warned us to only do it by amendments. The constitution wasn't meant to evolve without amendments. He also warned of the danger of political parties. I know it will never happen but; I truly feel banning political parties would be the best thing for this country. I believe they create a divided
populace as well as make politicians have loyalties besides to their constituents. I agree that it seems the conservatives now play the game the liberals started with Roe v Wade. Yet I read what the dissent had to say it was far worse in my mind. I am not a lawyer but it did not comfort me.

I think you are right about the lack of knowledge of the Constitution - ignorance of that most fundamental document is pervasive. (Certainly, when the Speaker of the House of Representatives gets up in public and loudly and proudly misquotes the Preamble, it gives one cause to pause and reflect on the need for an enlightened electorate, not to mention the elected.) And, I can well appreciate your perspective on all this political wrangling.

Personally, and as a lawyer, I don’t find it particularly helpful to attempt to divine the original intent of the framers of our Constitution in every context; nor illuminating to read it by candlelight. We Americans have always been a forward-looking people and not anachronistic in our views. (We no longer go about our lives in powdered wigs and small clothes.) I think it must be admitted that the Constitution is a "living document," as evident by the fact that it has been amended twenty-seven times since its adoption by the several states; which is a testament to the wisdom and foresight of the framers in making provision for such future changes. Surely, they could not have intended that we be ruled by their dead hands.

Times have changed. Democracy in America has come a long way from its early beginnings following our struggle for independence. The America Alexis de Tocqueville described in the 1830's, which was largely an agrarian society, was eclipsed by the rise of the nation as an industrial power in the latter half of the Nineteenth Century to become the great economic and military power of the Twentieth Century; and with such changes came the inevitable expansion of the nature and power of government, and the laws that govern our society. Our "founding fathers" could only be utterly astonished at the America of today. But what would comfort them most, notwithstanding the recent efforts of certain groups to rewrite our history, is that we are still a nation of laws and not men.

Originally Posted by onalandline

How would that be done?

Both our federal Congress and our State elected representatives may call up the their militias in case of need.

However and from my perspective, simply having a more visible and well regulated militia of persons who keep and bear Arms should act as a deterrent for some forms of crime. So, from that perspective, gun lovers are not really loving their republic enough to lower our tax burden.

Originally Posted by Nemo

As I pointed out before: the Declaration of Independence was not a foundational document; rather it was the Constitution that established the framework of our government and source of our individual rights and liberty under the rule of law. Thomas Jefferson’s ideas about natural rights were not adopted by the framers of the Constitution. There are no natural rights, there are no unalienable rights, there are only legal rights. The framers of our Constitution created a nation of laws and not men. All men are not created equal, they are equal under the law; and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not unalienable, they are subject to law.

I agree to disagree regarding your view of natural rights, simply and merely because our Ninth Amendment recognizes that concept.