The Second Amendment is obsolete

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The Second Amendment is obsolete

Posted: 12/4/2007 3:02:46 PM EDT

One thing about the Heller case... it has the worst of the worst crawling out from under their dung heaps.

(I can smell the fear coming from this pinhead)...

The Second Amendment is obsolete
By LEE GAILLARD
Special to the Star-Telegram

Having scheduled a March hearing for the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court will face a fusillade of angry responses -- no matter who wins.

Both sides (plus NRA lobbyists and gun control advocates) will use the Second Amendment to buttress their briefs. But regarding tangled and contentious issues of ownership and regulation of guns in the 21st century, our Second Amendment -- crafted to address 18th-century national security threats -- offers no solution.

Indeed, ratified in 1791, the complete Second Amendment considered firearms essential for group defense of our communities: "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."

In 1791, the United States had recently battled England for its independence; France owned the vast Mississippi watershed; and another war with England loomed. Yet even in 1791, this right to bear arms was deemed conditional.

The nine justices should hone their grammar skills. The introductory absolute phrase ("A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,") preceding the main clause sets the condition for why the people collectively had a right to keep and bear arms: to be able quickly to muster their local "well regulated Militia," individually lifting smooth-bores down from over their fireplaces so they could assemble and march off to defend "the security of [their] free State" against aggressors.

In 2007, however, the U.S. has a large, active-duty military establishment. Replacing 1791's militias, today's local "well regulated" National Guard units maintain armories stocked with government-supplied weapons, each pistol and M-16 assault rifle carefully inventoried upon its return after weekend and summer training periods. Citizen-furnished smoothbores? Long gone.

Given the Founders' original intent clearly contained in that introductory absolute phrase, the consequently irrelevant Second Amendment should be long gone, too.

Despite -- or because of -- that obsolete amendment, we now live in the most heavily armed society in history: The NRA lists as many as 65 million gun owners in the U.S. and 230 million guns in civilian possession.

We obviously have access to firearms. People facing potentially dangerous workplace confrontations can apply for concealed weapon permits; buying a rifle to hunt deer poses no problem.

On the other hand, there's a huge difference between sporting rifles and high-cyclic-rate-of-fire weapons designed to suppress enemy defenses during military assaults -- in the process disabling or killing as many human beings as possible. Despite Congress' failure to renew the assault weapons ban, there is no justification for civilians to possess machine pistols or automatic rifles.

With our nation already awash in more than a quarter of a billion firearms -- deadly weapons all -- the government must enforce measures ensuring that criminal background checks are performed on all purchasers and that such weapons are registered, the owners licensed, and all losses and thefts reported.

Thus the March shootout at the Supreme Court will concern far more than the outdated Second Amendment's relevance, the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun ban, or security guard Dick Heller's right to take his duty firearm home for self-defense.

Lives already are being lost as the deadly deluge of firearms inundates Detroit, Philadelphia, and other besieged cities -- overwhelming police departments and slaughtering citizens. In 2005, 846 American service members died in Iraq; 10,100 U.S. civilians died from gunshot wounds.

If the Supreme Court decides that Washington, D.C., does not have the right to ban handguns, it countermands local firearms regulation nationwide. Yet for these deadly weapons and their ammunition to go unregulated is absurd. The court must decide, then, whether regulation should occur instead at state or federal levels.

Federal precedent exists: The Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has posted its list of 10 categories of people "who cannot legally receive or possess firearms and/or ammunition."

So which courts should prosecute violations -- local? State? Federal?

The Second Amendment disappears atop the frothing surge of hundreds of millions of already "owned" guns flooding our streets. The Supreme Court needs to dismiss District of Columbia v. Heller as inapplicable, handing down instead a decision concerning the level at which these deadly weapons are to be regulated for public safety.
Lee Gaillard of Philadelphia writes frequently on defense issues.

www.star-telegram.com/245/story/339939.html

Posted: 12/4/2007 3:07:13 PM EDT

[#1]

what a doosh .

-patry

Posted: 12/4/2007 3:08:18 PM EDT

[#2]

doesn't suprise me

Posted: 12/4/2007 3:12:27 PM EDT

[#3]

straw man, machine pistols and full autos.

Posted: 12/4/2007 3:13:56 PM EDT

[#4]

Ya know, it chaps my ass when people think we can pick and choose which amendments are important.

Posted: 12/4/2007 3:14:04 PM EDT

[#5]

Friggin yankee laywer, wtf is he doing writing an editorial for the Startlegram?

Posted: 12/4/2007 3:24:29 PM EDT

[#6]

Wanna kick his ass , frickin pussy

Posted: 12/4/2007 3:27:04 PM EDT

[#7]

If it is then, so is the 1st, LEE GAILLARD should shut the fuck up.

Posted: 12/4/2007 3:29:29 PM EDT

[#8]

I say we quarter troops in his house.

Posted: 12/4/2007 3:31:18 PM EDT

[#9]

I guess the first amendment is obsolete too, since the founding fathers never envisioned the internet, computers, fax machines, etc. It is totally irresponsible to allow civilians to posess such powerful communication tools.

Posted: 12/4/2007 3:31:39 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
If it is then, so is the 1st, LEE GAILLARD should shut the fuck up.

No doubt.

How does that saying go that our second amendment rights insure his 1st amendment rights?? something like that.

What a douche bag without a clue

Posted: 12/4/2007 3:35:11 PM EDT

[#11]

I think it's telling that he completely dismisses the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" part in his brilliantly fucking moronic tard tirade. What a piece of shit.

Posted: 12/4/2007 3:36:00 PM EDT

[#12]

I would have sent that little bitch an email response, but shocker not possible. Wow it would be ironic if some thug broke into his house, butchered his family in front of him and before he was sent to smoke a turd in hell his last thought was " I wish I had had a gun "

Fuck him and everyone who looks like him.

Posted: 12/4/2007 3:38:15 PM EDT

[#13]

Who's gonna protect his first amendment rights if this guy has his way?i'm sure our founding fathers didnt think traitors would be hiding behind the freedom of the press,maybe we should be debating that portion of the first amendment

Posted: 12/4/2007 3:38:20 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
I would have sent that little bitch an email response, but shocker not possible. Wow it would be ironic if some thug broke into his house, butchered his family in front of him and before he was sent to smoke a turd in hell his last thought was " I wish I had had a gun "

Fuck him and everyone who looks like him.

Well said.

I think.

Posted: 12/4/2007 3:41:23 PM EDT

[#15]

Thinking the AWB touched autos, such a classic misconception their kind shares.

Posted: 12/4/2007 3:42:37 PM EDT

[#16]

Some of these writers should look into penning novels as they are sure good at writing fiction.

Posted: 12/4/2007 3:54:49 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Friggin yankee laywer, wtf is he doing writing an editorial for the Startlegram?

He's from Philly.

He's probably all pissed-off and upset because the anti-gun shit smears in PA got punked on 3 major gun control bills and there's nothing they can do about it except piss and moan.

Boo Hoo Hoo...

Gun Control Low Priority For Some Pa. Democrats, Letter Shows

Posted: 12/4/2007 3:59:32 PM EDT

[#18]

A former U.S. Marine, Lee Gaillard writes frequently on defense issues and military technology.

You would think.....

Posted: 12/4/2007 4:19:48 PM EDT

[#19]

While we're at it, I don't see us needing the 1st Amendment either, since manual printing presses are obsolete. The danger posed by the internet is far too great. Let's get rid of restrictions on government entirely- they know what's best for us, we don't need any protection from them.

Posted: 12/4/2007 4:26:18 PM EDT

[#20]

It's really easy to say the 2A is obsolete until someone has kicked your teeth in.

Until then, who needs a gun, right!?!?

Posted: 12/4/2007 4:30:31 PM EDT

[#21]

ost for later

ETA:

The Supreme Court needs to dismiss District of Columbia v. Heller as inapplicable, handing down instead a decision concerning the level at which these deadly weapons are to be regulated for public safety.

Can they even do that now that they have granted cert? Aren't they obligated to hear it and rule on it now, unless the case is made to be moot by DC overturning their own ban?

Posted: 12/4/2007 4:36:10 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
straw man, machine pistols and full autos.

Lol yeah uh WTF? This guy German??
The AWB covered Machinen Pistole?

Posted: 12/4/2007 4:36:56 PM EDT

[#23]

Just like back in 1791, people will still walk all over the weak, taking anything they can buy bullying it out of them. That fact will never change. I don't ever plan to be the weak one.

I will keep my guns close, you ain't gettin my milk money bitch.

Posted: 12/4/2007 4:40:50 PM EDT

[#24]

Yawn. Same old lies. Gun control is not a new idea. It was considered and soundly rejected by our Founding Fathers:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

Further, the idea that the 2nd Amendment will ever be obsolete is absurd. The 2nd is based upon a truism of human nature - depravity. No matter the culture or circumstance, there will always be those who seek to do evil and deprive people of their rights, whether it is a tyrannical government, savages on the frontier (or from the inner city) or your common street thug. We have a right (and a duty) to defend ourselves and our communities from those who would deprive us of our rights. The 2nd Amendment recognizes our right to have the means to do so. It prevents nanny-state liberals from engaging in their favorite sophistry "oh, you have a right to self-defense, so long as you use a butter knife."

Posted: 12/4/2007 4:48:17 PM EDT

[#25]

I wonder if that guy could get his head any FARTHER up his ass? I don't know how anyone could possibly be that ignorant. Unless he's flat out lying..... hmmmm.... that does seem to be a classic libtard tactic.

Posted: 12/4/2007 5:05:16 PM EDT

[#26]

If were going to start regulating parts of the BOR , I think that I'd like to regulate his first amendment right.

What that guy doesn't understand is the 2A says two things........
1. That a Militia is necessary to the security of a free State

2. and that "the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS shall NOT be INFRINGED.

Seems to me the First Amendment has that same phrase in it "the right of the people".
What is it about the 2A and the "right of the people " don't they understand?

First Amendment;
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Posted: 12/4/2007 5:44:50 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
ost for later

ETA:

The Supreme Court needs to dismiss District of Columbia v. Heller as inapplicable, handing down instead a decision concerning the level at which these deadly weapons are to be regulated for public safety.

Can they even do that now that they have granted cert? Aren't they obligated to hear it and rule on it now, unless the case is made to be moot by DC overturning their own ban?

I believe this guy is proposing the abolishment of Congress and that the USSC should be writing the laws.

Posted: 12/4/2007 9:50:54 PM EDT

[#28]

James Madison would bitch slap this guy silly. Let this mother fucker go live in Venezuela or Mynamar or any other shit hole where the government runs peoples lives. As for me I'll stay right here in the U.S. with all of these dangerous guns (I'm shaking in my boots) before I live in a society where I can't defend myself from criminals and/or an oppressive government should it come to that. Outdated my ass, at any given point in time there are multiple countries threatened by becoming a dictatorship in the world. What makes this jackass think America is some sort of exception to that rule? the constitution? The contitution doesn't mean shit if the people can't enforce it WITH ARMS!

Posted: 12/4/2007 9:55:22 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Ya know, it chaps my ass when people think we can pick and choose which amendments are important.

Little does that dumbass know, but when they take away The Second, his First Amendment rights are going to go down the toilet too

Posted: 12/4/2007 10:07:33 PM EDT

[#30]

Well, according to many on this very site, it IS obsolete. We have been told time and again by many bigname authoritarian posters that we cant resist the modern gov with its fancy toys should it become tyrannical, that unless we can inflict damage inside heavily guarded FOB's that we are simply screwed.

So here is to Dave_A and others of like mind, whose assertations give weight and credibility to this douchebags argument.

Forgive my present drunkeness, quislings, but may your chains....blah blah i hope the rust makes you sneeze a lot and stains yer soul so that when you get to hell and are assigned to my cell i can easily recognize you and give you the welcome you have earned.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The Second Amendment is obsolete

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us