Letter to the Editor
Second Amendment
Published Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!March 16, 2008
To the editor:
The United States Supreme Court is going to rule on the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. This is huge!
In the last 200-plus years, this has only come before them two or three times. They have managed to sidestep a direct ruling each time. In Sunday’s edition on MSNBC’s news edition, there was an article re: District of Columbia v. Heller that stated that the court would hear the case, which has been before all the lower courts.
As the story read, it has been specifically designed to “Make the court address the amendment.” This will undoubtedly set some sort of “case precedent” which will affect us all. As the article was written, there have been 39 states that have filed “Friend of the Court Briefs” along with some other very heavy political hitters.
Their ruling is supposed to come out in June or July. How they rule will affect Alaskans and Los Angelans. I believe and have faith that they will read it and rule on it exactly as it was written. Again.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Patriot Act! The government will protect you. You dont need rights when you have the government..... right?
I sure wish we had one more conservative, constructionist vote. I'd be less anxious about the outcome. These justices that rely on international law, or maintain that the Constitution "...is a living, breathing document" are scary.
This is why presidential elections have such lasting impact. We're still paying for the Clinton years, with bleeding heart judges.
Justice Thomas is my hero.
The attorney general of Montana has stated that if the court rules that the right to bear arms is not an individual right, Montana will succeed from the union.
Secede?
Yeh, that looks right.
Reader1 -
I would imagine that Alaska would try to do the same. Of course, you can't do that.
Uncle Sam would squash us in a heartbeat with all of those weapons of mass destruction that they've developed with our money.
I don't think even McGarry's family full of assault rifles would stand much chance against a stealth bomber at 10,000 feet.
From what I understand, and have read in a few articles. The Second Ammendment is not truely 100% under the microscope. The court is not going to come out with a ruling stating that citizens can no longer carry weapons. They are simply trying to regulate it. I believe that the use of concealed handguns is the major issue, not the use of rifles.
I have also read a few articles that claim that this issue is coming in from of the supreme court to require those who do carry concealed weapons to acquire a permit to do so, which I don't entirely disagree with. Maybe we should try and look at what good the change can do, and hope that the government has the capability of doing us right, for once.
Twingirl, I got an Alaska concealed Handgun permit in 2000. I had to go to a class in order to get the permit. The class, as described by the instructor, was designed for "a woman who had never touched a gun before." While a good class, it hardly created from scratch highly trained, certified gun toters. I believe that until someone demonstrates that they shouldnt be allowed to do something, like carry a gun, then they should be able to. The masses should not be made to jump thru silly hoops created by out of touch lawmakers, just to be able to exercise a right. Should we be required to get a permit to exercise free speech?
To my knowledge the Second Amendment has not been found to apply to the state governments under the Fourteenth Amendment, it only applies to federal laws (and D.C. is run by the federal government). Thus any likely ruling will not apply to state governments except as non-binding guidance on how the state courts (and federal courts applying state law) interpret their versions of the Second Amendment in their state Constitutions.
"we're still paying for the Clinton years, with bleeding heart judges." let me figure this out, Stevens, appointed by president Ford,Scalia and kennedy, apointed by president Reagan, Souter and Thomas, appointed by president H. W. Bush, Roberts and Alito, appointed by president W. Bush, Ginsburg and Bryer, appointed by president Clinton. it seems as though even outnumbered 7 to 2 the god hateing terrorist supporting liberals, still scare the bejesus out of the patriotic chosen by God conservative's
newsreader, you are right i cant hold a candle to that. that will be what it will take to get my guns. kill us all or you cant have them.
Wake up people,they keep chipping away at our rights a little at a time!It won't be long before we are standing around with WHAT HAPPENED looks on our faces! I'm sure you have heard the old joke"how do you eat an elephant....one bite at a time".Don't let our rights be the elephant
Well, as far as our rights our concerned: It was the current administration who took us out of the Geneva Convention when they decided torture should be legal. It was the current administration who decided to curtail our rights through the Patriot Act so that now the government can freely ease drop on our phones and emails. It was the current administration who brazenly lied, distorted the facts, suppressed every opposing voice and dragged us into a war for oil rather than continue to go after the Tali-ban. It was our current government that decided that as long as they slap on the "terrorist" label, the right to a trial, the right to legal representation, no longer matter.
So no need to worry. The Supreme Court isn't going to make any significant decision concerning our right to bear arms. Our government doesn't care whether we have guns or not. As long as enough of us are gullible enough to believe the big lies they're telling, the guns we have don't make any real differences and the corporations who are busy reaping profits (gun manufacturers and corporate prisons) are the ones dictating policy.
You're guns are safe. My guns are safe. Our basic rights as specified by the Constitution are very much in peril.
I agree with many of these posts. Our basic rights are very much in peril. The points Joe brought out just go to show you who, given the chance, will steal your God given rights. Also, that is a funny comment seven51, and how true it is....even in a 7-2 court, the God fearing chosen are terrified of the satanist liberals. Joe Vogler said it best:
"Government is not the giver of rights; only God confers these to the people. People create government, giving it certain and limited powers. Only eternal vigilance by the people will confine government to its proper role."
We should all keep this quote close at hand and keep up that vigilance Joe talked about!!
Yukonjohn - I hate to break the news to you, but your invisible friend hasn't given me anything. Mostly he (through his followers) takes away things, like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to pursue happiness, freedom of thought, etc.
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Otherwise, I agree with you... In fact, if you'd just get rid of that extremely offensive and childish first sentence, the quote would be great:
"People create government, giving it certain and limited powers. Only eternal vigilance by the people will confine government to its proper role."
If you all want to hear or read the argument they are here:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007...
It is interesting, and will give you an idea of what is at risk, and which justices support your beliefs.
Yukonjohn - Sorry, just couldn't let this go...
Maybe I'm confused and misunderstood, but do you really think that unless someone is one of "the God fearing chosen" they are a "satanist"? Because, wow, that is so incredibly deluded and ridiculously arrogant.
Should I be worried that you are gonna track me down and burn me at the stake now?
newsreader - Honest question for you. Is it just the Christian God and Christianity you find so offensive and distasteful? Or is it any god and any religion? And no, I have no interest in burning you at the stake - thankfully, good people come in many flavors.
Dana - Thanks for the question - I welcome it.
My main problem is with organized fundamentalist religions. The tenants typically disallow free thought. Followers are not allowed to question the leaders. For me, organized religion is about control of the masses by a powerful elite. Since we all know that power corrupts, fundamentalists have the ultimate tool to allow corrupt leaders to have their way with the unquestioning masses.
So, I have a problem with ANY god that disallows free thought and insists that their followers stick with "blind-faith".
And, I can tell you, statements that separate the world into "God fearing choosen" and "satanists" only reinforces exactly what I'm trying to say.
As far as your particular beliefs go - you have shown yourself to be thoughtful and inquisitive. You have divorced yourself from these fundamentalists by stating that homosexuality is natural, by not taking a clear stance on abortion, and by allowing the fact that good people come in all flavors. As such, I applaud your ability to reconcile your "blind-faith" with reason. I personally don't understand how anyone can do so.
My secondary problem is with any belief in the spiritual world. It is a cop out to believe in something that you can not prove with any certitude. And, as soon as one gives into to the belief in god, they are immediately susceptible to the type of control that I previously spoke of.
"...you encourage ignorance. Tis opium you feed your people, so that, drugged, they do not feel their hurts, inflicted by you."
Anyway, I dont see this court ruling really breaking any new ground. All this push towards a socialist America will come to a head someday. I dont think many of us will survive to see the outcome.
Newsreader - Thank you. Never had I heard my same views on organized religion put so succinctly. I myself am not adverse to the idea of god, I just want some kind of proof. Since I know I'll never get it in my lifetime - why worry about it now? I think organized religion is also a way for people to shift responsiblility - onto god. They leave so much of their lives to their god's will - they just become puppets for the leaders. I know what I think and why, I am open to new ideas and refuse to judge others based on my own opinions - which is why I blog - to see others' opinions. Who am I to judge?
Thanks for your response newsreader. I appreciate the candidness.
Ok, Dana, now I have a question for you. You seem to be a thoughtful intelligent person.
How can you stomach being associated with the fundamentalist Christians like those I quoted the other day? Those that teach intolerance and hatred (against gays or atheist, for instance). Or those the would deny hundreds of years of careful, painstaking research because of statements from a book that is thousands of years old? (I refer, of course, to evolution).
I had to read the letter twice because of the God talk in the comment section and the letter does not mention God or the supposedly good christians. God did not make my .45 a company called Smith and Wesson did. I think newsreader gave one of the best comments on the religion part. Great response newsreader. Neither the government nor God or some phony christian fundamentalist will ever take my gun i dont give a damn what laws they pass.
Tony08 - No, the letter doesn't mention God, you are correct. However, in the course of the discussion (as with many) God came up... So, I felt compelled (as always) to respond to it.
Rest assured, that the Christian fundamentalists are the last ones that are going to be taking away your guns - it is part of their war-like 'eye for an eye mentality'. If you believe others, it will, instead, be the "satanist liberals".
hate to hear <religion and guns> in the same topic its sort of scary.
YukonJohn and I see eye to eye on a great many issues, which might be odd since I'm one of those satanist liberals. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for religion. We live in a country that was founded on the premise of religious freedom. Perhaps the Constitution's framers might think we've gone to far, but when any religion aligns itself with a government and attempts to enforce their own religious principles, it spells trouble for personal liberties and for democracy.
I cannot find it in my conscience to endorse any God as part of our government. I won't endorse a Christian state, a Jewish state, a Muslim state. I want a state where each religion is free to practice their religion and let others, including those with no religion at all, go on about their lives. Oh yeah, and I want guns too. Lotsa guns.
Newsreader, You have misunderstood me, hugely!! For one, the quote about God conferring rights is a verbatum quote from Joe Vogler. I don't know how long you have been here, possibly you have not heard of him. He was one of the greatest Alaskans to have ever walked on this hallowed ground we call home.
Secondly, as you will find, while I am a Christian, there is not one other person in Alaska that feels more strongly in seperation of Chruch and State, and EXCLUSION of religion in our government!! I am not looking for a moral compass from politicians nor judges! I was just chuckling at the comment made by seven51. I think if you go back and read my post, you will see that as well. Otherwise, I guess you will think what you care to, but I just wanted to clear up any confusion I might have created.
Yay Yukon. I perhaps have misread your post as well. Anyone who believes in the seperation of church and state is a friend of mine.
Yukonjohn - sorry about that - I was wondering, which is why I said:
"Maybe I'm confused and misunderstood,"
Thanks for clearing that up. I am VERY glad to hear your feelings as well as those of Joe, Reader1, Ljc120802, Tony08, and dumpbush.
I'm still waiting to hear back from Dana, though...
[I do know who Joe was. Truly a great Alaskan from what I understand. Never got to meet him, but I'd have liked to].