Kennedy 0 #1 February 5, 2005 http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=621 Quote "Police organizations today urged police nationwide to be on the lookout for a small, easily concealable handgun that fires bullets that penetrate soft body armor, calling the gun an immediate threat to law enforcement officers. They also urged Congress to take appropriate action to help deal with the threat." ... "Staff of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence recently purchased the weapon at a Virginia gun dealer and test-fired it. The bullets successfully penetrated a police Kevlar vest. A video of the test is available at www.bradycampaign.org/ler/fnh/." ... What a bunch of drivel. The best/worst part is what Brady employee John Shanks said in the full length video. "... people with concealed carry licenses could legally carry this gun in their communities and you know, if they’re having a bad day or things aren’t good and a police officer comes in contact with that person it could turn into a very very deadly situation for law enforcement." My lord. Even among the many viewpoints on dropzone.com, no one disagreed with the statement that CCW permit holders are more law abiding (hence less likely to shoot anyone, especially cops) than the general public.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #2 February 5, 2005 http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_2545188 QuoteTaking a big bite out of the Second Amendment By Saul Cornell The struggle over ownership of guns in the United States has taken a dramatic turn. In the midst of the winter holidays, when you could bet that everyone's mind was elsewhere, the Department of Justice decided to revise the Second Amendment. This latest example of politically motivated historical revisionism completes the task begun by John Ashcroft in 2001 in his infamous letter to the National Rifle Association, which cast aside a hundred years of Justice Department policy on how to interpret the Second Amendment. Now the Department of Justice has produced a hundred-page memo designed to give activist judges a historical pretext for striking down existing gun laws. Ironically, rewriting the Bill of Rights has been pawned off as nothing more than a return to the original understanding of the amendment. Yet this revisionist interpretation has nothing to do with the original understanding of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment adopted more than 200 years ago reads: ''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 department's newly revised Second Amendment reads, in effect: The right of individuals to keep and carry guns shall not be infringed. The Department of Justice has thus erased the preamble, which states the purpose of the amendment, to create a ''well regulated Militia.'' The new version of the amendment goes well beyond the idea of interpreting the Constitution as a living document that must respond to changing times. In effect, Justice believes that it can simply expunge language that it finds inconvenient and substitute language more ideologically suitable in its place. The department's novel idea that the preamble of the Second Amendment has no binding force would have certainly shocked the Founders. The most popular legal dictionary used by the Framers of the Second Amendment describes the purpose of ''The Preamble of a Statute'' as providing the ''Key to the Knowledge of it'' since it establishes ''the Intent of the Makers of the Act.'' Anotherbizarre claim made by Second Amendment revisionists is that the Framers of the amendment thought that bearing a gun and bearing arms were legally synonymous: hunting bears becomes the same as bearing arms. The illogic of the claim is easy to demonstrate. Quakers were religious pacifists opposed to war. Thus, a Quaker might bear a gun in pursuit of a deer, but he would never bear arms. To be conscientiously scrupulous about bearing a gun makes you a vegetarian, not a pacifist! Although gun rights advocates have tried to claim that bearing arms did not have a military connotation at the time the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, they have never been able to provide a body of evidence to support their claims. The only evidence they have produced is a single text written by the losing side in the original debate over the Constitution. Substituting the ideas of the losers for the winners turns history into a science-fiction fantasy, in which one might as well argue that the patriots lost the American Revolution, or the South won the Civil War. For better or worse, the real Second Amendment links the right to bear arms with a well-regulated militia. If Americans want to change this language, it will have to be by the slow and uncertain process of amending the Constitution. Distorting the past for ideological reasons is unacceptable, in the cause of either gun rights or gun control. --- Saul Cornell, a writer for the History News Service, is an associate professor of history and director of the Second Amendment Research Center at the John Glenn Institute at Ohio State University. Wow. Just wow.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #3 February 5, 2005 http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.guns02feb02,1,2077814.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true QuoteBallistics database still needed By Michael D. Barnes Originally published February 2, 2005 YOU WOULDN'T scrap a major clinical trial of a life-saving medicine after a month because you haven't yet proved the medicine works. You wouldn't change a quarter of the oil in your car. And it would be foolish for Maryland to abandon efforts to build a ballistics fingerprinting database at the project's infancy... The Maryland State Police, in a report that smacks of politically ideological motivations, has criticized the Integrated Ballistics Identification System, created by legislation in 2000, for having traced only six bullets to the weapons used to fire them. The police superintendent, Col. Thomas E. Hutchins, is not in favor of the project... The author "Michael D. Barnes, a former Democratic congressman from Maryland, is president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence." That quote pretty much tells you the veracity of the article. (or lack thereof)witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #4 February 5, 2005 What is the relevance of the "'A well regulated Militia" part of the Second Amendment in todays America? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #5 February 5, 2005 What a dumbass. The anti-gunners would get a whole lot more respect if they didn't say/do such stupid things. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #6 February 5, 2005 QuoteWow. Just wow. what a very insightful refutation. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #7 February 5, 2005 It looks as if Saul Cornell is upset with Ashcroft's attempt to interprete the 2nd Amendment correctly. It's hilarious to hear a gun banner decrying "politically motivated historical revisionism." That's always been a bastion of the left. How dare the right-wingers invade their territory. He actually writes as if Ashcroft has taken an eraser to the Bill of Rights. "The Department of Justice has thus erased the preamble . . ." After years of trying to get the 2nd Amendment interpreted on the basis of a subordinate clause, it still hasn't worked for the left. It's time they left it alone. Once again, the Bill of Rights is about individual rights inherent in man, not privileges granted by a state to groups apporved by the state. I'm not sure where in the heck he was going with the bear-hunting-Quaker thing. Sounds like a lot of quibbling to me. Always the sign of a weak argument. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #8 February 5, 2005 QuoteIt's hilarious to hear a gun banner decrying "politically motivated historical revisionism." That's always been a bastion of the left. How dare the right-wingers invade their territory. Good one John! Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #9 February 6, 2005 All scholarly research (that hasn't resulted in firings and revoked prizes) clearly shows that the second amendment is an individual right. Studies of court decisions shows the same thing. Read Dred Scott about the rights he would've aquired if given citizenship. Read Miller about military arms and which guns the second amendment protects. Read United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 110 S. Ct. 1839 (1990). Read the other thirty five or so cases where the supreme court recognized and upheld the second amendment. partial list here Check into the story of Michael A. Bellesiles. The entire article is idiocy. "The people" mentionede in the second amendment are the same ones mentioned in the rest of the amendments and the rest of the constitution.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #10 February 6, 2005 QuoteWhat is the relevance of the "'A well regulated Militia" part of the Second Amendment in todays America? What is a "taurocrapologist"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #11 February 6, 2005 The entire populace is the Militia (same now as then) and part of the militia being "well regulated" is the militia (the populace) being armed. Also, that is one reason for the amendment, but not the only one. They (the founding fathers) did just use their guns to throw off a tyrant, afterall. However, just because their most relevant reason is not at the top of our list, that doesn't mean they didn't recognize the others, or that it no longer applies to us.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #12 February 7, 2005 QuoteWhat is a "taurocrapologist"? A variation of Taurocrapology - a joke university qualification, as in "Q. What did you study at college? A. Taurocrapology" tauro - bull, crap - shit, ology - sounds sciency. Why? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #13 February 7, 2005 QuoteWhat is the relevance of the "'A well regulated Militia" part of the Second Amendment in todays America? The founding Fathers were smart enought to know that an armed citizen has the ability to overthrow a corrupt government. They would know since they had just done that very thing. They didn't want to remove that right from future citizens."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #14 February 7, 2005 QuoteWhat is the relevance of the "'A well regulated Militia" part of the Second Amendment in todays America Same relevance it had when it was written... and since it is not the operative part of the Amendment, it doesn't really matter... Shall we talk about the meaning of "the people" next? What relevance does the 3rd Amendment have? very little... but that doesn't mean the amendment should be abaondoned. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #15 February 7, 2005 QuoteSame relevance it had when it was written... and since it is not the operative part of the Amendment, it doesn't really matter... Shall we talk about the meaning of "the people" next? Well thanks a bunch for having the patience to educate a non-American. Thankfully Ron and Kennedy were more enlightening. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #16 February 7, 2005 QuoteWell thanks a bunch for having the patience to educate a non-American. Since you don't seem to be a stranger to the gun threads, and the question is one of the anti-gun crowd's favorites, I figured you were just stirring the pot... If you weren't, I apologize. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #17 February 7, 2005 QuoteQuoteWhat is a "taurocrapologist"? A variation of Taurocrapology - a joke university qualification, as in "Q. What did you study at college? A. Taurocrapology" tauro - bull, crap - shit, ology - sounds sciency. Why? Oh, I don't know. I just thought that since you listed it in your profile as your profession, that maybe it might have some relevance on your comment, to wit; "What is the relevance of the 'A well regulated Militia' part of the Second Amendment in todays America?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #18 February 8, 2005 QuoteOh, I don't know. I just thought that since you listed it in your profile as your profession, that maybe it might have some relevance on your comment, to wit; "What is the relevance of the 'A well regulated Militia' part of the Second Amendment in todays America?" LOL. I forgot i put that in my profile. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
