Alphecca

This is exactly why I don't like to approach the Right to Keep And Bear Arms from a Constitutional perspective. I recall a quote from somewhere to the effect that "the Constitution is a contract, and contracts can be re-negotiated." I am not sure what to think about that -- I tend to find it more than a little frightening -- but there you have it. No doubt "scholars" like the one discussed here would like to see the 2A "re-negotiated," as in repealed. I much prefer to approach the RKBA from a perspective of it being a God-given (or natural) right, concomitant to the right of self-defense -- because, of course, *those* cannot be repealed or renegotiated. They are often denied, of course (D.C., Chicago, the UK, etc.), but I think the natural-rights perspective is better for neutralizing whatever arguments the gun prohibitionists put forth vis-a-vis the 2A. But that's just my $0.02...

Nicely done.

I am pleased to see that we have a gun store here in Middleboro, maybe two miles from us, sharing a building with a restaurant, amusingly.

Obsolete/outdate my ass!

I can't help but wonder why Ms. Felder would single out the 2nd Amendment instead of questioning the relevence of the entire BOR. Think of the 7th. $20.00 was a significant amount of money in 1782, but pocket change today. Could it be that she's a GFW?...Naah, not in Fredricksburg, they'd run her out of there(or should).

BTW, if anybody in Fredricksburg WANTS to run her out, let me know. I'll grab the Garand and help ferret that whiney b***h out. Shouldn't be too hard to find-small town.

Who is Lance Star and why should he be free?

From my research into this, the legal basis that all this CRAP from the gun grabbers all boils down to one law and one supreme court case that almost killed it that was clearly in error, everything else has been piled on top of that one case. If that case were overturned, the entire gun control legal landscape would collapse upon itself like a house of cards. That one case was United States V. Miller. It was the case that allowed the government to tax sawed off shotguns, silencers, and machine guns. THIS is the achillies heel of the gun grabbers. This is where we need to be focusing our not small resources. We have a unique opportunity, we will soon have a majority conservative supreme court and an administration that is 2nd Ammendment friendly and a congress that is controlled by republicans. the planets are aligning in a way that has not happened in a very very long time. We should be finding a strong test case that we can push through to the Supremes to overturn Miller. Once that is done the legal basis for everything else falls away. We must strike now while the iron is hot.

The true irony of this type of "scholarship" is that it emanates from people that adhere to a truly obsolete ideology; socialism/Marxism!

I also agree with Rorschac regarding natural rights vs. a social contract argument. The BOR simply acknowledges and honors our rights as individuals, granted by the Almighty. The Miller case is in fact a strong argument in the 2A camp's favor!

Semper Fidelis

I have one minor nitpick. The George Washington quote,
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. ..."

is bogus. The rest of 'em, as far as I recall, are genuine. The Washington one is just as popular, and just as wrong, as the Hitler "gun registration, 1935" quote that's bandied around.

Actually Chris, that wasn't me, that was TexasRugerman, But I too agree with him as well.

I've removed the Washington quote. Thanks for the correction.

First, Miller is BS b/c the person with the sawed off shotgun had no lawyer and no evidence was introduced to show that the shotgun could be used as weapon for military purposes. One may deduce from that opinion that all guns that could be used for military purposes would be protected by the 2A.

On the contract issue, the constitution can always be amended but it rarely is. That doesn't appear to be something that will happen(one needs to look at the 9A too when determining what rights are God given). Finally, the real threat of attack on the 2A to look out for is the Laurence Tribe logic. This Harvard law professor believes the 2A means what it says, BUT he is anti gun and thinks that it can be whittled down through "reasonable" legislation on firearms. This employs the logic springing from the old argument that the 1A protects free speech but doens't allow you to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. Look for this logic to be employed to curtail gun rights; it is a much more viable threat than amending the constitution.

OK, how about this revision, in the spirit and intent of the original:

"The government has no power to disbar any citizen of the possession of arms, nor the use thereof, nor the manufacture or trade of arms, nor to require government approval or registration to exercise any of these. In order to ensure the security the free state, Congress and the several states may pass such laws as to promote the ownership of arms and their use in a strong citizen's militia."

What about felons and guns, you ask? I assert that they should be demoted from "citizen" to "resident", as they effectively are today. I simply propose that we be more explicit about it.

Why is it that "the people" does not mean the same thing in the Second Amendment as it does everywhere else in the Constitution? I have never heard anybody argue that "We the people" actually means "We, the state militias..."

ah, but Ron, you ARE allowed to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. You just have to deal with the consequences if no fire exists. Thus Laurence is full of it. And just wondering, how does this silly person feel that '"reasonable" legislation' is even allowed when the 2A says "shall not be infringed"?

You guys are right: Miller was wrong. Hey Alito/Roberts - fix your own house first! (Kelo, McCain-Fiengold, etc)

Jeff, I know Patrick Henry's quote is good, but you've got it in there twice. FYI.

perp

Okay, Perpster... Caught me! I put this post up at 6:30 this morning and... Anyway, I've deleted the duplicate and thanks for pointing it out. Now: What should the "replacement" these gun banning creeps want to see actually read...

TexasRugerman wrote:

I recall a quote from somewhere to the effect that "the Constitution is a contract, and contracts can be re-negotiated."

That quote is from the film The Majestic:

The Declaration of Independence? The Constitution? They’re pieces of paper with signatures on them. And you know what a piece of paper with a signature is? A contract. And contracts can be renegotiated at any time. - Author Michael Sloan from the screenplay for The Majestic, spoken by the character Leo Kubelsky, studio lawyer.

The main character of the film had this to say about that:

That's the First Amendment, Mr. Chairman. It's the backbone of this nation. It's everything that gives us the potential to be right and good and just -- if only we'd live up to that potential. It's what gives me the right to sit in this chair and say my piece before this committee without fear. It's the most important part of the contract that every citizen has with this country. And even though this contract... the Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- even though they're just pieces of paper with signatures on them -- they're the only contracts we have that are most definitely not subject to renegotiation.

I'll leave the accuracy of that statement up to Jeff's readers to determine.