The question of gun control or the question of the right to keep and bear arms
has been an ongoing debate but what is the truth about this right?
What does the Constitution say and who supports which view? And why?
I have reviewed several of the cases now pending a hearing before SCOTUS.
In each case I see the same thing. The constitution is clear in stating
the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. All of these cases are simply a
person or jurisdiction either local or state trying to enforce their will over
the rights of the people. Each is a case where an entity has restricted the
rights of the citizenry in direct opposition to the letter and spirit of the
constitution. The Constitution doesn’t say that you have the right to bear arms
except where there are old ladies who don’t like weapons. Or that the right is
dependent upon the likes or dislike of a particular town or county. If the
writers had wished to qualify the statement in any way, they certainly could
have done so. They were right there discussing such matters and I’m sure they
recognized that this right to bear arms had the potential to cause conflict. Why?
Because they knew that anytime people attempt to set up a free society, there
will be a succession of other people or even members of that society that see
not a grand expression of the human spirit and potential, but an opportunity to
take advantage of that freedom and democracy. They see that they can use the system
to become wealthy and powerful and then use that power and money to do away
with the system itself and institute one that is the opposite of a democracy
and affords little to no freedom to its citizens. So they knew that protecting
the rights of the people would always cause conflict and yet they left the
statement as it was.
The Constitution was not written to grant the people rights. It was written to recognize rights that the people
already had from the time man appeared on Earth. Rights that are theirs by the
law of nature and cannot be restricted or abridged by any government or entity.
It is imperative that we remember that just because a state or other
jurisdiction passes a law that forbids you to carry a weapon; doesn’t change
the fact that you have a right to do so. Don’t get me wrong. That right will
not protect you from prosecution under the law. But exercising that right,
being prosecuted for it and then carrying that through the appeals process to
SCOTUS is how these laws are exposed and struck down. I could go on to say that
in truth it is every citizen’s responsibility to disobey laws that restrict
their rights. But I don’t expect everyone to take that risk. In order to get
anything but a prison sentence out of your bravery you must be able to press
your case in the courts. Um, Did I mention that the justice system is strongly
slanted towards the wealthy? Yes….Yes it is. What a shocker huh? The money
required to “buy” an appeal is substantial. To get a case through to the SCOTUS
will require “inyeh” thousands of dollars. And a loooong time. If they ever
even agree to hear the case.
(I have been trying to get an estimate of the
total cost but you just wouldn’t believe how hard it is to find.)
But back to the idea that rights are inherent rather than something granted by a society.
The British Philosopher and doctor John Locke stated this natural state of man and the
rights he has very clearly:
Locke defines the state of nature thus:
“To properly understand political power and trace
its origins, we must consider the
state that all people are in naturally. That is a state of perfect freedom of
acting and disposing of their own possessions and persons as they think fit
within the bounds of the law of nature. People in this state do not have to ask
permission to act or depend on the will of others to arrange matters on their
behalf. The natural state is also one of equality in which all power and
jurisdiction is reciprocal and no one has more than another. It is evident that
all human beings – as creatures belonging to the same species and rank and born
indiscriminately with all the same natural advantages and faculties – are equal
amongst themselves. They have no relationship of subordination or subjection”
So do I personally support the right to keep and bear arms? But of course I do. What other option is
there? If you don’t defend that right you may as well give up on the rest.
Because if they take all the guns, do you think they might have a next step
plan in mind like taking away our right to freedom of religion and/or free
speech, right of assembly, right to protection from unreasonable search and
seizure ? (oops, they got that one already. We should make them give it back)
Now as to your statement that a candidates position on 2A is a deciding factor in
your choice of who to support.
I can’t agree with that and this is why.
The decision as to whether these anti gun laws are un-constitutional will not be
made by any President or Politician. That decision is for the Supreme Court. Of
the three branches of our government, I think that they are the least
corruptible. (though I wouldn’t want to risk my life or liberty vouching for
them.) Seriously though, the Supreme Court has an excellent reputation for
integrity though not always so good for their decisions.
They take a dim view of any politician; President or not attempting to influence
their process or decisions.
So if the President has no say in the outcome of a constitutional issue such as
this, I must ask myself why a candidate would seek my support based on that
issue. I must also wonder why an otherwise Conservative politician would
support such a liberal definition of the 2nd amendment.
Because it is a liberal stance. Any position
that tends to give more freedom and defends the rights of the people is by its
very nature Liberal.
Every other policy of the Republican Agenda is designed to give the people less
money; less freedom; and less chance of being defended or taken seriously. The
case In Texas where a sixteen year-old cheerleader was raped at a party by a
star basketball player is a prime example of the kinds of things encouraged and
defended under a Republican Regime:
According to court documents, H.S. was 16 when she was
raped at a house party by one of her school’s star athletes, Rakheem Bolton.
Bolton was arrested, but by pleading guilty to misdemeanor assault, he received
a reduced sentence of probation and community service. Bolton was allowed to
return to school and resume his place on the basketball team. Four months
later, H.S. was cheering with her squad at a game when Bolton lined up to take
a free throw. The squad wanted to do a cheer that included his name, but H.S.
refused, choosing instead to stand silently with her arms folded.
“I didn’t want to have to say his name and I didn’t want to cheer for him,” she later told
reporters. “I just didn’t want to encourage anything he was doing.”
Leading legal scholars have pointed out
that this case is about more than justice for one purported rape victim — it’s a civil rights issue that goes to the heart of students’ right of free speech under the First Amendment. Though
it might seem obvious to most people that H.S. had every right to sit out that
cheer, the lower court insisted that as a cheerleader, she was speaking for the
school and as such had no right to stay silent when coaches told her to applaud
her alleged rapist.
So, again why such a Liberal position on 2A? Because it’s hard to get people to
vote for you if you tell them you want their money, rights, and freedom. It’s
even harder if you tell them that you want them all to change religions and
become a tongue speaking, Holy Rolling Fundamentalist “Christians”.
But it is oh so easy to gain the support of the gun lobby and the NRA and all of
their many members if you just say
you support the right to bear arms. If you think about it, what they have done
is go to a group of people with a Liberal view and say,
“Hey, did you know you are a Conservative?”
“Oh yeh?” says the group.
“Yeeeeeeeh” say the Republicans “You feel like we do about 2A and we’re all Conservatives.
“Oh yeh, you must be right.” “I’ll support you.”
This is an easy issue for them because their position has no weight. It doesn’t
affect the outcome. And so many liberals have a similar misunderstanding of
what Freedom is and what it means. They want gun laws. But what they want, also
has no weight. And will not affect the outcome.
So 2A is a non-political issue for me. I don’t care what the Republican positon is
or the Democratic position. Only the position of those nine justices makes any
difference to me.
So, what else will the Republicans promise you? Maybe they could get some more
votes if they promise to end world hunger (although most of us would be happy
if they just ended it in America). But again. No weight. No affect on the
outcome. How about forgiving our sins? They could support that. Oh wait, there
I go confusing The Republican Part with God again.
Well they have just as much chance of getting our sins forgiven as they do of
upholding our rights under 2A.
Now I have to look at the rest of their agenda. They would make Abortion illegal,
forcing many thousands of women into filthy, unskilled, back-alley abortion
“clinics” and ending amny lives. Not to mention those that live on with
horrible internal injuries and the residual effects of the infections and
disease associated with such places. Puts us back about fifty years and is in
direct conflict and opposition to the essence of the rights of man.
Now I personally don’t like abortion. I don’t understand those who have them
especially as a means of family planning rather than to save the life of the
mother for instance.
But I am an American.
I believe in the rights of man.
I believe in the rights as stated in the
So I know that no matter how much I may think
abortion is wrong, I have no authority to force that belief on any other human
A woman’s decision to have or not have an abortion is strictly between the woman
and her Conscience , God, or whatever Spirit of the Wood she may use as a moral
Sooo, this is problem for me. And just an example of the restrictive…..No, that’s not
strong enough or true enough.
It is just an example of the usual policy and agenda of the Republican Party,
especially in the past twenty years or so. They consistently legislate to deny
the people their rights, take away their money, acquire exemptions from having
to pay taxes for themselves and then move all of that money saved into foreign
investments, tax free investments, trust funds, and every other possible
product that forces the average American to pay more, get less, and participate
in the destruction of his own Nation by being forced to buy Chinese rather than
American because AMERICAN products cost more than they can afford. Then that
money is sent back to China. But not all of it. A big chunk goes right back into
the pockets of those same wealthy Republicans who designed the plan and pushed
their un-American, agenda.
Obama. Likes that gun control. But he also like taxing the wealthy to force them to
put their money back into the American economy and support the American system
as it is supposed to be supported for the benefit of the people. Not the
Republican definition of the people. It’s hard for most of us to understand but
a Wealthy person, no matter his party has to work hard to empathize with those
of lesser means. Some can and usually find their way to the Democratic Party.
Why not? It is the only party that actually tries to help people who need it.
The rest. Those who are not able to connect emotionally with those of lesser means,
usually end up in the Republican Party. (I didn’t make the game; I just calls
it like I sees it.)
That inability to empathize results in a belief that the wealthy Republicans are
somehow above everyone else. They believe in their hearts that they have a God
given superiority and a right to be the moral and constitutional authority over
So I usually am not all that excited by any President. But Obama rings true to me. I
think he is the “real thing” I believe he would make many positive changes for
the people of this country if he weren’t stone walled at every turn by the
unethical, un-American, and actually Treasonous behavior of the Republican
border=”0″ alt=”treason pronunciation” /></a> /ˈtri-zən/
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to
harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith;
I can’t think of another word to describe what the Republican
Members of the House of Representatives have done over the past two years or so
since Barak Obama became president. They have consistently shown nothing but
disrespect for their President and connive to undermine his administration.
But, hey. I’m all on your side where 2A is concerned.
As far as Maryland becoming a Shall Issue State, I’d say you’ll see legal
Marijuana before you see that. And I don’t think it matters who the governor is
or what party controls the state legislature. You were right about Maryland.
It’s a pretty hot issue here. I think that you will find that the smaller and
more densely populated a state is and the more high crime urban areas there are,
the harder it is to get support. And no politician in Maryland from either
party is likely to put up much of a fight for your right to carry, even if they
generally support the idea in theory.
Unless SCOTUS comes down with a favorable decision and strikes down gun control laws
nationwide I’d say you better start looking at real estate in a less densely
It is worthy of note however that SCOTUS did in 2008 rule favorably in the District
of Columbia vs Heller in which the court upheld Mr. Heller’s right to bear arms thus striking
down D.C’s total handgun ban. The real import of this decision is that they
also affirmed the right of the individual to bear arms and extended that ruling
to all 50 states.
In 2010 SCOTUS again ruled favorably in Mc Donald vs. City of Chicago in which the
court struck down Chicago’s gun control law.
Now after reading these two decisions you might think that that would end the
debate and do away with all gun control. But no alas, that apparently is not to
be the case.
Nowr, nowr, nowr,,,,,,,I’m no lawyer or fancy pants constitutional or supreme court
expert but from what I see it looks like each law has to be struck down
individually. I could be wrong and after the Heller decision I don’t understand
why that would be true.
As I gather more knowledge of the intricasies of our courts system, I will no dobt return even more confused than i am now. And I’ll see if I can’t make you just as confused as I am.