RSS 2.0 FeedOn the Second Amendment
by Jason PyeOne of the contributors over at Peach Pundit is showing a very limited knowledge of both the Constitution and the intent Founding Fathers with the Second Amendment with this post on the Second Amendment and a gun ban in Washington, DC.
The District is arguing that the Second Amendment is a collective right. But one of the judges responses to that is great:
“Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second Amendment the way you do,” Judge Laurence Silberman said. “It doesn’t appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century.”
I typically enjoy banter with Decatur Guy, but I cannot express into words how wrong he is on the issue of gun ownership. He says he supports gun ownership, but says that this is “good regulation” and somehow believes that if all guns in the District are banned that criminals and drug dealers will stop using them. That is naive.
The Second Amendment is there, not just to keep government in check, but it’s for personal protection as well. It grants both the states to keep armed militias and the individual citizens the right to keep arms to guard against threats to their life, liberty and property, whether it be from government or criminal.
The controversy over constitutional rights given by amendments avoids the obvious … that “amend” means change … an amendment was a change our forefathers deemed necessary at the time.
Comment by Richard Barrett — December 8, 2006 @ 2:48 pmTo say we cannot change a change is an argument that needs to be changed.
Amendments are part of the Constitution. Setting aside the fact that the Second is part of the Bill of Rights and for all intents and purposes part of the original Constitution, Constitutional Amendments, regardless of their number, ARE part of the Constitution. If you want to change it, get another Constitutional Amendment. Until the Amendment passes, the Second Amendment means exactly what it says.
Comment by mike — December 8, 2006 @ 3:37 pmDrug dealers and criminals will not stop being what they are. The ban will not work and will be lifted by spring. The main point of the second amendment was meant to give citizens the RIGHT to defend themselves against invading armies, tresspasers and Indians. The amendment also gives citizens the right to defend themselves. If the amendment is taken away who’s going to be able to defend the country if we are attacked and and loose part of the country, no one (without the amendment). That is why we need to keep this amendment in the constitution. Also many hunters like I are going to be very upset and protest the ban on gun ownership (if amendment is banned). Like I said who will help defend the peice of nation under foreign rule if that ever happens. That would be us, you and I. The everyday citizens of america.
Comment by Josh — December 12, 2006 @ 9:06 am