Tennessean: Private sale; also, anyone have contact with Bill Goodman re: gun show?

[Smith]

God Bless you in your work Mr Haas, but there are HUGE fallacies therein.

Ten thousand can understand an issue, and three, either idiots or malign, can create an "issue" with two sides. And then, the "issue" must be discussed ad nauseam with both sides of the "issue" getting equal time? That is an intellectual fallacy that the leftists at the helm of the Tennessean affect, and we are not fooled. That's one of the reasons why the circulation of the Tennessean, and other leftist newspapers, is dropping like a rock. It's because ideologically driven publications tend to sing the tune of the idiot and malign three instead of the ten thousand. Well, the ten thousand get their news elsewhere now.

Normal people, well read normal people (perhaps a contradiction in terms), understand clearly the plain language of the Constitution and the Second Amendment. The recent Supreme Court rulings, especially the perspective of brilliant Justice Clarence Thomas, only makes it more clear, and underscores the political history behind the Second Amendment.

The right to free will, the right to self-defense, the right to keep and bear arms, are all natural rights that pre-exist the Constitution, and the drafters of the Constitution clearly acknowledged this. The Constitution did not grant "the right of the people to keep and bear arms;" the Constitution's Second Amendment only clearly acknowledged that the people already have that right, and that it shall not be infringed.

'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

Many of us cry for our nation to have four judges on the Supreme Court make convoluted arguments to the contrary that frankly embarrass the other five judges, twisting their arguments to support an elitist, leftist ideology on which they maintain a death grip in spite of all logic and legality to the contrary. Justice Clarence Thomas in his argument, takes their arguments to pieces.

Regular people retain the free will and the free association necessary to buy and sell firearms, whether they are standing in a gun show marketplace, the parking lot of said marketplace, or in their HOMES, again, under the Second Amendment, which clearly states: ". . . The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." And, the leftist lawyers aren't after the firearms transacted in the marketplace, they are after the firearms transacted in the homes. They cannot go after one without going after the other.

Additionally, for a government, already verging on the tyrannical, to attempt to further restrict firearms, can create an environment in which the soft, elitist words of the most elegant lawyer will not stand up to a punch in the face.

The right to keep and bear arms pre-exists the Constitution, and it doesn't exist to merely and narrowly allow The People to shoot paper targets, or to shoot sporting clays, or to shoot deer. It exists so The People can shoot Burglars in their Homes -- and, the Second Amendment primarily exists so The People can shoot Tyrants in the Public Square. And, the Tyrants, or the proto-Tyrants know this.

That is the primary reason the Tyrants and the proto-Tyrants spend so much time and effort working to neuter the Second Amendment. The Constitution and the Second Amendment have helped hold off the Tyrants for more than two hundred years. And The People, at least normal well read People, know this. And there are more of The People than there are Tyrants.

For a quiet guy you speak loudly!

[hipower]

God Bless you in your work Mr Haas, but there are HUGE fallacies therein.

Ten thousand can understand an issue, and three, either idiots or malign, can create an "issue" with two sides. And then, the "issue" must be discussed ad nauseam with both sides of the "issue" getting equal time? That is an intellectual fallacy that the leftists at the helm of the Tennessean affect, and we are not fooled. That's one of the reasons why the circulation of the Tennessean, and other leftist newspapers, is dropping like a rock. It's because ideologically driven publications tend to sing the tune of the idiot and malign three instead of the ten thousand. Well, the ten thousand get their news elsewhere now.

Normal people, well read normal people (perhaps a contradiction in terms), understand clearly the plain language of the Constitution and the Second Amendment. The recent Supreme Court rulings, especially the perspective of brilliant Justice Clarence Thomas, only makes it more clear, and underscores the political history behind the Second Amendment.

The right to free will, the right to self-defense, the right to keep and bear arms, are all natural rights that pre-exist the Constitution, and the drafters of the Constitution clearly acknowledged this. The Constitution did not grant "the right of the people to keep and bear arms;" the Constitution's Second Amendment only clearly acknowledged that the people already have that right, and that it shall not be infringed.

'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

Many of us cry for our nation to have four judges on the Supreme Court make convoluted arguments to the contrary that frankly embarrass the other five judges, twisting their arguments to support an elitist, leftist ideology on which they maintain a death grip in spite of all logic and legality to the contrary. Justice Clarence Thomas in his argument, takes their arguments to pieces.

Regular people retain the free will and the free association necessary to buy and sell firearms, whether they are standing in a gun show marketplace, the parking lot of said marketplace, or in their HOMES, again, under the Second Amendment, which clearly states: ". . . The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." And, the leftist lawyers aren't after the firearms transacted in the marketplace, they are after the firearms transacted in the homes. They cannot go after one without going after the other.

Additionally, for a government, already verging on the tyrannical, to attempt to further restrict firearms, can create an environment in which the soft, elitist words of the most elegant lawyer will not stand up to a punch in the face.

The right to keep and bear arms pre-exists the Constitution, and it doesn't exist to merely and narrowly allow The People to shoot paper targets, or to shoot sporting clays, or to shoot deer. It exists so The People can shoot Burglars in their Homes -- and, the Second Amendment primarily exists so The People can shoot Tyrants in the Public Square. And, the Tyrants, or the proto-Tyrants know this.

That is the primary reason the Tyrants and the proto-Tyrants spend so much time and effort working to neuter the Second Amendment. The Constitution and the Second Amendment have helped hold off the Tyrants for more than two hundred years. And The People, at least normal well read People, know this. And there are more of The People than there are Tyrants.

Well said ,my brother.

[Mykltn]

All this lovely chatter about the Second Amendment makes me wanna go to the safe and hug my guns!

[QuietDan]

Thank you for the words.

[Guest brianhaas]

I have a little time today, so I'll try and respond to this one in depth.

Ten thousand can understand an issue, and three, either idiots or malign, can create an "issue" with two sides. And then, the "issue" must be discussed ad nauseam with both sides of the "issue" getting equal time?

The answer is yes. If there are matters of policy and facts in dispute, yes. There are not simply three idiots out there who would call for background checks of private sales or even tighter gun restrictions in general. There are well-meaning people on both sides of the issue who feel just as strongly about their particularly position and hold opponents in similar low regard.

That is an intellectual fallacy that the leftists at the helm of the Tennessean affect, and we are not fooled. That's one of the reasons why the circulation of the Tennessean, and other leftist newspapers, is dropping like a rock. It's because ideologically driven publications tend to sing the tune of the idiot and malign three instead of the ten thousand. Well, the ten thousand get their news elsewhere now.

A lot to pick apart here. If we're talking fallacies here, you've got a good ad hominem here going by calling people at The Tennessean "leftists" (unless you mean that as a compliment, which I'm guessing you don't).

Also, circulation is not dropping because of some perceived bias. That view is wholly unsupported by logic and the facts. The fact is, traditional print readers are dying off and being replaced by people who prefer mobile or digital versions. That's not universal -- in fact our Sunday readership, last I checked, has actually grown. But in general, the declines in traditional American newspapers has to do with the fact that we make about 30 cents on the web for every dollar we make in print.

In addition, readership, if you include print, online and mobile readers, is wildly higher than it ever was before the advent of the Internet.

This claim simply does not stack up that people are fleeing papers because of some ideological bent.

Normal people, well read normal people (perhaps a contradiction in terms), understand clearly the plain language of the Constitution and the Second Amendment. The recent Supreme Court rulings, especially the perspective of brilliant Justice Clarence Thomas, only makes it more clear, and underscores the political history behind the Second Amendment.

Demonizing anyone who disagrees with you as not "well read" is another ad hominem. There are very smart people who disagree with the Supreme Court's decision on that, Citizens United and a whole host of cases, in addition to issues of how to interpret the Second Amendment (or First, or Fourth, etc.)

The other thing to consider is that the things you consider self evident and obvious were not self evident and obvious 10, 20 or 30 years ago -- and a future Supreme Court could easily revise the view that the Second Amendment is an individual right (though I doubt it).

The right to free will, the right to self-defense, the right to keep and bear arms, are all natural rights that pre-exist the Constitution, and the drafters of the Constitution clearly acknowledged this. The Constitution did not grant "the right of the people to keep and bear arms;" the Constitution's Second Amendment only clearly acknowledged that the people already have that right, and that it shall not be infringed.

'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

Again, while you think you know the exact meaning of the Founding Fathers on this one, it is a matter of intense debate among some very smart people who know a hell of a lot more about the issue than I do.

Many of us cry for our nation to have four judges on the Supreme Court make convoluted arguments to the contrary that frankly embarrass the other five judges, twisting their arguments to support an elitist, leftist ideology on which they maintain a death grip in spite of all logic and legality to the contrary. Justice Clarence Thomas in his argument, takes their arguments to pieces.

Just keep in mind that folks who disagree with you would say the exact opposite and be just as ardent as you are in your position.

Additionally, for a government, already verging on the tyrannical, to attempt to further restrict firearms, can create an environment in which the soft, elitist words of the most elegant lawyer will not stand up to a punch in the face.

The right to keep and bear arms pre-exists the Constitution, and it doesn't exist to merely and narrowly allow The People to shoot paper targets, or to shoot sporting clays, or to shoot deer. It exists so The People can shoot Burglars in their Homes -- and, the Second Amendment primarily exists so The People can shoot Tyrants in the Public Square. And, the Tyrants, or the proto-Tyrants know this.

That is the primary reason the Tyrants and the proto-Tyrants spend so much time and effort working to neuter the Second Amendment. The Constitution and the Second Amendment have helped hold off the Tyrants for more than two hundred years. And The People, at least normal well read People, know this. And there are more of The People than there are Tyrants.

I'm not going to touch this part, largely because I'm not in a position to offer opinions. But, again, categorizing people who agree with you as "well-read people" and, by insinuation, everyone else as not very well read, is another form of ad hominem attack.

I'm not trying to "stick up" for gun control folks. They can speak on their own. But there's a certain tendency for folks to yell bias whenever competing claims are offered in stories on gun laws. What people on this board "know" to be the truth is no different from the folks who "know" (and note the quotes I use there) that the Second Amendment is far more limited in scope.

And believe me, it's the same on the other side. Plenty of gun control folks are just as willing to demonize people who strongly believe in the Second Amendment. You end up with commie gun grabbers and right-wing gun nuts.

And I have to sort it all out in a fair manner.

I can't take EITHER side for granted when writing stories about these issues. I want to present a fairly even view of the debate, give readers enough information to be informed and then let them make up their own minds on the issue.

I take no stand on which side is right or closer to the truth on the matter. All I can say is, stories that include the other side on issues where there are significant public policy and political disagreements in a public arena are not biased.

It's good journalism.

[Smith]

You kinda made my point. You seem to be implying that there can be no conclusive answer as long as there is opposition. That somehow if there are enough people who ardently argue and are passionate that the sky is forest green despite the facts then we must give them equal share in the discussion and legitimize their grievance. The old "seriousness of the charge" argument. If the facts can't lead to an answer, what is the point of the question and subsequent discussion?

[BigK]

I don't believe newspaper readership is dying off due to bias, but I have heard several people outside Walmart tell the Tennessean solicitors they "wouldn't read that rag, if it were free". I know that's only anecdotal evidence, but I'd bet others have heard it said as well.

Industry statistics are kind of elusive. I can't find any decent stats other than for individual newpapers. Regardless, most I've seen are reporting that online readership isn't growing as fast as print readership is declining. More importantly, the collective readership is declining rapidly vs population growth. I'd take that to mean a) people nowadays are lazy and get news elsewhere and w/ over half the subscribers being over 50 yrs of age, that spells doom unless something changes.

That might mean good night sweet prints.

[Mykltn]

Again, while you think you know the exact meaning of the Founding Fathers on this one, it is a matter of intense debate among some very smart people who know a hell of a lot more about the issue than I do.

Sorry Brian, I have to take exception to this comment. I feel we do know what the intent of the founding fathers where on the issues of the peoples right to keep and bear arms. But just in case, lets ask them.

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

Patrick Henry

American Patriot

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

George Washington

First President of the United States

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

Thomas Paine

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "

Thomas Jefferson

letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Richard Henry Lee

American Statesman, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."

Patrick Henry

American Patriot

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."

Thomas Jefferson

Third President of the United States

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

Alexander Hamilton

The Federalist Papers at 184-8

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

George Mason

Co-author of the Second Amendment

during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"

Richard Henry Lee

writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."

Zachariah Johnson

Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"

Philadelphia Federal Gazette

June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2

Article on the Bill of Rights

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams

quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

Seems pretty evident to me what they meant. Maybe the smart people who are debating against this aren't so smart.

[BigK]

Love the quotes Mykltn! Here's a few more that prove it's not just an American phenomenon:

The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues and tends to foment uprisings.

-Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Shogun 1588

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

- Mahatma Gandhi

Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State.

-Heinrich Himmler

But 2 words say it best:

Molon Labe

- King Leonidas to Xerxes 480 BC

[mikegideon]

Molon Labe

Amen brother!

[Guest lostpass]

You kinda made my point. You seem to be implying that there can be no conclusive answer as long as there is opposition. That somehow if there are enough people who ardently argue and are passionate that the sky is forest green despite the facts then we must give them equal share in the discussion and legitimize their grievance. The old "seriousness of the charge" argument. If the facts can't lead to an answer, what is the point of the question and subsequent discussion?

That is true. Global Warming and Evolution always get the other side treatment even though every reasonable person realizes these things to be true. Cause, you know, science and all. So it works both ways, you'll say it is lazy media when it is an issue you don't agree with but you'll also say both sides must must be presented when it as issue you agree with. Even if you are on the wrong side. Cause, oddly, and weirdly, the argument seems to be coming down to what people want to believe more than what reality tells us.

[MattCary]

Now Mykltn, did you really go and drag up, *gasp* FACTS to support your argument?

You know that's not allowed in this modern, PC world. (Best post I've seen in a while, my friend, well done.)

I'm going to try to follow it up:

#1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Does "the people" mean everyone? Yes.

#4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Does "the people" mean everyone? Yes.

#9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Does "the people" mean everyone? Yes.

So, for the sake of this discussion, can we all agree that "the people" in these Amendments means all individual citizens? Or simplified: everyone?

#2: 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.

So. The "smart people" Brian speaks of must be saying that in the 2nd Amendment, "the people" does not mean everyone. Which is interesting, because it does in the other Amendments in which "the people" is used.

There is no magic in the language of the Constitution. It was written so that anyone who could read, could read and understand it. And the quotes Mykltn listed illustrate that we can see the intent of the founders.

Mr. Haas, I appreciate that you look to this and probably other forums for input and quotes for your articles. I even read them to see how it all translates, and it seems that you do so fairly and with the best of intentions. You, as an individual reporter, have my respect, to the extreme that I will venture to the Tennessean website to read them.

But, you work for a liberal rag.

I would submit to you that if every member of this Forum signed a petition and sent it to the Tennessean stating that we believe the sky is not blue, but is, indeed, forest green, that the Tennessean would not run articles presenting our beliefs as credible, but would dismiss us as lunatics.

This is because we would be wrong. The sky is blue.

Just because certain folks don't like the 2nd Amendment, doesn't change what it says, or what it protects. It doesn't require "interpretation." It says what it says.

If they went after the 1st Amendment like they do the 2nd. I promise that you, as a reporter, would, indeed, pick a side.

[Smith]

That is true. Global Warming and Evolution always get the other side treatment even though every reasonable person realizes these things to be true. Cause, you know, science and all. So it works both ways, you'll say it is lazy media when it is an issue you don't agree with but you'll also say both sides must must be presented when it as issue you agree with. Even if you are on the wrong side. Cause, oddly, and weirdly, the argument seems to be coming down to what people want to believe more than what reality tells us.

Haha, might want to check your "science" and the term "theory". You are also assuming you know my world and life view from one topic. I'm arguing for facts not opinion and scientific theories are an entirely different scholastic endeavor. Kinda like the every reasonable 15th century person knew the earth was flat and that the sun circled the earth. Cause you know, science and all.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Smith

[mikegideon]

Please don't turn this thread into one of THOSE.

[TMF]

I take no stand on which side is right or closer to the truth on the matter. All I can say is, stories that include the other side on issues where there are significant public policy and political disagreements in a public arena are not biased.

It's good journalism.

Thanks again. Many of us do realize that if this was an effort to create a biased story then you wouldn't be here collecting data for it.

Sorry Brian, I have to take exception to this comment. I feel we do know what the intent of the founding fathers where on the issues of the peoples right to keep and bear arms. But just in case, lets ask them.

And yes, I agree here wholeheartedly. I think of the Second Amendment in the same way I think of having to lock my locker when I was in Basic Training... it keeps folks honest. The only Amendment that guarantees all the rest of them is the Second; it keeps the Government honest... mostly.

[Guest brianhaas]

That is true. Global Warming and Evolution always get the other side treatment even though every reasonable person realizes these things to be true. Cause, you know, science and all. So it works both ways, you'll say it is lazy media when it is an issue you don't agree with but you'll also say both sides must must be presented when it as issue you agree with. Even if you are on the wrong side. Cause, oddly, and weirdly, the argument seems to be coming down to what people want to believe more than what reality tells us.

Yes. See confirmation bias, something that appears to be more and more a part of our popular society: Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -- hell, the Wikipedia article even uses gun control as an example.

And to the folks who point to their own personal interpretations of the Second Amendment, you have to realize that the U.S. Supreme Court JUST IN 2010 recognized it as an individual right. This is not something that has been settled for years. It is something of vigorous political and legal debate for a long time now.

I guarantee that if you asked someone about some of these issues in the late 60s after the wave of political assassinations or in the 80s in the height of the crack epidemic, there would be a lot more folks who were comfortable with ideas of a limited Second Amendment.

Just because you guys believe you know the intents of the founders (and believe me, the other side will bust out just as many quotes from them on these issues), does not mean that it is a settled political or legal phenomenon TODAY. Hell, there's even vigorous debate as to how much credence we should give the Founding Fathers (originalism vs. "living document").

And, even if you do believe it it settled, there is A LOT of room for gray areas when it comes to regulations.

Even the Supreme Court said there are limits to the Second Amendment -- "reasonable exceptions" I believe was the phrasing. What is reasonable? Is it reasonable to ban guns in Washington, D.C.? Obviously not. But is it reasonable to force background checks on everyone who buys one?

I have no idea. But these issues are far from being settled.

[mikegideon]

They won't ever be settled.

[Guest brianhaas]

They won't ever be settled.

Exactly! What I'm kinda trying to do here is chip away at the idea I sometimes run into, which is, writing anything surrounding issues of gun control somehow equals bias, when instead it represents real conflicts on issues of importance. You can apply that to a whole host of hot-button political issues like gay marriage, global warming, abortion, etc.

Media outlets tend to have a bias toward conflict and debate, so when it exists, we write about it. It isn't to sensationalize -- I've never benefited from a story that got more clicks or "sold more papers" -- but to illustrate issues that are an important part of our current civic debate.

The stories are aimed largely at folks who haven't yet made their minds up about issues or aren't familiar enough to have made up their mind.

[mikegideon]

Fortunately, we're winning in the area of public opinion. Our only real threat, in this part of the country, is from people that are appointed, not elected.

[Guest gunnutt]

In my interpretation of the 2nd ammendmant it says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,which means we have the right already from birth,which means it could only come from one place,GOD!!!! thats all I need to know I dont care what politicians say!!!

john

[Smith]

Exactly! What I'm kinda trying to do here is chip away at the idea I sometimes run into, which is, writing anything surrounding issues of gun control somehow equals bias, when instead it represents real conflicts on issues of importance. You can apply that to a whole host of hot-button political issues like gay marriage, global warming, abortion, etc.

Media outlets tend to have a bias toward conflict and debate, so when it exists, we write about it. It isn't to sensationalize -- I've never benefited from a story that got more clicks or "sold more papers" -- but to illustrate issues that are an important part of our current civic debate.

The stories are aimed largely at folks who haven't yet made their minds up about issues or aren't familiar enough to have made up their mind.

While fundamentaly I still disagre with some of the premises of the arguement, you have represented yourself well. Personally I think we've had a good discussion. Keep it up.

[Mykltn]

And to the folks who point to their own personal interpretations of the Second Amendment, you have to realize that the U.S. Supreme Court JUST IN 2010 recognized it as an individual right. This is not something that has been settled for years. It is something of vigorous political and legal debate for a long time now.

Just because you guys believe you know the intents of the founders (and believe me, the other side will bust out just as many quotes from them on these issues), does not mean that it is a settled political or legal phenomenon TODAY. Hell, there's even vigorous debate as to how much credence we should give the Founding Fathers (originalism vs. "living document").

Supreme Court rulings involving the Second Amendment as it pertains to an individuals rights.

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). This was the first case in which the Supreme Court had the opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment. The Court recognized that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was a right which existed prior to the Constitution when it stated that such a right "is not a right granted by the Constitution."

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886). Although the Supreme Court affirmed the holding in Cruikshank that the Second Amendment, standing alone, applied only to action by the federal government, it nonetheless found the states without power to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, holding that "the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."

Presser, moreover, plainly suggested that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment and thus that a state cannot forbid individuals to keep and bear arms.

United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990). This case involved the meaning of the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment. The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people" means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States. This case thus resolves any doubt that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right.

Seems we have had this discussion before. The opinions are the same, only the losers change. There is a reason the founding fathers called them "The Bill Of Rights". Not the Bill of guildlines, or rules, or even laws. They labeled them as "Rights".

Edited January 20, 2012 by Mykltn

[midtennchip]

Brian:

I read your article this morning and you did I good job. My only suggestion is that it would have been nice to see you challenge some of the statements from Mr. Glaze. Specifically, the statements he made in your last paragraph are demonstratably false. To suggest that these background check issues would stop the next Jared Loughner or Virginia Tech massacre is fear-mongering. Loughner did, in fact, pass a background check (see Arizona Suspected Gunman Passed FBI Background Check | Fox News ), as did the VT shooter. If they think background checks work to stop these things, why didn't they work for these two.

Rather than focus exclusively on the alleged "loophole," as the Mayors' group wants, I would love to have seen you at least challenge their reasoning for pushing this stuff.

Thanks,

Chip

[daddyo]

Sorry, but quoting idiots like Adam Dread, who know NOTHING about self-defense and responsible carry, does nothing for the credibility of the article. I didn't even bother to read the rest of it when I saw his name.

FAIL.

[Mike.357]

Disappointing.