The Second Amendment, the Supreme Court and 2012

[Cord Byrd]

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in McDonald v. Chicago, a landmark decision that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states, I cautioned gun owners and constitutionalists that the battle is not over and that the opponents of liberty will not abandon their goal of taking away the right to keep and bear arms.  Now we have the proof.

Speaking at a fundraiser event for the President, Michelle Obama said, “In just 13 months, we’re going to make a choice that will impact our lives for decades to come…let’s not forget what it meant when my husband appointed those two brilliant Supreme Court justices…let’s not forget the impact their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come.”

Recently, Time magazine asked recently retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens what he would fix about the American judicial system. Stevens' response:  "I would make all my dissents into majority opinions. 

But then Time asked Stevens to single out one issue in particular, and he said, "I would change the interpretation of the Second Amendment." Referring to the Court's decisions in the Heller and McDonald cases that the Second Amendment protects individuals from federal, state and local infringements on their right to possess and carry arms, he added "The court got that quite wrong."

In his dissent in Heller, Stevens claimed that "there is no indication that the Framers of the [Second] Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution." And in his dissent in McDonald, he claimed that even if one assumed the Fourteenth Amendment protects a general right to self-defense, that didn't mean that a person has a right to have a handgun. As if to suggest some logic to his theory, Stevens said "while some might favor handguns, it is not clear that they are a superior weapon for lawful self-defense."

The next president will likely appoint at least two new justices.  A second Obama term will tip the 5-4 balance to the progressive side.  Once we get through the Republican primary squabble it is imperative that constitutionalists rally around the nominee if for no other reason than to ensure that supposedly least dangerous branch won’t become the opposite. 

 

[DURWIN WALTER DAVIS]

It obvious, R&T, you've never encountered an independent thinker before.  It is amusing how you utilize the demorat-commie boxing technique; won't work on me.  No, I'm outside any of your boxes, and now that I look back on your posts, I don't remember your endorsing anyone.  You're trying to sell the "Heritage Foundation" as the premier think tank, predicated on the base that it was a Ronald Reagan holy site.  Well I didn't like the way Ronald Reagan put his tail between his legs and ran from the 260 casualties (dead) from the Marines he placed in Beiruit.  Syria ran his tookus out of their like a coward.  I'm certain the Marines and their families felt differently.  The Heritage foundation is a "retreat" for RINOs and rockefeller republicans.  Yes; Rick Perry made a few mistakes, but overall his three terms have been the only bright spot in this country for that period of time.  The USA WILL DESERVE THE GOVERNMENT IT GETS.

[DURWIN WALTER DAVIS]

Nice presentation, R&T.  Did Soros package and deliver that to you?  I've seen you use it before for one of the other "contributors" of this page.  I'm glad to know Ricky will check out all the options first.  Spit Romney is yours once you buy and pay for him.  If he's got Juan McCain's endorsement, he'll probably follow McCain's advice on how not to challenge hussein obama and hog-tie your VP running mate.  Can't wait for Axelrod to tear into "pretty-boy" Romney.  McCain can't do anything; control his traitorous daughter, Keep his spouses duck-mouth shut and prevent the leaks he's the poster-child RINO.  He's been replaced now by Spit Romney.  Get the old dancing jackass off the stage.  I would staunchly support Rick Santorum, except he's an Alexander Hamilton Federalist.  Dislikes the Tenth Amendment.  This time period reminds me of the book of Jeremiah in the bible.  Nebudchenezzar is now called Achmadenijad and no one here can see it.  The USA deserves the government it gets.

[DURWIN WALTER DAVIS]

Well, R&T, I just listened to Juan McCain & his younger dumber brother Spit Romney do a "generalized love-fest" on one of the FNC broadcasts and not ONE WORD was mentioned about OUR BORDERS, CRIMINAL INVADERS, or anything else of substance.  What's left is sooo disappointing, I'm desparately starting to like Perry.  At least Perry is home grown and not of the carpetbagging rockefeller republicans such as the Bushes and the Romneys.  Spit Romney is George's son. No, not Bush; George Romney, ex governor of Michigan.  The Northeast Bankers have won.  The working guy's candidates have been executed.  Look at "New Hampshire"; its not a republican primary where anybody registered irregardless of party can vote!  Yessir!!!  No manipulation there.  They ought to place hussein obama and the donald trump on the ballot as well.  If you're going to manipulate, do it well!!!

[DURWIN WALTER DAVIS]

...and think of the money I will not spend on any of the electoriates.  Excepting the tax money obama will use giving out "grants" for kickbacks.  I've said it before...the USA deserves the government it gets.

[DURWIN WALTER DAVIS]

I am thankful that I don't have to listen to anymore rhetorical bullwinkle from any of the candidates.  The rockefeller republicans have won.  It is only incrementally better than the demorats.  I will vote in November, if I'm here, and it'll be easy to do; just without any hope.

[Cord Byrd]

More recently,  Santorum has warned against "the 10th amendment run amok."  Rick is a lawyer, I would like him to explain where the Founder's were wrong on the 10th Amendment and why the powers not granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution should NOT, in his opinion, be left to the states and to the people. 

The Founders wanted the Constitution (i.e. law) to restrain men, not use the power of the presidency to impose their own morality, even if I happen to agree with it. I would have trouble supporting someone who does not believe or trust in the federal republic established by Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington et.al.

[Cord Byrd]

I am dismayed by the Tea Party's ( I use that term generically and not specifically to FCTP) support for Rick Santorum. In the Club for Growth's words he is, "plagued by the big-spending habits that Republicans adopted during the Bush years of 2001-2006." He was a strong supporter of dairy subsidies, voted for Medicare Part D and the 2005 highway bill, and was responsible for a host of earmarks. Both in and out of office, his support for spending cuts dims when the military budget is on the table.

Sen. Santorum voted for the Sarbanes-Oxley law that he now wants to repeal. He also backed steel tariffs and was a player in the GOP's corporatist lobby the K Street Project.

On personal liberty he says this : "This idea that people should be able to go and do whatever they want and it doesn't really matter as long as it doesn't hurt anybody, that's not our founders' view of freedom."

Can someone please make the case for Rick Santorum and explain why I am wrong about him, because all I see from his record and his own words is a "Big Government Conservative" whose rhetoric has not matched his actions.

[DURWIN WALTER DAVIS]

First, the "caucus process" is the most favored "nominating"process by the communistas.  The Democratic party loves it also.  Without going into depth on the "mechanics of the procedure", just realize it is a system that can be controlled by a very small, dedicated cell group.  How else are the Jesse Jacksons and "rainbow coalition" able to function together?  Secondly, its "seminary demorats" that have switched for the primary only to aid and abed Ron Paul.  I hope he is encouraged with these false and inflated numbers from Iowa that he will break off and become a candidate for the Libertarian Party.  The last Libertarian that ran garnered every bit 0f 00001.1% of votes cast.  Thirdly, Iowa as a voting "giant" is a joke.  Huntsman (who is just another shade of Ron Paul) was the only intelligent one when he decided to bypass/detour Iowa.  I personally like Santorum, Bachmann, and Perry.  Romney, Gingrich, are too "Rockefeller Republican"; like Lugar, Snowe, and Collins.  I think we'd have more fun with Perry as Prez., and Santorum as V.P.  Santorum would give those demorat senators the "whatfor".  What do you think???

[Christy]

I would like to know what a Vietnam Vet thinks about the "Don't Tell Don't Ask".  I would like to know how Vet Councils and Groups feel about soldiers having sex in the bunks next to them and who r the ones sitting and clapping for Obama everytime he shows up?r they all clapping because they r gay?  I support soldiers but it is really  getting hard, the good ones wull suffer for the bad ones.  I would like to see straight soldiers who hve. left the armed forces march on DC and let us hear what they have to say.

[Christy]

From Ken Stump's comment, guess we best read the second amendt. we r ten years away frm. making a change in Sodom and Gomorrah DC so I do think million person marches is the only way, get to DC and at least give it a shot or sit home on the computer.  If I was younger I would be as close to the white house (OUR HOUSE) every day.  Someone should start a group to demonstrate every day, take turns standing for ALL our rights.