There doesn’t seem to be a chance of any of the candidates running for president among the remaining group going wobbly on issue of gun control. The primary race has mostly seen them crawling all over themselves to demonstrate how much more they support banning and confiscating firearms and limiting the right to own and use them than their competitors.
Which makes you wonder why a New Yorker writer felt it necessary to remind them and her hoplophobic readers what a sure-fire winning issue gun control is in the modern Democrat party.
Nor do the courts pose an insurmountable obstacle to sensible gun laws. It’s true that the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller established an individual’s right to keep a gun in the home, outside the context of the “well-ordered militia” stipulated in the Second Amendment. It was an extraordinary reinterpretation of the Court’s previous jurisprudence on guns.
In 1991, the conservative former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger, referring to the expansionist view of the Second Amendment that Heller later enshrined, called it “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
The retired Justice John Paul Stevens published a book last summer, shortly before his death, in which he called Heller, a 5–4 ruling whose majority opinion was written by Antonin Scalia, “unquestionably the most clearly incorrect decision that the Supreme Court announced during my tenure on the bench.”
But even Heller contained important caveats and, partly because of them, in the years since, state courts have upheld the vast majority of gun-safety laws they’ve been asked to rule on. (Last week, for the first time in nearly a decade, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a Second Amendment case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, New York. But, because the city had repealed the law before the case came before the Court—lifting the restrictions that the gun-owner plaintiffs in the case objected to—it may be moot, and therefore unlikely to yield a substantive ruling.)
In Heller, the Court noted examples of the kinds of constraints that would be “presumptively lawful”—“laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” for example, or those banning guns in certain public places. “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” Scalia wrote. It is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Those are words that gun lobbyists often choose to forget, though they were written by a man who must be a hero to them. The Democrats still running for President shouldn’t let them forget. Stronger gun laws are popular and necessary—and they’re also constitutional.
– Margaret Talbot in The 2020 Democrats and the New Politics of Gun Violence
I find it interesting how that Mr. Thomas Jefferson had a totally different viewpoint on the subject:
“Our Revolution commenced on more favorable ground. It presented us an album on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no occasion to search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or to investigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry. We appealed to those of nature, and found them engraved on our hearts. Yet we did not avail ourselves of all the advantages of our position. We had never been permitted to exercise self-government. When forced to assume it, we were novices in its science. Its principles and forms had entered little into our former education. We established however some, although not all its important principles. The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.”–Thomas Jefferson To Major John Cartwright, Monticello, June 5, 1824. [The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.]
“that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed”
Who are we going to believe? One of the men instrumental in founding our Constitutional Republic, or a traitor dressed up in a black robe? Think I’ll stick with Mr. Jefferson’s take on the subject.
I wish the republicans represented the founding fathers in politics. Nice quote.
Indeed, We The People need to get representatives that actually represent us. As well as uphold and defend our Constitution as it was originally intended.
That will never happen unless we move to get corporations out of politics.
We, the people, need to quit letting ourselves get duped by professional politicians and biased media that lead us to vote for those individuals. We need us, the people to begin running and support us, the people. We need to take over offices, first with towns and states and then higher government through elections. When someone runs who is not a politician, we need to support them. Let the nation see that it can be done. As it falls into place and we, the people, take the government over, cut the purse strings of the past politicians and eliminate their pensions and health care. You serve and you leave as a servant to the people. Oh, they will fight tooth and nail but the courts best realize that it is the people speaking. If we do not succeed, we will end up in a civil war that will be more devastating than the last one and I truly don’t want to see that.
Very good points indeed. And it is possible if enough of us are united. They have spent decades purposefully dividing us, and that must stop. As John Marshall had stated: United we stand, divided we fall.
Biatec-It was illuminating to see how both parties belive in surrendering Liberty for false government security. It is not that hard to understand why we younger generations are fighting to get our rights back, that previous generations party factions traded to advance their party faction, at the cost of the Constitution. Conservatives and liberals think it is okay for cops to murder us Citizens simply because we are armed, which is in direct conflict with the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd is like a tie in baseball where use of forcemgoes to the Citizen, and not the government employee.
A cop pointing a gun at me will make me raise my arms above my head and drop to my knees, as the cop will only have that one chance to dictate the tempo.
The 2nd Amendment means I get to meet that Constitution violating cop at a time of my choosing when they are off duty, and it would be legal for me to point a gun at them, since they would be armed.
“The 2nd Amendment means I get to meet that Constitution violating cop at a time of my choosing when they are off duty, and it would be legal for me to point a gun at them, since they would be armed.”
Whatever you’re smoking, can I have some from your bag?
Good quote. I also like how our tyrannical court will often cite precedent from court rulings from before the country existed, going so far back as to cite the English courts in the medieval era. A number of justices have no respect American sovereignty and do not recognize the American Revolution.
Lets not forget in 2012 when Ruthie told an Egyptian TV station that she would not recommend the U.S. Constitution as a model for Egypt’s new government.
The problem, you see, is that the U.S. Constitution is “a rather old constitution.” Ginsburg suggested that Egyptians should look instead to the Constitution of South Africa or perhaps the European Convention on Human Rights. All these are “much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.”
You want impeachment? She should have been immediately removed for those words. Or wait is she not covered by free speech? Wonder if her precious South African Constitution would protect her treasonous ways?
.
.
Read more here; https://www.dailysignal.com/2012/02/08/justice-ginsburg-i-would-not-look-to-the-u-s-constitution/
The U.S. system of common law was rooted in English common law, so U.S. courts have been looking at English common law from before the founding for the entire life of the Republic.
Now if they were citing French or German common law, that would be out of bounds.
Thank you for sharing this sir. Wonderful quote!
You are more than welcome!
But, look how safe it is in ” gun free zones”.
Veritable shooting galleries,with little to no chance of being stopped of ones evil deeds.
I find the above excerpt odd and even what scalia said confusing in that it was legal on a Federal level to own pretty much any type of fire arm from 1791 to 1934 when the NFA was enacted, (Please correct me if im off base snd not every fire arm was protected). Not only that, its my understanding as well that NFA was more a commerce law than any anti gun law BECAUSE they couldnt legaly override 2A due to its constitutional security.
The more i read on this specific subject the less i understand as to how these anti gun laws are legal in relation to how we treat tge rest of the Bill or Rights. These types of banning laws do not exist for any other ammendemnt. As it has been stated on these pages a million times, “imagine banning a class of people from being able to vote, or needing special IDs or background checks, etc.” Yet for guns we allow layer upon layer of law to suffocate 2A.
Im not some gun nut, i have 4 guns 3 of which were given to me by my father in law 4 months ago. I am reading tons of books and articles on this topic now and the basic question of how thos is possible in relation to the other rights boggles my mind….
They will never stop until the day comes when Patriots rise up amd show them the error of their ways. Its going to happen
My friend read in full the federalist papers and the 2nd Amendment primer by Les Adams.
or here are some cliff notes
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/second-amendment-primer/
None of the so called Gun Acts or 1934 or 1965 even of 1986 are legal constitutionally.
But who are we the little people to fight the swamp that has always existed. And always will.
Any moron should know what “Shall Not Be Infringed” means in any form of English.
Billy Bubber,the Horny Hick would beg to differ with that line of thought,it’s fine and dandy if the Commiecrat’s want to loose.
Laws infringing upon American gun ownership and carrying originate from the fear and outrage over criminal acts. This fear imposes a loss of Reason, a failure of logic as to cause and effect of violent and wrongful deeds. For those desperate to prevent a repeat of some terror, the symbolism of the gun is far easier for the troubled mind to grab hold of than is the banning of a rental truck, a common kitchen knife or sacks of agricultural fertilizer.
The modern gun control movement was born of a series of terrors. Prohibition fed the Gangster Era of the Great Depression. Organized Crime and the assassinations (or attempts) of the 1960’s thru 1980’s pumped up the volume.
Right now there are polls and popular acceptance of moderate to left leaning political activists indicating that the moment to seize their fantasy solution and run with it is upon them. I thinjk them wrong in their interpretation, likely to fail.
The wild card has to be Trump. He is no friend to anyone and sufficiently outrageous that predicting his impact on the 2020 Presidential Silly Season is a crap shoot. I lean toward thinking he will get that second term. I lean toward thinking that the success of the Federalist Society in picking Federal Judges will have the most positive impact on defending and restoring our natural and Constitutional gun rights.
Even so, that’s the short to near term. Over the long term the short shortsightedness of the pro-gun side will see losses. Demographic shifts and a failure of the pro-gun side to adapt will build eventually to a reversal of our fortunes.
I wonder why Democrats are so eager to adopt new policies that will result in even more young black men in prison even though they had not even been accused of doing anything wrong.
Did Democrats abandon their campaign against mass incarceration?
YAY new yorker, bury them, bury them all…
To be fair to the gun grabbers, in Thomas Jefferson’s time, only men that held land could vote. I do not know about firearms, but I do know that slaves could be armed only by their masters’ decree, women may not have been able to be lawfully armed and men that did not own land only owned weapons as hunting tools, since they were very expensive. I suspect that a transient with a firearm would be given the hairy eyeball in any community.
Keep in mind that, even though it’s been lost in modern times, “arms” covers all weapons, not just firearms. It wasn’t uncommon for people to carry large knives or even swords for protection.
They have the example of Clinton’s impeachment’s that only made the Presidents party stronger .
They have the example that gun control has led to election losses.
Yet the Dems are unable to help themselves and continue with losing strategies.
Good!
The only problem is what will we do after Trumps second term?
The Republicans have no one else like him
Niki Haley
We need to get a rancher from a free state to run for president. A real man with a real job, not a figurehead or a billionaire from New York City, or any other big city for that matter.
I’ve always said we need a business man in the White House…..Oh Hey look, we finally got one and look how Great America is AGAIN.
The only problem is we need a “Man” like him in the WH for the next 20 yrs & eliminate all the non-Americans in Congress!!! The ones trying to destroy America, “The Democraps”.
The founders envisioned a citizenry well versed in the use of arms that would be ready to assemble when needed. What better way to accomplish that than to have families that trained each generation in the use of arms using the arms individually owned and at there disposal at all times? Dare I say it? They wanted a “gun culture.” The way I read the Federalist papers, the use of individually owned firearms is entirely within the context of establishing a “well regulated militia.”
In teaching your citizens to make use of that instrument which they should understand. A man wears out his gun in learning to take aim at an enemy; for if he learn to shoot at smaller marks, he will not miss his enemy when he has occasion to shoot at one. I have heard the same argument used against a boy using his book, because by so doing, he might soil it; to avoid which it was covered up so nicely that it could not be opened; as is the case in some libraries arranged for show, and the arms in our arsenals. If you look at them you will find them very nice, not soiled in the least–because no one uses them. But I do not choose to have to look at like a library so finely bound and gilt that it is not calculated for use; I would have them so that they can be used—for the child to learn as well as the father, and by the time he comes of age he will understand their use as well as the father himself.–Mr. John Randolph, U.S. House of Representatives, April 16, 1808. [The National Intelligencer And Washington Advertiser. [volume], August 22, 1808. Pg. 2]
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045242/1808-08-22/ed-1/seq-2/
The “New Yorker”? Is that rag still around?
A GFs Mom back in the ’80s (college Professor at Iona College) was a subscriber, I tried to read a few articles, was NOTHING but padentic drivel.
Figures her Mom liked it, upper, UPPER crust Scarsdale NY type, and TOTALLY CLUELESS.
The GF and I used to drift around the pool hanging on opposite sides of a large pool float while screwing underwater with her parents only a few feet away. They never figured it out even once.
Next level clueless.
SCOTUS justices speaking politically about the Second Amendment are the frauds. I have yet to see a philosophical reason why a law-abiding citizenry should ever be disarmed and that includes nothing from those frauds.
“It’s true that the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller established an individual’s right to keep a gun in the home, outside the context of the “well-ordered militia” stipulated in the Second Amendment. It was an extraordinary reinterpretation of the Court’s previous jurisprudence on guns.”
They honestly believe that the Heller, McDonald, et. all decisions were an aberration, an outlier.
If the ‘NY Pistol’ decision goes heavily in our favor, they are gonna freak out. Ordinarily, I’m all for a Leftist flipping out, in this case, they are gonna leverage their feigned ‘outrage’ into votes in November.
Angered people *vote*. We used our outrage over ‘ObamaCare’ being rammed down our throats to retake the House in 2010, and that spilled over to the state houses. To the tune of about 1,000 seats flipped conservative nationwide, when all was said and done.
2 can play at that game. They can just as easily use that against us…
These are the same people who had no problem misinterpreting the constitution to permit killing the unborn. Stevens lived too long and was a horrible justice. For him to call Heller what he do shows how lucky we are he’s gone and Clinton isn’t picking judges.
I can only hope all the contenders get an “ACK-MED” by their Jihadi friends!
Margaret Talbot makes the mistake of thinking that poll numbers actually equate to the political support that a position has. Certainly numbers are important but so is intensity of belief. When support for gun control, is a mile wide much of it is only an inch deep. Even if “A Fox News poll taken in August, after the killings in El Paso and Dayton, showed that two-thirds of Americans favor a ban on assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons” very few of those people are willing to put the effort into enacting such a ban as we are in opposing it!
Trump has been a 100 per cent fake. As a New Yorker he has always been deep down rabidly anti-gun. If he is re-elected he will go with the anti-gun crowd and most shockingly the Republicans are aware that the majority of their constituents (90 Per Cent) want a universal back ground check law and with it they will probably throw in safe storage laws as well. They know if they want reelected they must pass some gun control laws.
If we have a Democratic President (99 1/2 per cent possibility) this only doubles the possibility of more gun control laws after the 2020 elections. Yes it looks grim indeed.
“Trump has been a 100 per cent fake.”
Then why did the Leftists flip out over his two SCOTUS picks?
So…What democrat’s are really saying Is “I can’t wait to start collecting UN-employment the day after election day…..Cuz I’m retarded.(Insert dictionary definition here), no insult was Intended towards the actual mentally disabled, I’m not comparing you to Democrats.
We Americans have a grave and great responsibility to elect truthful, moral, and highly intelligent Men and Women into those sacred offices of leadership. When we stop electing those who care nothing for These United States of America,,,,,,,,,then we won’t have to continue to defend the Constitution from their assaults.
” elect truthful, moral, and highly intelligent Men and Women ”
Exactly the sort of person that wouldn’t even think about running for office.
@mz talbot
Please explain to me in simple kings english how any of these so called “sensible gun laws”, or any gun laws are constitutional.
Any law that makes it illegal for me to protect myself , my family, my property, and the Constitution of the United States, any where in the US, is unconstitutional on it’s face. Or I swore allegiance to the wrong fricken country.