2nd Amendment

[n]

In my opinion we will never see the 2nd amendment argued before the Supreme Court. If it were to be heard things like the federalist papers would have to be admitted into evidence. The federalist papers explain the opinions and beliefs of the founding fathers when they wrote the constitution. The amendments further expressed their opinions and beliefs about why they took the stance that they did. If all things from that time period are taken into evidence and account the 2nd amendment will be upheld. When the 2nd amendment is upheld people will find that at least half of what our goverment does and tries to do is against the wishes of our founding fathers.
Do you agree that they meant for us to be taxed to support governments of foreign nations? Do you think our founding fathers meant for us to be the policemen of the world? We are almost at the point of taxation without representation that our forefathers fought a war over for independence. Yes, I know, we get to vote occassionally. Our politicians abandon us as soon as the votes are talleyed. Most politicians are in politics for a career. I do not think polotics were meant to be a career. I think our government meant for people to serve their fellow citizens then let someone else have a chance. Oh well ...... enough of my soap boxing.
Believe me ... you will never see the 2nd amensment argued before the supreme court.
Nighthunter

[felix]

Nor the 16th amendment which keeps them safe and sound. ... felix

[DonH]

Nighthunter;

I agree with your assessments of the 2nd Amendment and the reasons for it as stated by the various Founding fathers. It was in fact viewed by several Colonies as being so important that they would not ratify the Constitution without it's inclusion. Many in fact thought the right to keep and bear arms as more important than freedom of speech. However, it is my earnest belief that the 2nd Amendment will die without ever having to be ruled on by the Supreme Court or by amendment of the Constitutiion. It will die because we, the people, find the real reason for it's inclusion to abhorrent for contemplattion.
Our system of government is based on the Power resting in the people. In practice this power rests in the right to vote for those who will represent us in our replublican government. At the most basic level though, the power of the people to insure that the government does not usurp it's powers rests in the ability of the people to resist. The right to keep and bear arms as a People equqtes to the right of the individual to defend his/her person. My belief is that because we find this idea so abhorrent, so filled with fear of the unknown, that we will (and in fact already have) surrender this right without the process due it. Once we abandon our ultimate line of defense against tyrannical government all that is left to us is to hope in the good will and intentiions of those we vote fo.
Not everyone will agree with this, especially our friends from other countries and that is fine. Nor can they because they,unlike myself for instance, do not claim Revolutionary ancestors who became "armed thugs" to help bring about this experiment in self-government. Benjamin Franklin, perhaps the most insightful of the Founding Fathers, is claimed to have said. " Those who will sacrifice liberty for safety deserve niether." Rights, and liberties, once surrendered are rarely regained. If we surrender the right to keep and bear arms, the rest of our Constitution is just literature!

Vote, vote; by all means Vote! But never surrender easily your standing and rights among the People. After all, The Constitution begins with "We, the People, rather than We, the Members of Government!

[Pilgrim]

The founding fathers could not have conceived of the media as it now exists. The Fifth Estate (media) are able to hide behind the 1st Amendment without any checks and balances. The consequence of this is that all our statesmen (and women) are not willing to enter into the political arena, or have been destroyed by it. To be a statesman you have to have principals that form the basis of your belief system and that be
lief system controls everything you say and do. If you have principals in todays world you will offend the media because in truth, everything is NOT relative, and PC is anathema to truth. Media offense results in personal attacks and professional suicide. Consequently...no statesmen, no principled politicians, and no "right and wrong". No right and wrong, no true justice and personal accountability as the founding fathers intended. Is there anything we can do about it? I don't believe so. Our Universities (where the media are trained) are firmly in the camp of relativism and PC. No hope there in our lifetimes as tenured professors are at least as protected as federal judges. Until they die or are retired, no changes. If the individuals in the media do not believe they are in error, why would they have incentive to change?

The other area (IMO) that has had the most significant impact on us as a nation is Tort law. It was obvious to me back in the 60's that the frivolous lawsuits and outrageous awards that were then becoming frequent were going to result in a death spiral for our economic system (business and individuals). Tort law is another area where we can forget about reform. Tort is controled by and governed by lawyers...Congress and the Senate are populated by and controlled by lawyers...the third leg of our political system (justice) is by definition controlled by lawyers...and the Executive Branch is more often than not headed by a lawyer. Where is the recognition of conflict of interest? Why would lawyers cut off their most lucrative source of income?

Obviously, I'm disgusted, but I simply do not have any answers for the problem other than violent political upheaval, and I don't wish that on this nation, ever. FWIW...Pilgrim

[DonH]

All the anti's need is to be sure that the worst thing that come from voting for a gun ban is that they might lose a few votes, and that we that we have no clear choice of who we vote for we are toast. Thanks to the last election we have people in control of what bills get introduced in Congress who are pro-actively anti-gun and looking forward to '08 it appears there will be no pro 2nd Amendment candidate for president on either ticket. Given the apparent lack of leadership in the conservative movement to mount any significant opposition to a gun control move, I will give us 3-5 years tops to delude ourselves that the 2nd Amendment is safe. Of course, I will be delighted to be wrong about this.
The Declaration of Independence says that it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish a tyrannical government. It further states that this should never be done for light and transient causes. I don't berlieve in violent upheaval but neither do I believe this to be a light or transient cause. The right to keep and bear arms is the cornersstone of "government of the people, by the people and for the people." If we believe we can lose our "arms" then later get them back through the vote we are deluding ourselves. Liberties surrendered are rarely regained, especially if I am not willing to have it cost me anything personally.

It is high time for voters to realize that we cannot truly "vote for the man" in national elections without also voting for the leadership of the party that man affiliates with. It wouldn't have to be that way but it is because once there few of them have the courage or conviction to oppose their leadership. Looking at idealogy and not party names, I believe the long term effects of the outcome of the most recent election will be due to those persons to whom we entrusted leadership on Congress. I believe, in terms of the 2nd Amendment, the baby is drowning in a puddle of bathwater in the back yard.