Comments on: World Turned Upside Down

By: William

William — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:46:15 +0000

Sebastian shares a good point. The Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, and the National Rifle Association are just a few of the organizations that regularly pursue legal actions in support of the Second Amendment as well as other sections of the Bill of Rights. It should be noted that no single section stands alone, an argument for or against any part of the Bill of Rights has an effect on the whole to strengthen or weaken it. There are several other groups that address these issues. Please support them but only after you have investigated them for yourself.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:56:01 +0000

How, exactly, are you going to get the Second Amendment an honored place along with all the other parts of the Bill of Rights without lawyers to fight for it in court?

By: William

William — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 10:47:39 +0000

I first heard of the unorganized malitia when I was very young. My grandfather was not formally educated very well but it would seem that his reading and comprehension skills were better than most politicions and judges. The supreme courts’ opinion in the Heller case should be renamed the lawyer full employment act. I thought that the Miller decision was wrong headed and lacking the least understanding of the term , militia and what it requires to support one. In simple terms as I understand it ,the individual not only has the right , but the responsibility to be armed. This would require but would not be limited to military equipment or what might be thought of as such. The Miller case mentions that a shotgun wouldn’t be a military arm. This statement is ridiculous. The U.S. military has issued shotguns in every conflict in our history including current operations. Artillery and crew served weapons have the same protection under the Second Amendment. The Founders placed their trust in the people not a government filled with faceless beareaucrats.

By: sscrivener

sscrivener — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 05:34:20 +0000

For those using the “militia” argument, the unorganized militia of the United States, defined in 10 USC 310 et seq, is every male adult between the ages of 17 and 45, military veterans to age 64, and any female military veterans who care to participate.

This right includes military-grade weapons, and imposes a *duty* upon us all to be armed and ready to defend our country “from all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

By: M. Report

M. Report — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 01:28:49 +0000

The cannon comment is right on.

Read the original words, not the spun versions:

“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.”

Keep in mind that, to the Framers, _words_had_meanings_
often far more specific, and restrictive, than we are used to,
and every word above was carefully chosen and placed
to avoid any ambiguity.

Latter-day revisionists try to take advantage of changes
in the meanings of the words: regulated, militia, bear, arms.
They deemphasise the words: free, people.

By: serfer62

serfer62 — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:23:11 +0000

The Secound means “…the right to bear arms”, concealed, open, slung, holstered. I disagree with crew-served-weapons as they can’t be “borne”

I caught a burb about the 9th Circuit court ruling that no state (the 9th covers Hawaii and the west coast) can mess with that ammendment but wether it was a panel or the whole court I din’t catch as my computer became an instant radical liber POS and shut down

By: Robert

Robert — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:21:11 +0000

The rise of decentralized manufacturing has effectively rendered gun control obsolete. I’m pretty certain that the idea behind gun bans will be dead later in this century when universal nanotech assemblers become commonplace.

But hey, there’s still people who believe the Sun and planets orbit a flat earth even though their beliefs have been refuted over and over again for centuries.

By: AWB

AWB — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 18:03:34 +0000

After having Paul Helmke as Mayor for 8 years we were glad to see him go. He claimed he was a republican. He’s a fscking liar.

By: tom swift

tom swift — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:22:23 +0000

“The Second Amendment did not appear to be understood to cover cannon,”
Folderol. Privately-owned – and used – cannon were common. Cannon were what merchant ships (all privately owned, of course) used to discourage pirates and the Royal Navy. A license (a Letter of Marque or a privateer’s commission) was needed if one was going to use one’s merchant ship to seize British or French ships or other property, but no license was needed to fight in defense, or to be equipped with the weapons needed for defense.

By: Rob

Rob — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:21:35 +0000

“Or ban possession of machine guns.”

Uhmm, last time I checked, a machine gun is an “arm”, in the same sense that the word was used in the language of the 2nd amendment. So as someone above said, yeah, the 2nd amendment does mean that the govt. can’t ban machine guns. And also by the way, can’t specifically tax them in such a way as to make them generally unaffordable, i.e. can’t tax more than that newspaper the writer mentioned.

So while I agree with the writer’s intent, (btw, was it a Sun editorial or a blogger’s opinion?) I think he may find on examining his facts more closely that he’s not quite as adamant on the 2nd amendment as he thinks.

By: Steven

Steven — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:53:16 +0000

Machine gun and automatic weapon are not synonyms. It’s perfectly reasonable to conclude the Second Amendment covers personal automatic weapons (like the M14 or M16), but not heavy weapons like an M60 or M2. The Second Amendment did not appear to be understood to cover cannon, and arguably a machine gun’s role is more closely analogous to a cannon than a musket.

By: Letalis Maximus, Esq.

Letalis Maximus, Esq. — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 12:27:28 +0000

I think Pat Buchanan, of all people, had it right when he was running for President. He said that with respect to the 2nd Amendment and reasonable regulation: “If you need a trailer hitch to haul it around, the government needs to regulate it.”

By: RAH

RAH — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:12:56 +0000

Ron Smith has beena advocate of gun rights as aradio talk host on WBl for years. Just surprising he got an opinion piece published in th Baltimore Sun.

Aloysious is also another pro Gun rights advocate. So there are a few in the media , Talk radio and print. WSJ opinion staff is generally conservative even if their reporters are not.

When we get Diane Sawyer and the NBC, ABC, CBS talking heads say guns are good and gun control is dead than we may have reason to cheer,

I fo think the gun rights examiner coumn are getting read and noticed.

What I was surprised how Juan William on Fox Special Report said why wasn’t merchant crews armed. Which is an acknowledgement that being armed is the best method to defend against robbers and pirates which are just sea robbers.

This totally validates that carry a gun is a good idea.

By: Carl in Chicago

Carl in Chicago — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:14:55 +0000

In part, it means that it’s not an editorial, but an opinion.

And a facially contradictory one, at that.

He said the second amendment means “No Gun Control, Period”, right before he said that it doesn’t mean the government cannot ban possession of machine guns. Since when have governmental bans on a particular class of arms NOT been known as “gun control?”

But seeing them publish it was really nice.

By: SayUncle » Quote of the day

SayUncle » Quote of the day — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:50:32 +0000

[...] SIH: What does it means when you have an editorial in the US News and World Report that says gun control is unconstitutional, period, and the Baltimore Sun runs an article about the ineffectiveness of the gun control movement? [...]

By: ATL

ATL — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:57:25 +0000

“I’ve got to tell you: I’ve been burned so often by the media that a wait-and-see approach seems best to me. I’m just too wary that this could be a prelude (inoculation, perhaps) to full-scale support for gun banning.”

“…..but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” Pr 12:10 KJV

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:48:30 +0000

I think it’s reasonable to presume there are limits to the Second Amendment, and certain classes of arms that are not protected by it. But I agree with you that machine guns fall under the category of protected arms. But will the Supreme Court agree? I’m doubtful.

By: Wolfwood

Wolfwood — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:48:14 +0000

I’ve got to tell you: I’ve been burned so often by the media that a wait-and-see approach seems best to me. I’m just too wary that this could be a prelude (inoculation, perhaps) to full-scale support for gun banning.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:44:29 +0000

No means no. Not means not…

That doesn’t mean that the government cannot tax a newspaper. Or make a rabbi register his car. Or ban possession of machine guns.

Uh, actually it DOES.