Dems proving once again they are lower than pond scum.

(CNSNews.con) – Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) says she will introduce a gun-control bill on the first day of the next Congress: “It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession – not retroactively, but prospectively –” of “assault weapons” as well as high-capacity magazines.

And Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he will hold a hearing in two weeks on “this constitutional question,” a reference to the Second Amendment. “That’s the starting point,” he said. [...]

Durbin says the “conversation” about guns has been dominated by “Washington,” and he appealed to “hunters and sportsmen” to add their voices:

“We need people, just ordinary Americans, to come together, and speak out, and to sit down and calmly reflect on how far we go. I’m going to be holding a hearing after the first of the year, in about two weeks or so, on this constitutional question. That’s the starting point,” Durbin said.

Keep reading…http://weaselzippers.us/2012/12/17/atten...-gun-ownership/

FUDD! The only Constitutional question is: "Can you read?" 2A, as the case with the rest of the Bill of Rights, is very clearly and simply stated.

Quote: Eglman wrote in post #1

---

Dems proving once again they are lower than pond scum.

(CNSNews.con) – Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) says she will introduce a gun-control bill on the first day of the next Congress: “It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession – not retroactively, but prospectively –” of “assault weapons” as well as high-capacity magazines.

And Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he will hold a hearing in two weeks on “this constitutional question,” a reference to the Second Amendment. “That’s the starting point,” he said. [...]

Durbin says the “conversation” about guns has been dominated by “Washington,” and he appealed to “hunters and sportsmen” to add their voices:

“We need people, just ordinary Americans, to come together, and speak out, and to sit down and calmly reflect on how far we go. I’m going to be holding a hearing after the first of the year, in about two weeks or so, on this constitutional question. That’s the starting point,” Durbin said.

Keep reading…http://weaselzippers.us/2012/12/17/atten...-gun-ownership/

---

Zitat

---

Antonin Scalia and 2nd Amendment Decision, L.A Times, 06/27/2008.

Justices affirm gun rights.

THE 2ND AMENDMENT: KEY RULING ON THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
In a historic 5-4 ruling, the high court says the 2nd Amendment protects individuals' right to bear arms.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled for the first time that the 2nd Amendment explicitly protects Americans' right to own guns for self-defense -- resolving one of the Constitution's oldest disputes and reviving the debate over gun rights, crime and violence.

The landmark decision struck down a District of Columbia ordinance, the strictest in the nation, that barred homeowners from keeping handguns. The ruling brought immediate court challenges to similar laws in Chicago and San Francisco.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is not limited to state militias, as some historians have argued. Rather, it protects "the inherent right of self-defense," Justice Antonin Scalia said. Joining him in the majority were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

The four dissenters -- Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter -- said the majority had unwisely opened the door to legal attacks on popular and effective gun-control measures. "I fear that the District's policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table," Stevens wrote in his dissenting opinion.



Scalia spent most of his 64-page opinion explaining why history was on his side. He cited the Stuart kings of England and how they had used their militias to disarm their opponents. "By the time of the founding [of this country], the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects," he said. "There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms."

---

And on Fox News yesterday ..
Scalia Suggests ‘Hand-Held Rocket Launchers’ Are Protected Under Second Amendment



http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracy...2/07/gun-rights

Zitat

---

Scalia spent most of his 64-page opinion explaining why history was on his side. He cited the Stuart kings of England and how they had used their militias to disarm their opponents. "By the time of the founding [of this country], the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects," he said. "There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms."

---

I would prefer if the Honorable Justice would have phrased that a bit better. More like: "The Second Amendment protects the natural right of an individual right to keep and bear arms, conferred by our Creator, from usurpation by government."

[Edit to add: an alternate phrasing for those uncomfortable with "conferred by our Creator" is "inherent to our humanity."]

Can you imagine what would happen to Americans if we were unarmed?

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #2

---

FUDD! The only Constitutional question is: "Can you read?" 2A, as the case with the rest of the Bill of Rights, is very clearly and simply stated.

---

Those who advocate for a well regulated militia are automatically in an uphill fight for the fact that their purpose is to prevent an over bearing government and once you state that then the kook label and extremist label come out from the Government. And that argument has not and will not be made.

I want a militia to protect us from the likes of Dick Durbin who would like to see americans disarmed

The supreme court has already said this was bogus. Liberals wish to bring up the same old crap over and over again, millions own guns, we have a few thousand nut running around that should be in a safe home with bars and steel doors.

There is no need to imagine, Its already happened here as well as other places before:



Do not forget, Ayers, Obama's mentor, has called for the deaths of 25 Million Americans to force their agenda.

Quote: Polybius wrote in post #6

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #2

---

FUDD! The only Constitutional question is: "Can you read?" 2A, as the case with the rest of the Bill of Rights, is very clearly and simply stated.

---

The hearing will focus on the "well regulated militia" clause.

I'm not advocating for one side or the other by pointing that out. I'm just pointing out the field upon where the battle will be fought.

Points to consider:

As Frederick the Great said, "He who defends everything defends nothing." Should the right of every citizen to own a gun be defended, even the nutcases such as Lanza ** Cough** or Shep ** Cough**?

If it is agreed that not everybody should be armed, how do we define "well regulated militia" in the 21st Century so that the lack of local militias in the modern era is not used as an excuse to disarm the people. Is a mandatory NRA course the basis for "well regulated"? Does "well regulated" mean nothing at all?

Can large capacity magazines be convincingly defended under the "well regulated militia" clause or does it give too much firepower to the professional criminals?

As I said, I am not arguing one way or the other. I'm just pointing out what kinds of arguments to expect and what to prepare for.

---