"Tolerant" NYC Liberals React to McCain Supporters

[Dreman]

Well, I told a friend about our little back-and-forth about abortion, and he told me his views. He said he approves of abortion for one reason and one reason only. If abortion is legal, Democrats do it and Republicans refuse to do it, it means fewer Democrats!

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

primarily for the purposes of protecting this country as this was the express stated intent of the amendment.

Keyword: Primarily. "protection" also includes domestic protection of the household and family. In the early days of this country, a black-powder (and later cartridge) pistols were standard dress, especially for "formal" occassions for men. There was not any "permitting" requirements.



The 2nd amendment IS NOT ABOUT MILITIA AND/OR MILITARY. Go look up definitions of the key words in a 1770's dictionary. That's precisely what Justice Scalia did and nailed the intent without any unoquivication.



Have you read his ruling? I have. Would you like to see it? I have compared it to the discenting opinion penned by Souter. Scalia makes Souter look like a fool (which he is). Scalia researched the argument, looked at all (or at least all the important) amicus breifs and the related documents from the time of the founding. Unlike Souter who looked at the UN mandates of the last several decades, what was happening in Europe and the international trends of limiting any and every right possible.

 

[Tom Schindler]

I don't flat out want abortions banned, they will still happen, I know that.

Here is where I fear this will lead. It is easier to overturn state laws than government laws. Once you put it in the states hands some "christian movement" with some honest sounding name like "Community Responsibility At Love" (CRAP) will petition people to pass a state ammendment. They will push it with a false premise and pass the law banning abortions when they sold it as something to help the dying chindren of this state.



Leave RvW alone.



Why doesn't the SCOTHUS stand up and legalize Concealed Carry for all states like Alaska and Vermont already does?





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

R Shek,



Thanks for making my point. Scalia has provided one current opinon and ruling on the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. If the amdendment as writter were perfect, if it were unambiquous, if it were clear in its intent and that intent could stand the test of time, then no such rulings would be needed. Right?!?



However, such rulings do happen from time to time, and those rulings, not only the original words of the Constitution alone, shape our rights and our laws. Right?



So, it's the words of the consitition and the rulings that are based on interpretations that define our laws and our rights.



So, the same process that begot our current gun laws gave us abortion rights.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Further evidence that our rights don't come singularly and directly from words of the Constitution, but also, and often more so from judicial interpretation and rulings...



Again, just look at the landmark DC handgun ban case in which Scalia gave the majority opinion (in a 5-4 decision showing even more evidence that the interpretation varies widely):

A broad view of 'militia'



The debate over gun rights — a topic that, like abortion and capital punishment, ignites passions — has long been waged in politics, public opinion and lower courts.



The Supreme Court last considered the reach of the Second Amendment in a 1939 case. It did not rule definitively, but its decision was interpreted by a wide swath of lower-court judges to bar an individual right to guns.



Yet the popular notion of a right to arms persisted, as did gun rights advocates' efforts to change the landscape as more conservative jurists took the federal bench.



Thursday's case was brought by Dick Heller, a security guard who wanted a handgun in his Washington, D.C., home for self-defense. Heller had been turned down by D.C. officials under the city's 1976 ban on handguns in the home.



Breaking with most past lower-court rulings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia last year sided with Heller and definitively declared an individual right to own guns. Judge Laurence Silberman, a Ronald Reagan appointee, wrote the decision.



In affirming the D.C. Circuit's ruling, the Scalia majority homed in on key words in the two parts of the Second Amendment: the preface that refers to "a well regulated militia" and the clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."



One key to his ruling was Scalia's interpretation of a "militia," which traditionally is a unit outside the regular army and that today could be compared with state National Guard units. He said it covered all able-bodied males acting for the common defense.



"The conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification," Scalia wrote, "was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty." He stressed that people carried arms outside of organized militias. Beyond that, Scalia said, the preface puts no limits on the second clause referring to the right of the people to bear arms.



The dissenting justices complained about Scalia's reasoning and the myriad questions left open by the ruling. Stevens rejected the idea that the Second Amendment's drafters wanted to limit legislative "authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms" or intended to "enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."

The fact is that it is Scalia's opinion that the preface "militia" clause puts no limits on the second (bear arms) clause. That's why they call it the "majority opinion." It is just that. Still that preface clause was there for a reason, at one time. Now it has a different meaning and an unclear intent. I'm okay with that.



The founding fathers were smart people. They put things into the Constitution that they felt were needed, not only for those times, but for all times. However, they knew they didn't have all the answers, and they knew that times would change. That is why they created a system that allowed for changes (amendments), and for steering through rulings.



All I am trying to say is this:



When people say:



"There is no such right described in the Constitution!",



Then I submit that such a statement is meaningless as the rights we enjoy don't singularly come from the Constitution.



TJR