The Second Amendment

Ahhh, the Second Amendment to our constitution.  Is it just a lobby for the unsecure to hold firearms in the protection of such a new and feeble nation or is it a means in which the government gave the people the right to be able to protect themselves, not only from other possible encroachments of other citizens, but of the government, and other governments alike?  I think the answer is yes.  Although there is no real correlation in the fact that gun ownership causes a country to be safer it does provide the individual with a sense of personal security.  Along the same lines we can see that the possession of firearms is not just related to security.  In a country still rich in the fruits of naturally occuring prey and "game" animals the ability to hunt those is considered to be a human right.  In countries where wildlife is absent the idea of possessing firearms is one of ill consideration.  I believe that the possession of arms, firearms, and other weapons is similar to that of any other property that individuals can have and maintain.

Article for consideration

FBI Report: Gun Ownership Is Up, Violent Crime Is Down

September 20, 2010 by Personal Liberty News Desk

Political debate over hot-button issues has escalated as the midterm elections draw near, and a candidate's position on gun control can go a long way in deciding his or her fate in November.
Opponents of gun control legislation have new fodder in their efforts to uphold the Second Amendment following the FBI's report that violent crime in the United States has declined for the third straight year. The bureau revealed that, despite rising trends in gun sales and more citizens carrying firearms for personal protection, crime rates are down across the board.
Incidents of murder dropped approximately 7 percent from 2008 to 2009, while robberies fell 8 percent and aggravated assault dropped by 4 percent.
"[The gun ban lobby's] predictions that America's streets would run red have been shown up as a fraudulent sales pitch for public disarmament," said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Proponents of the Second Amendment scored a major victory in June when the Supreme Court affirmed the fundamental right to bear arms, The Washington Post reported. The ruling, however, did not strike down any existing gun control laws or specify what kind of laws would violate the Constitution.

Reaction
This is a recent article obviously but one that has a lot of culmination in not only the news media over the course of several decades but also in politics as the deciding vote of the masses could hinge on issues such as gun control.  The article states that the FBI has acquired statistics that point to the fact that although gun sales are up and on the rise, crime is actually down in contrast.  One might think that the downturn of the economy and increase of gun sales would show an increase in crime, but it did not.  What is the cause here?  Is it the fact that criminals are now not the only ones who possess guns and are willing to use them?  The fact that several states and various other municipalities are passing laws allowing citizens to carry firearms legally might have something to do with it.  It could also be that although certain measures have been put into place to control the sale of firearms, these measures might have just put them into the right hands.  No longer can you buy ammo and a gun at the same time in a Wal-Mart, is this a cause??  In total I believe that this article shows that the fact that Americans have the right and ability to own guns does not preclude them to the need of massive regulation in fear of increased violent crimes.

Video Clip

Reaction

Although this is a simple parody done by the lovable Simpsons, the idea is sound, or at least that is what the anit-gun lobbyists would want you to think.  The idea of the background check is one rooted in preventing acts like this from happening.  The angry person, loading up on weapons and then going on a shooting spree against the opposition.  Agreed this is something that might happen, and all be it could happen in a world in which guns and their proclivity abound.  The point that I always would like to make on this is the fact that obviously someone either did not properly educate this person on the lethality and potential hazards of a gun, or they are of low moral character to think that shooting someone to solve a problem is okay.  So should we stop selling weapons all together because of a few, no, should we allow criminals to acquire guns, no, but should we make the acquiring of a firearm the same hindrance for everyone, of course, because this will weed out those potential people who should not own them.  Everyone should have the right to own a gun if they want, until the time when it is that they lose that right for something that they themselves did.

This is just a funny video from Terminator, I especially think it is hilarious that all of these weapons were available for sale during the 80's and that the shop keeper says that any one of these guns is "ideal" for home defense!!  Having an affinity for weapons as a child I wanted an Uzi and my parents took me to a local gun store when I lived in Las Vegas.  I asked to see one, was allowed to hold and "play" with it, but not allowed to purchase due to my age, about 6 or 7 at the time, hahahaha.  Anyways the shop keep of the store took the time to teach me how to hold the gun and point it in a safe direction while I played.  Responsibility of my parents and shop keeper, yes since it taught me I couldn't purchase the gun until I was 18, and taught me a little air of responsibility.  As I grew up I attended several "gun classes" such as the Missouri Conservation program for junior hunters, several Boy Scout classes, etc.  All of these advocate not only gun safety, but RESPONSIBILITY as well.  This is what we have to look at more so than banning guns all together, otherwise how is it we can protect ourselves against potential "domestic" enemies??

Is this Free Speech??

This video was sent to me by a friend of my deceased mother.  He is very liberal, such as hating government because of how it operates now, both Republican and Democrat as well as being an avid proponent of the Second Amendment owning over 80 different guns, and devoting an entire room of his house to such.  This link shows a man in Alaska being assaulted for peacefully assembling and holding an Impeach Obama sign.  The offical docket shows that he was criminally trespassing at a county fair open to all, etc.  The legalities can be explored by YOU, if you want, but is this Free Speech, or is this censorship of under fringe legal statutes??

The First Amendment

In these few words we can see several different aspects of "speech" which the government thought it important to note that they could not and would not control.  First is the aspect of religion which history tells us is the driving force for a majority of the immigration to this country in the first place.  The second is that of speech itself as well as freedom of the press, essentially speech in written form then, and other media now.  This speaks to me in the fact that the government knew it may do things the people may not like, but wanted to leave them an out to be able to express themselves in one form or fashion.  Finally the provision of the right to assemble and petition the government for redressing of grievances.  The most perfect example of this is the "Million Man March" in which a group of people marched to Washington to exercise their right to free speech, redressing equal rights among all citizens of the United States.

The true legality of Free Speech is one always in debate.  Heck look at WikiPedia and you can see at least one court case taken to the supreme court about certain interpretations of this amendment.  So one has to ask, does this mean that although the amendment was created by the government for the people they can interpret it to their end or their political means??

Article for consideration
taken from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657642816289111.html 

By EUGENE VOLOKH 

Congress is once again considering a constitutional amendment to ban the desecration of the American flag. The proposal, introduced this spring in the Senate by David VitterStabenow of Michigan, probably won't get enough votes. Yet even if it doesn't, one longstanding misunderstanding about the First Amendment is likely to live on. (R., La.), and cosponsored by 20 other Republicans and Democrat Debbie

Advocates for flag amendments argue that activist Supreme Court Justices have twisted the original meaning of the First Amendment to protect symbolic acts such as flag burning. As Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) said in supporting the Vitter proposal, "if you read the debate in 1790 -- the First Amendment was not written to protect nonverbal speech . . . . [W]e want to make sure we get the Constitution back to its original intent before the Supreme Court screwed it up." Or, as Judge Robert Bork argued in his book "Slouching Towards Gomorrah," flag burning "is not speech," and the court shouldn't have held "that an amendment protecting only the freedom of 'speech' somehow protects conduct if it is 'expressive.'"

Yet the best historical evidence suggests Messrs. Bork and Grassley are mistaken. The Framers fully understood "freedom of speech, or of the press" to include symbolic expression as well as verbal expression.

The Framers were working within a late 18th century common-law legal system that generally treated symbolic expression and verbal expression the same. Speech restrictions -- such as libel, slander, sedition, obscenity and blasphemy -- covered symbolic expression on the same terms as verbal expression.

Many cases and treatises, including Blackstone's "Commentaries" published in 1765 and often cited by the Framers' generation in America, said this about libel law. And early American court cases soon held the same about obscenity and blasphemy. Late 18th and early 19th century libel law cases and treatises gave many colorful examples: It could be libelous to burn a person in effigy, send him a wooden gun (implying cowardice), light a lantern outside his house (implying the house was a brothel), and engage in processions mocking him for his supposed misbehavior.

This equality of symbolic expression and verbal expression was also applied to constitutional speech protection as well as to common-law speech restrictions. For instance, the first American court decision setting aside a government action on constitutional free speech or free press grounds (Brandreth v. Lance in 1839) treated the liberty of the press as covering paintings -- not just words.

Likewise, in a 1795 Pennsylvania case, the prosecution and defense agreed that erecting a liberty pole was the sort of thing to which constitutional free speech principles might apply. These tall poles, usually surmounted with a flag or a liberty cap, were originally a symbol of opposition to English government, but by the 1790s they had became a symbol expressing opposition to perceived domestic tyranny as well.

Protection of symbolic speech would have fit well with James Madison's initial draft of the First Amendment, which spoke of the people's "right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments." Courts and commentators (including early Supreme Court Justice James Wilson) routinely used "publish" to refer to publicly displaying pictures and symbols, as well as printing books. When Congress recast Madison's phrasing to the shorter "freedom of speech, or of the press" it was not seen as a substantive change.

The three most influential early writers on American law -- St. George Tucker, Chancellor James Kent and Justice Joseph Story -- all expressly characterized the First Amendment as protecting a right to speak, to write, and to publish.

To be sure, some in the Founding era took a narrow view of free speech. They would have allowed the punishment -- probably as "sedition" -- of stridently anti government sentiments, likely including those conveyed by burning the flag. But they would not have denied that the First Amendment protects symbolic expression generally. They would have just argued that both harshly anti government symbols and harshly anti government words were punishable.

The Supreme Court has long treated symbolic expression -- such as burning flags, waving flags, wearing armbands, and the like -- as tantamount to verbal expression. In fact, the first Supreme Court case (Stromberg v. California) to strike down government action on free speech grounds involved symbolic expression (the display of a red flag). That was in 1931, hardly the heyday of liberal judging.

In Stromberg,

Mr. Volokh is professor of law at UCLA. This op-ed is adapted from "Symbolic Expression and the Original Meaning of the First Amendment," published in the April 2009 issue of the Georgetown Law Journal. 

Reaction:

So even in this article we can see that the Founding Fathers had to interpret their own words to not allow libel, slander, and the like.  Why were they so vague in their writings about something that could be so misunderstood and definitely be open to misgivings later??  In the instance of flag burning one could argue that it is a symbolic form of expression using a piece of personal property which, you should be able to use or abuse at your leisure.  The burning of a National symbol, such as the flag however could be considered to be slanderous against a people or government which has already been argued to be "not" what the amendment was designed for.  I personally however, serving in the Marine Corps, and being a former Boy Scout, see the burning of the flag as a necessity when it is time to retire the flag, and that is the only time it should be allowed.  To allow citizens the right to burn the flag as a measure of protest, yet hide behind the fact that it is a "federal law" and states or localities are not allowed to act is truly bollocks!!  I didn't spend time serving my country to see its one symbol which means freedom to so many destroyed because a minority see it as something else!!

Video clip

Reaction:
This video to me is personally SICK!!  The youtube site that this is from says that these two people are teachers!  Teachers in an American School, supported by American taxpayers, which are taxed, allowing their funding by the government which has essentially funded their pocket and they thank them by doing this!!  I don't know about you but this is the far extent of free speech and is not something that should be tolerated, nor was what the First Amendment was alluding to.  Try doing something like this in another country and see what happens!!  Oh wait, try to do this in our country to a Mexican flag or other flag of national origin for the immigrated minority and see what kind of sentiment you receive.  Also doing so could be considered to be racist, bigots, etc!  Why then is it not for just Americans??  



And a little Flag Patriotism to Boot!!



Particular attention be paid to about 3:30 into video.  I believe it is sad to think that only 200+ years ago the flag of only 13 "states" could rally people, unknown to each other to favor a common good and certain death only to follow it into battle.  Too bad that sentiment is lost on a vast majority of the population, nay, the youth of today!