PDA

View Full Version : Wall Street Journal Gets It!!


Army
11-23-2007, 4:34 AM
Today's WSJ,

Second Amendment is for the PEOPLE!! (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119577460419701535.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

Ford8N
11-23-2007, 4:55 AM
Today's WSJ,

Second Amendment is for the PEOPLE!! (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119577460419701535.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

I'm not a subscriber, please paste the whole article.:D

Army
11-23-2007, 5:26 AM
Oops! Got it from the CNN site. Sorry, didn't know!


Second Amendment Showdown
The Supreme Court has a historic opportunity to affirm the individual right to keep and bear arms.

BY MIKE COX
Friday, November 23, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST The Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case that will affect millions of Americans and could also have an impact on the 2008 elections. That case, Parker v. D.C., should settle the decades-old argument whether the right "to keep and bear arms" of the Constitution's Second Amendment is an individual right--that all Americans enjoy--or only a collective right that states may regulate freely. Legal, historical and even empirical reasons all command a decision that recognizes the Second Amendment guarantee as an individual right.
The amendment reads: "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." If "the right of the people" to keep and bear arms was merely an incident of, or subordinate to, a governmental (i.e., a collective) purpose--that of ensuring an efficient or "well regulated" militia--it would be logical to conclude, as does the District of Columbia--that government can outlaw the individual ownership of guns. But this collective interpretation is incorrect.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/images/storyend_dingbat.gif

To analyze what "the right of the people" means, look elsewhere within the Bill of Rights for guidance. The First Amendment speaks of "the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . ." No one seriously argues that the right to assemble or associate with your fellow citizens is predicated on the number of citizens or the assent of a government. It is an individual right. The Fourth Amendment says, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . ." The "people" here does not refer to a collectivity, either.
The rights guaranteed in the Bill of Right are individual. The Third and Fifth Amendments protect individual property owners; the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments protect potential individual criminal defendants from unreasonable searches, involuntary incrimination, appearing in court without an attorney, excessive bail, and cruel and unusual punishments.
The Ninth Amendment protects individual rights not otherwise enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Here, "the people" are separate from "the states"; thus, the Second Amendment must be about more than simply a "state" militia when it uses the term "the people."
Consider the grammar. The Second Amendment is about the right to "keep and bear arms." Before the conjunction "and" there is a right to "keep," meaning to possess. This word would be superfluous if the Second Amendment were only about bearing arms as part of the state militia. Reading these words to restrict the right to possess arms strains common rules of composition.
Colonial history and politics are also instructive. James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights to provide a political compromise between the Federalists, who favored a strong central government, and the Anti-Federalists, who feared a strong central government as an inherent danger to individual rights. In June 1789, then-Rep. Madison introduced 12 amendments, a "bill of rights," to the Constitution to convince the remaining two of the original 13 colonies to ratify the document.
Madison's draft borrowed liberally from the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and Virginia's Declaration of Rights. Both granted individual rights, not collective rights. As a result, Madison proposed a bill of rights that reflected, as Stanford University historian Jack Rakove notes, his belief that the "greatest dangers to liberty would continue to arise within the states, rather than from a reconstituted national government." Accordingly, Mr. Rakove writes that "Madison justified all of these proposals (Bill of Rights) in terms of the protection they would extend to individual and minority rights."
One of the earliest scholars of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Justice Joseph Story, confirmed this focus on individuals in his famous "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States" in 1833. "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms," Story wrote, "has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of republics, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers . . ."
It is also important to consider the social context at the time of the drafting and adoption of the Bill of Rights. Our Founding Fathers lived in an era where there were arms in virtually every household. Most of America was rural or, even more accurately, frontier. The idea that in the 1780s the common man, living in the remote woods of the Allegheny Mountains of western Pennsylvania and Virginia, would depend on the indulgence of his individual state or colony--not to mention the new federal government--to possess and use arms in order to defend himself is ludicrous. From the Minutemen of Concord and Lexington to the irregulars at Yorktown, members of the militias marched into battle with privately-owned weapons.
Lastly, consider the empirical arguments. The three D.C. ordinances at issue are of the broadest possible nature. According to the statute, a person is not legally able to own a handgun in D.C. at all and may have a long-gun--even in one's home--only if it is kept unloaded and disassembled (or bound with a trigger lock). The statute was passed in 1976. What have been the results?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/images/storyend_dingbat.gif

Illegal guns continue to be widely available in the district; criminals have easy access to guns while law-abiding citizens do not. Cathy L. Lanier, Acting Chief of Police, Metropolitan Police Department, was quoted as follows: "Last year [2006], more than 2,600 illegal firearms were recovered in D.C., a 13% increase over 2005." Crime rose significantly after the gun ban went into effect. In the five years before the 1976 ban, the murder rate fell to 27 from 37 per 100,000. In the five years after it went into effect, the murder rate rose to 35. In fact, while murder rates have varied over time, during the 30 years since the ban, the murder rate has only once fallen below what it was in 1976. This comports with my own personal experience. In almost 14 years as prosecutor and as head of the Homicide Unit of the Wayne County (Detroit) Prosecutor's Office, I never saw anyone charged with murder who had a license to legally carry a concealed weapon. Most people who want to possess guns are law-abiding and present no threat to others. Rather than the availability of weapons, my experience is that gun violence is driven by culture, police presence (or lack of same), and failures in the supervision of parolees and probationers.
Not only does history demonstrate that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but experience demonstrates that the broad ban on gun ownership in the District of Columbia has led to precisely the opposite effect from what was intended. For legal and historical reasons, and for the safety of the residents of our nation's capital, the Supreme Court should affirm an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Mr. Cox is the attorney general of Michigan.

M. Sage
11-23-2007, 6:28 AM
Mr. Cox is the attorney general of Michigan.

Makes me wonder why I left... I'd have voted for this guy.

torsf
11-23-2007, 7:11 AM
can i get an amen!?

FEDUPWBS
11-23-2007, 7:21 AM
Keep your fingers crossed. This is a big one from the Supreme Court.
Oh and AMEN!

Fjold
11-23-2007, 7:26 AM
Very impressive. Pretty well written, very direct and to the point. It's not often that you see common sense in the national media

DRSFEFA
11-23-2007, 7:49 AM
Very impressive. Pretty well written, very direct and to the point. It's not often that you see common sense in the national media

+1 and Amen!

FortCourageArmory
11-23-2007, 9:11 AM
+2 and another AMEN!

1911su16b870
11-23-2007, 9:15 AM
+3 and another AMEN!

robitrocks
11-23-2007, 9:38 AM
Amen Brotha

savasyn
11-23-2007, 9:58 AM
It's not often that you see common sense in the national media

No doubt! I'm shocked, but in a good way.

Uberdummy
11-23-2007, 10:50 AM
Hallelujah! er.... wait. wrong word.

IPSICK
11-23-2007, 10:50 AM
Is there anyway we can get this guy to move to California and run for office? Better yet how about President of the US?

chris
11-23-2007, 10:57 AM
it's nice to see the WSJ say it's an individual right. the tide may be turning.

532Fastback
11-23-2007, 11:06 AM
What do you guys believe the outcome will be here in California if the supreme court finds the DC ban illegal?

RP1911
11-23-2007, 11:08 AM
It's not the WSJ that wrote the article. So not sure if the WSJ gets it. They just published a COMMENTARY (look at the top of the written article on thw WSJ site).

I guess we can say at least they allowed the article to be published in The WSJ. Kudos anyway.

bulgron
11-23-2007, 11:20 AM
What do you guys believe the outcome will be here in California if the supreme court finds the DC ban illegal?

There will be mass rioting in the streets, panic and violence. The gutters will run red with blood.

I know because the brady bunch tells me so. :rolleyes:

CCWFacts
11-23-2007, 12:13 PM
I agree with Bulgron. Shootings over parking spaces, kindergarten playground disputes will be settled with machineguns, that kind of thing. When guns are available, they turn sane, ordinary, non-criminal people into wide-eyed killers.

bulgron
11-23-2007, 1:57 PM
CCWFacts has it absolutely right. When everyone can carry a gun, then everyone else is a zombie to be mowed down like the dangerous undead fiend that the general public is.

Or you could just engage in a lot of crazy talk, and suppose that people are, on average, actually quite responsible and law abiding, and nothing much will change at all. Except that, maybe, some laws in this state will get overturned via the judicial process.

But you know, that's just me getting all wacky and wild-eyed again.

Clearly the zombie thing is the more rational result. :D

Hopi
11-23-2007, 2:02 PM
I agree with Bulgron. Shootings over parking spaces, kindergarten playground disputes will be settled with machineguns, that kind of thing. When guns are available, they turn sane, ordinary, non-criminal people into wide-eyed killers.


Sarcasm has it's place, BUT.....i've got a $100 bill that says this line will be taken verbatim by a gun-grabber and used as fact.........STOP GIVING MARKETING IDEAS TO THE BRADY BUNCH, AT LEAST MAKE THEM WORK HARD AT LYING.........

Pthfndr
11-23-2007, 5:57 PM
You guys need to read the WSJ more often. They lean more to the right than the left, and have published several pro gun articles/commentaries/editorials over the years.

I like Mr Cox's style. As the MI AG I hope he sends a brief to the SCOTUS on this case.

M. Sage
11-23-2007, 6:21 PM
Sarcasm has it's place, BUT.....i've got a $100 bill that says this line will be taken verbatim by a gun-grabber and used as fact.........STOP GIVING MARKETING IDEAS TO THE BRADY BUNCH, AT LEAST MAKE THEM WORK HARD AT LYING.........

Actually, they already say that. Look at their marketing to fight Castle and shall-issue CCW. That's almost verbatim what Brady (and their ilk) said about those laws.

otteray
11-23-2007, 6:59 PM
I agree with Bulgron. Shootings over parking spaces, kindergarten playground disputes will be settled with machineguns, that kind of thing. When guns are available, they turn sane, ordinary, non-criminal people into wide-eyed killers.

They already say that stuff.
You might have seen Jodie Foster on one of tv gossip shows the other day- Regis Philbin (?) talkin' up her new movie stuff.
She said something to the effect of "...a person will becomes angry, then dangerous when they carry a gun..."

aileron
11-23-2007, 7:48 PM
They already say that stuff.
You might have seen Jodie Foster on one of tv gossip shows the other day- Regis Philbin (?) talkin' up her new movie stuff.
She said something to the effect of "...a person will becomes angry, then dangerous when they carry a gun..."

And everyone who says that I believe does not trust themselves, therefore Jodi Foster should not have a gun! She cannot trust herself with one. But most people are not so emotionally unstable as to go off half cocked and try and shoot someone to resolve there problems.

I always am amazed when someone says that. I feel like saying to them, "So I shouldn't upset you then, wouldn't want you to go all crazy and run me over in the parking lot."

subdjoe
11-23-2007, 8:36 PM
"There will be mass rioting in the streets, panic and violence. The gutters will run red with blood."

You say that as if it is a bad thing <g>


Originally Posted by otteray
They already say that stuff.
You might have seen Jodie Foster on one of tv gossip shows the other day- Regis Philbin (?) talkin' up her new movie stuff.
She said something to the effect of "...a person will becomes angry, then dangerous when they carry a gun..."
response by Aileron
And everyone who says that I believe does not trust themselves, therefore Jodi Foster should not have a gun! She cannot trust herself with one. But most people are not so emotionally unstable as to go off half cocked and try and shoot someone to resolve there problems.


The rare times that an anti doesn't end up calling me a blood thirsty killer and stomp off after about 2 minutes, they usually end up saying something like "Well, I just know that if I had a gun, I would end up shooting my neighbor because he (insert some annoying thing like playing music too loud or having a noisy dog)." To which I reply "Good, so you know you lack the maturity and discipline to own a firearm. Nice that you recognize that fact. But don't assume that everyone else is as ill-disciplined and lacking in control as you are. And maybe you should give up driving, too."
THEN they call me nasty names and storm off in a snit.

glockman19
11-23-2007, 9:55 PM
Just remember the Wall Street Journal is now owned by Rupert Murdock.