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.
Question for the commenters: why is developing a nuclear weapon illegal? Isn’t it an arm? What about NDAs? Don’t they infringe on the 1st Amendment?
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 5494 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the second amendment does indeed bestow a personal right to bear arms, nuclear weapons being illegal is the most obvious and explicit case of reality trumping the literal text of the constitution. Better to shred the whole constitution than let every Tim McVeigh, or Unabomber, out there get their hands on nukes. The US would be a vast field of radioactive craters in less than a year. As the Supreme Court said (in a different context), the Constitution of the United States is not a suicide pact.
Sounds more like he thinks the Supreme Court will have a case brought before them regarding ones right to bear arms and that the Court will probably agree with the general notion of an individuals right to bear arms. Just because the court has never ‘suggested’ anything before last summer means only that no case has ever been presented with which the Court has had to respond. Obviously he was right as he made this statement in 2007 and in 2008 the Court did make a ruling regarding the city of Washington D.C’s ban on handguns, making the case for an individuals right to bear arms.
This was from 2007. Fortunately, this brainless simpleton was proven wrong by the Supreme Court less than one year after this speech.
What a “moran.”
This asshole is just another dick who will never see the day that I will give up my rights. As the founders explained, the Bill of Rights did not GRANT those rights, they AFFIRMED those rights. I do not need any politician to tell me whether or not I can bear arms. It is my right, as it is my right to breath the air. Fuck you liberal dicks.
He makes me wish I had bought that green light laser rifle sighting system. This red crap is only good within 500yds
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”
THIS SAYS..
That each STATE has a freedom to CHOOSE and be SECURE from the federal government.
THAT the PEOPLE in Each state have the RIGHTS to protect SAID state from Infringement.. It does NOT say what TYPES of infringement. I would think from the GOV.
Nukes would destroy your OWN state.
I would think it would also mean that you have the RIGHT to hunt and GAIN your own food stuffs. To be self sufficient. but I can not say.
AS to the NDA (non-disclosure Agreement).
My BELIEF, is that NO company or CORP or GOVERNMENT should be held PRIVATE/incognito/incommunicado/SILENT I can see a reasoning for a SHORT protection of information, so others DONT try to BEAT what you are doing. BUT if you have copyrights, WHO CARES. Esp. IF they CLEAN UP copyright LAWS.
IT SHOULD BE:
You can NOT make a copyright of RELATED/integrated DEVICES.
1 resister should NOT make a NEW device that does the SAME thing.
Integrating multiple PARTS, should MAKE a new device. Its an INTEGRATED device, its NOT NEW.
Copyright for the ORIGINAL MAKER/DESIGNERS..
20 years.
Copyright to a Company/corp..
5 years.
SOFTWARE original IDEA/Game design, no matter the Platform..
5 years.
If a corp/company BUYS your Product, EVEN after the TIME frame to USE/ABUSE you STILL get royalties for the FIRST 5 years. $0.20 per device that uses the Copyright idea. unless they can get the Holder to give it FREELY.
NO idea is NEW.
Software changes so FAST…5 years is a LIFE TIME.
EVERYTHING should be released to the public DOMAIN after it expires.
Nuclear weapons, as they are currently and in the past, designed, are patented. You would have to get the US Gov’s permission before construction.
You know, to legislate from the bench you need to focus on previously untouched language to remain within the illusion of original intent.
They could look at what does it mean to “bear arms?”
Def: Bear: A term used by gay men to describe a husky, large man with a lot of body hair.
Surely our good christian fathers did not mean only hairy gay men could have weapons?
How about the purpose: “necessary to the security of a free state”. Its all about the STATE baby–not the individual. When the STATE has all the weapons it needs, individual contributions are necessarily ZERO.
Coincidentally, same as the IQ of the gun nuts.
Sparky,,
and you can see a Laser siting Past 100 yards??
AND they ARNT real lasers. they are Laser LEDS, and the SPOT gets Bigger at longer range. I can see it NOW a 10″ spot at 500 yards. I wont go into trajectory, and sighing at ANY range OTHER then what you set it for.(laser 12″ above your target(dont hit much))
A nuclear weapon is not used for an INDIVIDUAL to protect themselves.
If we allow “regulatory czars” who have no power to take our guns they next these guys will go after kitchen knives, baseball bats, all of which are “arms” and also ban steel toed shoes that would kick each and every one of Obama Hussein Barako’s czars in the balls, that is those who Beck doesn’t kick first. Ooooooooooo Van got hurt bad!
It may well be that the 2nd amendment: “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.” may be strictly interpreted in the future to only apply to members of the militia.
Thus, if you want a gun, you have to join the National Guard, with all that entails.
People like Cass Sunstein is why we have the 2nd Amendment in the first place. Our founding fathers were pretty sharp dudes and new we would one day need it to fight off tyranny.
Use it or lose it.
Have you seen the other one?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=flfHZgT-SeI
Amazing at how we miss the point. Congress was to make NO LAW infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms – in other words this right was a state only right – the people and the states have all the rights not given to the fed – this was on there were spelling out – the fed has no right to infringe arm bearing at all. period. This is a state/people issue. with the people being to right holder and able to allow the local state power to provide for a well regulated militia, and the Fed has no power here…
10,
very true.
A person incharge that has PROBALY NEVER used/fired/or learned to handle a GUN, in charge of GUNS??
14,
Very good.
WE, the people have the RIGHT, to protect our gov. FROM ITSELF. PHYSICALLY.
There is ALWAYS a time when PEOPLE dont LISTEN to the PEOPLE.
Our representatives have REMOVED the protections OF, our government. And NOW are trying to DOCILE us, and remove our protections to demonstrate, and ARGUE and BITCH and complain..
They are favoring 1 sector of our lives..and it AINT THE PEOPLE.
Corps get CHEAP labor, as ITS FREE as a tax deduction when you HIRE it to another company that OVER inflates the price. WHICH is BITING THEM in the butt, and making it SEEM that they need to send WORK over seas to get BETTER PRICES. they dont DO IT the old way, themSELVES..they would rather HIRE it out and get the TAX deduction, its the NEW business model. And its been proven WRONG many times. That they can DO IT in-house CHEAPER. they dont LOOK at competitive bids, and HIRING in-house anymore.. there will ALWAYS be someone that CAN do it cheaper, IF YOU LOOK..and NOT to those OTHER COMPANIES that do the job and ADVERTISE it..there are INDIVIDUALS that would do it.
@#11: National Guard is NOT “well regulated Militia”. National Guard is armed hand of the State Govt., same as the Military is armed hand of the Federal Govt. All founders documents clearly indicate that they were most fearful of Govt. entities (this includes the State and its National Guard) as attackers on personal rights, which right to bear arms protects. Armed citizens can form “well regulated militia” if need be to protect themselves from anything, including National Guard or Military. Ability to have personal armory which no form of Govt. can take away legally is essential part of ability to form armed militia in times of need.
As for argument in the article, from this point of view there is no way Govt. cant lawfully prevent any form of armament to be in personal possession including howitzers, tanks, rockets or nuclear weapons (if one can legally construct or obtain them). Fact that people who make nuclear weapons won’t sell it to you and that it is nearly impossible to make them “in the shed” solves the issue.
Alarmist propaganda.
First, please stop calling these guy Czars. They don’t need any more marketing and promotion than necessary.
Second, STOP CALLING THESE GUYS CZARS! With all due respect to real czars.
I predict that if the GOVERNMENT attempts to take away “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” that the tree of liberty will get some long overdue refreshing.
# 14 So States can limit Free speech by your reasoning, since the first and all other amendments don’t apply them.
This is the most annoying argument I here. If you don’t like what in the constitution all you have to do is amend it. This is gust a way for people who think the government should have a monopoly on power to try and shit on the constitution. Beside from all of the other rights in the bill of rights being for individuals; and the fact that all you have to do is read the founding father writings on the issue to know what they meant. I wish these people would look at history when the public is disarmed it never turns out good.
#16
“Fact that people who make nuclear weapons won’t sell it to you and that it is nearly impossible to make them “in the shed” solves the issue.”
Only literally as in respect to nukes, how about sub nuclear reaction dirty bombs?
What about fully automatic guns, napalm, grenades of all types, sticky bombs, mines, cluster bombs, claymore mines, flamethrowers, shoulder fired rockets, mortars, are you ok with you neighbors owning all of these?
I would not even attempt to pry your .44 Magnum and semiautomatic AK-47 from your cold dead hands. I do however feel that in an effort insure domestic tranquility its ok for our government to put into place some laws restricting weapons. I think you would too. We probably would disagree on where to draw that line, the assault weapons ban was fine by me but it was like closing the barn door after the horses left.
I didn’t know anything about this guy so I looked him up on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein, and the more I read the worse it got. People wonder why Hannity, Beck, Rush, etc. have such an audience? Nothing they could say can beat the facts about these “Czars” and this administration. Obama has a gift for speaking and politics but I think he has filled his team with the worst scoundrels Chicago has to offer. These people are far more dangerous than any weapon.
#22 There is no such thing as an “assault weapon”. That term was invented by the left. Try to define, it, and you will be shown to be a fool.
#24
Faxon I did not say that there was such an thing “assault weapon” just that there was such a law. I even implied dusanmal might legally own an AK-47
I believe YOU are the one looking foolish here.
The second clause is dependent on the first clause.
If you can show me how you holding any weapon constitutes “a well regulated militia”, then I will concede you have a right to keep and bear arms.
I believe the Supreme Court was wrong, and when this country becomes more civilized, a future Court will say so.
Michael would you consider the KKK well regulated militia?
How many crimes are committed with legally owned guns? I’m guessing many fewer than with illegally owned ones. It seems like enforcing the existing gun laws would be a lot easier than trying to get everyone to hand over their guns. As the UK is finding out, when guns aren’t available people will just start using knives.
26,
When this country has no need of politicians..
WHEN TRUTH, is over justice.
When you can ASK a politician and get a STRAIGHT ANSWER OF TRUTH..
“A well regulated FIRE DEPARTMENT, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear LADDERS, shall not be infringed.” //// Provides a grammatical analysis although when you get into it there is a lot of discussion over what “militia” meant when the provision was created.
All irrelevant. We aren’t having “revolution” aka a redrafting of the constitutiton every 50 years as contemplated by the founders either. In olden days, people were threatened by an over reaching state. Today, we accept that over reaching and are more threatened by an excess of gun activity.
I’m sure our Founding Fathers would agree without “life” there are no other rights. Given automatic weapons do jack squat against the power of the state and are only effective at destroying human lives, a ban against everything gun is in order.