Upholding a dated amendment

Upholding a dated amendment

There are 60 comments on the Berkshire Eagle story from Jun 30, 2008, titled Upholding a dated amendment. In it, Berkshire Eagle reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court just ruled that a law prohibiting the ownership of guns in the District of Columbia violated the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Berkshire Eagle.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Liberals Suck

Chicopee, MA

#1 Jun 30, 2008
Maybe the forefathers could quite clearly see that the biggest danger to any country are lunatics like the author of this letter. Why don't you go eat a grainola bar and hug a tree you are nothing short of a communist who wants to control the rest of us. It will not happen Mr. Liberal.
The Necromancer

Zephyrhills, FL

#2 Jun 30, 2008
If they saw today's problems as clearly as they saw "the white of their eyes," such as violence, criminal activity, a high suicide rate where many are committed by guns, and the availability of rapid fire weaponry, our forefathers may have not written the Second Amendment as such, if at all.
Actually NO my friend..
While the Founding Fathers recognized the flaws inherent in man, their main concern was NOT our protection from robbers and thieves, but the propensity for governments to become tyrannical when only the King's men had the weapons.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Philadelphia 1787
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
It is not "sacred," it is a man-made document that was privy to the failings of the enlightened, yet still imperfect, forefathers who wrote it.
Correct, to a degree..
It IS Sacred..
But it CAN be changed.
However it can ONLY be changed via amendment..
NOT by judges or law makers..
The Rights spelled out within that wonderful document are just that.
RIGHTS..
And ONLY an amendment can change those rights.
Something that some agents of government find inconvenient.
With sophisticated federal and state militaries, as well as federal, state, and municipal police agencies, we no longer need armed militias to protect us. They may have been important at the time of the revolution to get an independent nation but that nation is now here.
NO my friend..
We NOT ONLY need this right to "get an independent nation"..
We need this right to KEEP an independent nation..
The Virginia ratifying convention met from June 2 through June 26, 1788. Edmund Pendleton, opponent of a bill of rights, weakly argued that abuse of power could be remedied by recalling the delegated powers in a convention. Patrick Henry shot back that the power to resist oppression rests upon the right to possess arms:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."
Henry sneered,
"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?"
Educate yourselves on WHY we have this right my friends..
It is NOT an antiquated part of our history, seen as important to "rednecks"..
It is part and parcel to how we NOT ONLY gained our freedoms, but how we KEEP them as well..
Our founding fathers saw this, based on their own experiences and histories dealing with tyrannical governments.
The Necromancer

Zephyrhills, FL

#3 Jun 30, 2008
It is not "sacred," it is a man-made document that was privy to the failings of the enlightened, yet still imperfect, forefathers who wrote it.
Correct, to a degree..
It IS Sacred..
But it CAN be changed.
However it can ONLY be changed via amendment..
NOT by judges or law makers..
The Rights spelled out within that wonderful document are just that.
RIGHTS..
And ONLY an amendment can change those rights.
Something that some agents of government find inconvenient.
With sophisticated federal and state militaries, as well as federal, state, and municipal police agencies, we no longer need armed militias to protect us. They may have been important at the time of the revolution to get an independent nation but that nation is now here.
NO my friend..
We NOT ONLY need this right to "get an independent nation"..
We need this right to KEEP an independent nation..
The Virginia ratifying convention met from June 2 through June 26, 1788. Edmund Pendleton, opponent of a bill of rights, weakly argued that abuse of power could be remedied by recalling the delegated powers in a convention. Patrick Henry shot back that the power to resist oppression rests upon the right to possess arms:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."
..we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?"
Educate yourselves on WHY we have this right my friends..
It is NOT an antiquated part of our history, seen as important to "rednecks"..
It is part and parcel to how we NOT ONLY gained our freedoms, but how we KEEP them as well..
Our founding fathers saw this, based on their own experiences and histories dealing with tyrannical governments.

Call me crazy, but I choose to TRUST THEM on this one..
critical mass of BS

Michigan City, IN

#4 Jun 30, 2008
Arming the citizens will make an invader think twice about invading a country. Look at Iraq, Bush might not have invaded if he knew Sadam had armed his people to the teeth.
Conspiracies suck

United States

#5 Jun 30, 2008
The bill of rights it there to express those rights that all humans have. The bill of rights does not give us ANYTHING it tells the goverment that it will not take these rights away.

You say there is no need to your own protection. So if a guy breaks into your house the police are somehow going to come to your rescue. I do not think so. Police do not follow the bad guys around. could they be ther in 10 minutes. If you are lucky.. perhaps.

The simple fact are guns are a tool. You want to take away my hammer too.
Sgw

Chester, MA

#6 Jun 30, 2008
Great letter.

Since: May 08

Chester, MA

#7 Jun 30, 2008
OMG another civilized and intelligent person in this country...your letter is so true!
Sanity

Great Barrington, MA

#8 Jun 30, 2008
As Mr. Francis has once again made evident, Democrats (or 'liberals' or 'progressives' or however they would prefer to mislabel themselves today [and yes, we know how much you depsie labels]) are NOT gracious losers. Intolerant yes, gracious, no.
So the Second Ammendment is dated? And what of the First, or the other Eight, Mr. Francis? After all, we are too 'sophisticated' to allow for opinions which aren't 'progressive', and any opinion which isn't suitable for Barack Obama's web page is surely too narrow-minded and bigoted not to be surpressed. We are so modern and 'sophisticated' today. Big Brother government can control EVERYTHING, can it not?
Like so many on the left, Mr. Francis is a detached from rational thought. He is also rather wordy.

Since: Jan 08

Oakton, VA

#10 Jun 30, 2008
Sgw wrote:
Great letter.
Does this leave any doubt now that "Sgw" aka Sharon Mom..." is a Marxist?
Eoin Higgins

Olympia, WA

#11 Jun 30, 2008
The Court's decision is a victory for civil rights and justice, something they have been doing too little of recently (with the exception of the latest slap down of the Bush administration on Guantanamo). The right to bear arms is fundamental in a country whose existence is predicated on the overthrow of tyrannical government. If the populace cannot have weapons, only the military and police will. And then we truly will be in a police state.
lost freedoms

Springfield, MA

#12 Jun 30, 2008
Thank God for the five who upheld our rights, the seditious four should be impeached, disbarred then tarred and feathered.

BTW, the courts have affirmed that no agency is required to defend the public, that is one of the reasons this right is so precious. Look at what happened after Katrina if you think different.

The filthy scum supporting gun control just wants a disarmed populace so they can further their socialist agenda without fear of reprisals.
Common Sense

Williamstown, MA

#13 Jun 30, 2008
lost freedoms wrote:
Thank God for the five who upheld our rights, the seditious four should be impeached, disbarred then tarred and feathered.
BTW, the courts have affirmed that no agency is required to defend the public, that is one of the reasons this right is so precious. Look at what happened after Katrina if you think different.
The filthy scum supporting gun control just wants a disarmed populace so they can further their socialist agenda without fear of reprisals.
I can't speak for filthy scum all over, but I think most people want some gun control so they don't have mental midgets walking around their neighborhood with 9 mm's looking to shoot someone because they looked at them sideways, or cut them off in traffic. I know, that's such a socialist argument. And what are you talking about, no agency required to protect the public? Are you typing from Earth or some other planet?
Common Sense

Williamstown, MA

#15 Jun 30, 2008
Sanity wrote:
As Mr. Francis has once again made evident, Democrats (or 'liberals' or 'progressives' or however they would prefer to mislabel themselves today [and yes, we know how much you depsie labels]) are NOT gracious losers. Intolerant yes, gracious, no.
So the Second Ammendment is dated? And what of the First, or the other Eight, Mr. Francis? After all, we are too 'sophisticated' to allow for opinions which aren't 'progressive', and any opinion which isn't suitable for Barack Obama's web page is surely too narrow-minded and bigoted not to be surpressed. We are so modern and 'sophisticated' today. Big Brother government can control EVERYTHING, can it not?
Like so many on the left, Mr. Francis is a detached from rational thought. He is also rather wordy.
I think you need to work on your comprehension skills. The argument is actually pretty clear. When the amendment was written, people weren't shooting each other everyday in streets, kids weren't getting caught in crossfire and crime, and I'm going out on a limb here with no data, was a less common. Now, I beg you, open the New York Daily News or hang out with the city reporter at said paper and ask them how many people get shot everyday?

I'm not saying the letter writer was wrong or right, but the argument was cogent and really quite simple to follow along with. Just like woman not allowed to vote, slavery, the creation of national treasury, an air force, and even adding more states, nations evolve along with their governing documents. When the right to free speech becomes dated, let me know.

Since: May 08

Ludlow, MA

#16 Jun 30, 2008
Fighting for justice and human rights are good things,and I strive to do so!
I also strive to protect ALL of the rights the founding fathers included in the constitution and the bill of rights!
lost freedoms

Springfield, MA

#18 Jun 30, 2008
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't speak for filthy scum all over, but I think most people want some gun control so they don't have mental midgets walking around their neighborhood with 9 mm's looking to shoot someone because they looked at them sideways, or cut them off in traffic. I know, that's such a socialist argument. And what are you talking about, no agency required to protect the public? Are you typing from Earth or some other planet?
Yes US courts have ruled that the police are not obligated to protect citizens. Gotta love those liberal Judges. Google it up yourself, I got 2.5 million hits on the subject, read the rulings yourself unless ignorance is blissful to you!

"Those who trade essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security" - Ben Franklin
Edd

Seattle, WA

#19 Jun 30, 2008
lost freedoms wrote:
Thank God for the five who upheld our rights, the seditious four should be impeached, disbarred then tarred and feathered.
BTW, the courts have affirmed that no agency is required to defend the public, that is one of the reasons this right is so precious. Look at what happened after Katrina if you think different.
The filthy scum supporting gun control just wants a disarmed populace so they can further their socialist agenda without fear of reprisals.
While I wouldn't say the other 4 are seditious I am thankful there were 5 to uphold our right to protect ourselves.

I am glad to hear someone is aware that cops and other agencies ARE NOT REQUIRED to protect a citizen. You can sit on 911 all day long and the cops have no duty to protect you. So that 5 minute reponse time becomes five minutes to commit murder and run away or whatever it is they decide to do to you. Its like a restraining order, it doesn't stop that vicious ex, crazy neighbor, or whoever from killing you, it just tells the cops where to look first when someone finds your cold, dead body.

Further, disasters like Katrina are the exact reason why even if generally you would not require a firearm you may require one when the law breaks down.

Anyway, I am happy we still have the right to own firearms and protect ourselves and our families.
lost freedoms

Springfield, MA

#20 Jun 30, 2008
Educate yourself about the false notion of police protection and the courts rulings:

"Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect.[5]

4. Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

5. See, for example, Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958); Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983); Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985); Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982); Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981); Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978); Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977); Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.); Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982).
Sgw

Chester, MA

#21 Jun 30, 2008
OBAMA!!!OBAMA!!!OBAMA!!!'08'
Sanity

Great Barrington, MA

#22 Jun 30, 2008
Melissa wrote:
exactly----look at drive by shootings---yo yo yo you stepped on my toe---blast!!!!
And with the Left doing everything it can to protect criminals, to impose economically burdomesome socialism, and to devalue individual rights and traditional values, drive by shootings and inner city decay becomes an even greater problem.

It was not a politician that won for Americans the Right to Free Speech, or any other of our freedoms. Those freedoms-- as well as the Freedom from Slavery, which should have been secured originally as well, in the Constitution, but the 'liberals' of the day demanded a 'white man's right to choose'--were secured by the force of arms.

If the Second Ammendment goes, Americans are powerless to protect any other Right.

If you are concerned by drive-by shootings --as well you should be-- then you should vote conservative, for pro-economic, anti-crime policies.
Hooray

Clifton Park, NY

#23 Jun 30, 2008
The Haircut

One day a florist goes to a barber for a haircut.
After the cut he asks about his bill and the barber replies,'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The florist is pleased and leaves the shop.

When the barber goes to open his shop the next morning there is a 'thank you' card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.

Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the barber again replies,'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The cop is happy and leaves the shop.

The next morning when the barber goes to open up there is a 'thank you' card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.

Then, a Congressman comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill th e barber again replies,'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The Congressman is very happy and leaves the shop.

The next morning when the barber goes to open up, there are a dozen congressmen lined up waiting for a free haircut.

And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental
difference between the citizens of our country and the members of our Congress.

Vote carefully this year.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pittsfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Hat it out 55 min Curious 3
News Arrest made in Pittsfield shooting 1 hr Lee 4
Gaetani'cork finally blew 1 hr Lee 10
You know who is posting as Steve V on planetval... 1 hr Curious 9
News Northern Berkshire Community Coalition Names Ne... 5 hr Ozzie King Of Zyl... 2
Ire Over Stracuzzi 'Deal' Sparks Incident at Gr... (Apr '12) 5 hr Ozzie King Of Zyl... 223
Poll Is The US Dollar Ready To Collapse? (Oct '09) Sun Delish 44
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pittsfield Mortgages