The ONLY way to properly utilise the society designed by our forefathers is to gut the government, remove the incredible amount of foolish tort from the legal system, go back to the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land, and if the people need to be taxed for the sake of the military and the now FAR lower quantity of government employees, let it be a sales tax, gradated on the level of "luxury" offered by said purchase. IE food and clothing would not be taxed, nor would basic shelter or transportation. As one moves higher into the sphere of wants(as opposed to needs) then the tax rates increase. You buy what you can afford taxes included. Your income is yours to use as you will. In fact, should the government be reduced to a need be size, rather than a "Nanny State/cradle to grave care" size. Should court tort be lessened, insurances wouldn't be so ridiculous, for another example.

Now, let's look at another little thing. "Drilling for oil won't produce for 7-10 years." May Be. But if we had started drilling when that originally was used(by the left), we would have had all the domestic oil we need for, oh, 7-10 years ALREADY!

I did not serve 20 years of my life to watch the nation I offered my life to crumble into what we stood against. I've studied history, I've observed what caused ALL of the great societies of history to dissolve. And we are following them right down the tubes. I stood against the "politburo/proletariat" society, and watched it fold before my eyes. I've watched this great nation follow their lead slowly from about 20 years behind, and watched my country crumble as did the previous incarnation in Europe and Asia. The rest of the world moves to the right as we swing left.

That's not fairness, thats dictatorial propaganda. You see, the curse of capitalism is that if people don't want it, they don't buy it. You try to stick some shit in my grocery bag that I don't want, and then try to charge me for it, we've got a disagreement coming up.

Hey, they've got their radio stations, and their tv stations. And financially they don't do very well. Why is that? And to follow on from that question, if the balance of the population seems so obviously to prefer the conservative viewpoint, how on this stupid mudball are we saddled with THEM in control? How the fuck do they get political power, if the people so obviously indicated by the sales figures don't want to be saddled with their blither? Where are those votes coming from? Should this not be indication of foul play in the voting booth? How stupid must one be to not see this?

I do really wonder if there is some kind of unseen controlling group that uses this to make us think we have some form of say in our lives, when we don't. Are wars merely chess games to "The Illuminati"? You have to wonder sometimes.

Article One, section 10 reads as follows "No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in a war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay".   Other provisions in the Constitution make it clear that the states have a right to raise a militia and even appoint their own officers for same.   The language in section 10 recognizes the inherent right and possibility that the states might have to fight with armed forces.   Is 500,000 thousand foreigners a year who come in violation of our laws an invasion?   This could be argued, especially if many of them are promoting the illegal use of drugs in this country and and engaging in violent gang warfare killing hundreds every year in the border areas.   Are the drug trafficking and killings real?  Are those the facts?  I believe they are and the only question would be one of magnitude and degree.  

Now Article Four, section 4 reads as follows: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) , against domestic violence".   Does a couple million illegals in California constitute a threat to its guarantee of a republican form of government?   When they take resources from the citizens of the US such as school costs, healthcare, identity fraud, and jobs, jobs, jobs, does this amount to an invasion.   The word invasion is not defined in the Constitution itself.  

It would be very interesting if the Governor of say Arizona or California make a formal application to the President and set out his case of invasion.   Such an application could be quite persuasive in its recitation of the negative impacts of so many milions of illegals.   He could assert that his state was in "imminent" danger and no delay could be tolerated and that he was calling out the National Guard to exercise the Constitutional right of the state to defend itself and at the same time demand that the Federal Government come to its aid to defend its constitutional right to a republican form of government.    l mean  document that lays out the case for defending itself and cites the Constitutional obligation of the Federal Government and the right of the state to defend itself in such dire circumstances.  A document with all the bells and whistles on it.   The Constitutional provisions in the matter are written in "plain language".   That phrase is important because the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the Constitution and US statutes are to be interpreted by the plain language of the document or statute in  question.

I have no idea how such a scenario would turn out.   The state Governor could not be punished or overruled under the language of the Constitution. The Federl  Government might simply ignore the call for help, but that would have very serious consequences for the long term that even the most ardent devotee of the contral government power might ponder very hard.  The Supreme Court would NOT want to touch the case; if there is a "case" to touch at all.   Is the Federal govenment going to send in the US army against the stat national guard when they are protecting the border and acting under direct orders from the Governor?   The Federal govenment could not deny the reality of the illegals by the legions and the use of Uzis and murder and mayhem committed by the drug lords along the border.   And who would defend the corruption of the Mexican Government?

I enjoy the mental exercise of this one and would hope our national leaders would take the time to do the same.   The current situation cannot endure.   States, cities and counties around the country from the northeast to the far west, north and south are all taking various actions to reverse the negative consequences of illegal immigration and it is time the Federal government stepped up to the bar and answered the call of the people.   Who knows one day some President might get a certified letter in the mail from a Governor taking action to defend  his citizens in imminent danger.  The Constitution says what it says and means what it means.

Agree, disagree or come up with a completely different thought on the subject.   All we ask here is thoughtful and intelligent dialogue.

Many things I talk about I was inspired BY him to look at, and/or comment on. Kim is who inspired me to get off MY lazy ass and occasionally write something. As was the Emperor Misha, but that's not the point here. I'm so gonna miss Kims writings, you have no idea. The only good thing is that the blog will still be there. And therefore we can hope he occasionally posts something, because he's already done this once before. When he gave up blogging last time, it was because of work pressures. He couldn't stay away. I hope this is another of those times where he just can't stay away. *SIGH*

DON'T put all your eggs in the POTUS election part. By all means vote McCain this time. Osamabama is a stone ass socialist, pure and simple. He will be very, VERY bad for America. But that is not the only component of this election. We've got Congress, we've got State, and we've got local. VOTE! Get off your ass, and go to the courthouse, and VOTE!

Roger Baldwin quotes (American, 1884-1981)

Actually, that pretty well sums it up. I know I used it below, borrowed from elsewhere, but it just SO shows the truth. I love truth.

Followed by this little gem. Which is directly quoted from the ACLU blog. I thought these people were supposed to defend ALL of the BoR. Oh, wait, then there's that "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" bit in the First Amendment. But, HEY...

Heller Decision and the Second Amendment

So, we’ve been getting a lot of comments about the ACLU’s stance on the Second Amendment. For those of you who didn’t catch our response in the blog comments, here it is again:

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.

An Excerpt from You Can Be a Great American! 39 Steps to True and Lasting Greatness (a Growing Up Great Guide for American Boys and for the Parents and Teachers Who Love Them), by W. F. Markwick and W. A. Smith

Final Entry (#39) in the Raising Great Americans Project! Click Here to learn More!

.

.

THE IDEAL CITIZEN

.

MEMORY GEMS

Voters are the uncrowned kings who rule the nation.

--Morgan

A second-rate man can never make a first-rate citizen.

--J. S. White

Every good man in politics wields a power for good.

--M. C. Peters

If you want a clean city, vote to place the government in clean hands.

--Dr. Mc Glynn

The ideal citizen is the man who believes that all men are brothers,
and that the nation is merely an extension of his family.

--Habberton

.

We may now proceed to bring our studies to a close. All that has been said, from the beginning, has been gradually but surely focusing itself upon a single point; for the development of all these several faculties and powers leads directly to the forming of a well-rounded and fully-developed manhood.

A fully-developed manhood is the highest possible human achievement, and includes within itself all that can be desired; and for this higher manhood we now make our final and most urgent plea.

The real man is discovered in the sum total of his ideas; for it is in these that his life takes shape and character, it is in these that his true self comes into view. The real power of the true man lies in his being able to turn his thoughts inward upon himself; to so gauge and measure his own powers as to put them to the best uses; and to stand aloof from those positions and practices for which he finds himself to be unfitted.

The simple application of this rule to the practical affairs of today would diminish the number of our machine politicians by about four fifths. We are loaded down, almost to the breaking point, with politicians who do not understand politics, and who advocate measures which are not for the public good, because the public good is not the end for which they strive. But the fault is in the men themselves, rather than in our political system. They must first be made manly, before they can be made truly useful. They must first learn to govern themselves, before they can successfully carry forward the work of governing the nation. They must be taught that bluster is not argument, and that to go through the motions of political service does not in the least aid in the promotion of the public welfare. A single service rendered from the heart is often of more value than a whole life of noisy and showy pretense; but again we say that such service is almost always the result of a thoughtful and considerate manliness.

All this applies with equal force to the private citizen. A sturdy but quiet independence; a genuine love of righteousness and truth; a life of uprightness and integrity, of honesty and fair dealing; an absence of cringing and paltering, and of that miserable and contemptible fawning upon the rich, and that silly and despicable worship of those in place and power, which is too frequently to be observed;--all these things, and others, must receive care and attention before the ideal stage of manhood can be reached.

The manly man is a thinking being. By this we do not mean to say that he imagines that he is running the universe, and that no one but himself is acquainted with the secrets of its mechanism; but that he has a right to weigh all questions in the scales of his own reason, and to draw his own conclusions from the facts presented to his mind. If he be truly a man, he will hold to that which he feels to be true against all opposition, but will, with equal readiness, yield in all points where he discovers himself to be in the wrong. Instead of going through life in political leading-strings, bending to the will of one man, and gulping down the opinions of another, he will stand upon his own feet, put his own vertebral column to its legitimate use of sustaining his body, and his own mind to its legitimate use of directing the issues of his life.

The ideal citizen will also be a gentleman. By this term, we do not mean the milk-and-water, kid-gloved creature, who so often attempts to pass muster in this connection. All that we have asked for in the man, we insist on in the gentleman. Sturdy independence, vigorous thought, mental and moral uprightness, and a backbone as strong as a bar of steel,--but all tempered with a gentleness of disposition and a courtesy of manner which brings every natural faculty and power beneath its sway, and yet leaves principle and righteousness entirely undisturbed.

The real gentleman is, above all else, courteous and considerate. He is master of himself, and that at all points,--in his carriage, his temper, his aims, and his desires. Calm, quiet, and temperate, he will not allow himself to be hasty in judgment or exorbitant in ambition; nor will he suffer himself to be overbearing or grasping, arrogant or oppressive.

The ideal citizen will also be, in the better sense of the word, a politician. Be careful to note here that we say, a politician in the better sense. We would have you distinguish, with the utmost clearness, between a politician and a partisan. The true politician, looking ever to the highest interests of the state, is a public benefactor; while it very frequently happens that the mere political partisan is a public nuisance, if not a public disgrace.

The man who sinks his country's interests in his own, and the man who sacrifices his personal advantages for the sake of his country's good, stand at the very opposite poles of human society. The man who swears by party watchwords, and moves amid the burning animosities of party strife, is centering his life in interests which may vanish like an evening cloud. Not in the loud clamors of partisan struggle, are we to find the secret highways which lead to national prosperity and progress, but in that quiet, thoughtful, careful study of the interests and events in which the national life is taking shape and color, and in the application to these of the great principles of righteousness and common sense.

This is about equal to saying that the ideal citizen will be a patriot. We have so mixed in our minds the two distinct ideas of patriotism and heroism, that we have need to pause for a moment, that we may disentangle ourselves from the meshes of this net of misconception, before we venture to proceed.

If we call for an illustration of patriotism, you point us to some Horatius or Leonidas of the olden times; or to some William Tell, or Ulysses Grant, of these more modern days. We do not say that these men were not patriots, and patriots of a high order too. But their circumstances were exceptional, and under these exceptional circumstances their patriotism made them heroes. But if you will enter into a careful study of the matter, you will find that it is the heroism, quite as much as the patriotism of their lives, which takes so strong a hold upon your hearts.

We therefore desire to place by the side of our beloved Grant, the man who, in the midst of a bitter struggle for bread, can barely manage by the closest possible economy to keep his family from want and shame, but who still sacrifices an hour's wages that he may go to the polls and vote the expression of his will, and thus support the measures which he honestly believes to be for the public good; and we desire to say that, on the ground of a true patriotism, we consider that the one is fully the equal of the other, and that there is a sense in which the man of smaller opportunities is the greater hero of the two.

There may be a thousand definitions of heroism, but the patriot is simply "a man who places his country's interests before his own." He is a patriot who fills well his station in life whether public or private, who loves peace and promotes order, who labors to uphold the good and to put down the bad. He is a patriot who uses all his advantages of friendship, acquaintance, business connection, social position and the like, in such a manner as to make these helps and not hindrances to his country's progress. He is a patriot who seeks to aid in all movements that look to the instruction, elevation, and permanent betterment of his fellow-citizens, and to put down all such movements or institutions as tend to demoralize and degrade them. Such is the patriotism we plead for; and such patriotism and ideal citizenship are, in our minds, just one and the same thing.
____________________

This Article is an Excerpt from You Can Be a Great American! 39 Steps to True and Lasting Greatness (a Growing Up Great Guide for American Boys and for the Parents and Teachers Who Love Them), by W. F. Markwick and W. A. Smith, which is available from Better Days Books in quality hardbound, sturdy trade paperback and convenient .PDF e-book editions starting at just $4.95.

Industry, Ambition, Self Control, Self-Respect, Courtesy, Faithfulness, Courage, Duty, Honesty, Enthusiasm, Humility, Patriotism… In every era of our Nation's history, the true alchemy by which ordinary boys have been transformed into Great American Men has always and only occurred where these indispensible moral principles have been successfully applied. In an age like our own, where such manly ideals are openly mocked and derided by our popular culture, it's time to turn to the past to recapture a clear vision of what it takes to be a Great American, and the true moral and ethical ladder that leads reliably to its attainment.

You Can Be a Great American: 39 Steps to True and Lasting Greatness was first published in 1900, under the title The True Citizen, How to Become One, and contains 39 essential lessons in manhood tailored to each age and transition in a boy's life, from infancy to adulthood. It is the clearest roadmap to American Greatness ever compiled for the youth of our Nation, and remains as life-changing today as it was when first published, over 100 years ago.

Whether you are an adult raising boys in a Traditional family setting, the single parent of a son, or a boy abandoned to no or poor parenting, left to grab your own bootstraps and lift yourself up to a life of achievement, success and All-American Greatness (or an adult who knows a boy in such sad straits), You Can Be a Great American!: 39 Steps to True and Lasting Greatness is the only guidebook you'll ever need.

Also available through Amazon.com in quality trade paperback and Kindle e-book download editions.

mi sto sbattendo troppo per pubblicare altro materiale, le prime dieci pagine del secondo capitolo mi sono costate un mese di lavoro e spero che le prossime dieci non siano così dure.

ma dubito

Law enforcement officials say the proposed policy would help them do exactly what Congress demanded after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: root out terrorists before they strike.

Although President Bush has disavowed targeting suspects based on their race or ethnicity, the new rules would allow the FBI to consider those factors among a number of traits that could trigger a national security investigation.

Currently, FBI agents need specific reasons - like evidence or allegations that a law probably has been violated - to investigate U.S. citizens and legal residents. The new policy, law enforcement officials told The Associated Press, would let agents open preliminary terrorism investigations after mining public records and intelligence to build a profile of traits that, taken together, were deemed suspicious.

Among the factors that could make someone subject of an investigation is travel to regions of the world known for terrorist activity, access to weapons or military training, along with the person's race or ethnicity.

More than a half-dozen senior FBI, Justice Department and other U.S. intelligence officials familiar with the new policy agreed to discuss it only on condition of anonymity, either because they were not allowed to speak publicly or because the change is not yet final.

The change, which is expected later this summer, is part of an update of Justice Department policies known as the attorney general guidelines. They are being overhauled amid the FBI's transition from a traditional crime-fighting agency to one whose top mission is to protect America from terrorist attacks.

"We don't know what we don't know. And the object is to cut down on that," said one FBI official who defended the plans.

Another official, while also defending the proposed guidelines, raised concerns about criticism during the presidential election year over what he called "the P word" - profiling.

If adopted, the guidelines would be put in place in the final months of a presidential administration that has been dogged by criticism that its counterterror programs trample privacy rights and civil liberties.

Critics say the presumption of innocence is lost in the proposal. The FBI will be allowed to begin investigations simply "by assuming that everyone's a suspect, and then you weed out the innocent," said Caroline Fredrickson of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey acknowledged the overhaul was under way in early June, saying the guidelines sought to ensure regulations for FBI terror investigations don't conflict with ones governing criminal probes. He would not give any details.

"It's necessary to put in place regulations that will allow the FBI to transform itself ... into an intelligence gathering organization in addition to just a crime solving organization," Mukasey told reporters.

The changes would allow FBI agents to ask open-ended questions about activities of Muslim- or Arab-Americans, or investigate them if their jobs and backgrounds match trends that analysts deem suspect.

FBI agents would not be allowed to eavesdrop on phone calls or dig deeply into personal data - such as the content of phone or e-mail records or bank statements - until a full investigation was opened.

The guidelines focus on the FBI's domestic operations and run about 40 pages long, several officials said. They do not specifically spell out what traits the FBI should use in building profiles.

One senior Justice Department official said agents have been allowed since 2003 to build "threat assessments" of Americans based on public records and information from informants. Such assessments could be used to open a preliminary investigation, the official said.

However, another official said the 2003 authorities are limited, tightly monitored by FBI headquarters in Washington and, overall, confusing to agents about how or when they can be used.

Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the guidelines governing when to open a national security investigation are part of a "harmonizing" process that will not give the FBI any more authority than it already has. He declined further comment, but he and two other senior Justice officials, would not deny the changes as they were described to AP by others familiar with the guidelines.

"Any review and change to the guidelines will reflect our traditional concerns for civil liberties and First Amendment liberties and our traditional investigative emphasis on using the least intrusive means feasible," Roehrkasse said Wednesday.

Although the guidelines do not require congressional approval, House members recently sought to limit such profiling by rejecting an $11 million request for the FBI's security assessment center. Lawmakers wrote it that was unclear how the FBI could compile suspect profiles "in such a way as to avoid needless intrusions into the privacy of innocent citizens" and without wasting time and money chasing down false leads.

The denial of funding could limit the FBI's use of profiles, or "predictive models and patterns of behavior" as the government prefers to describe the data-mining results, but would not change the guidelines authorizing them. The guidelines would remain in effect until a new attorney general decided to change them.

Courts across the country have overturned criminal convictions when defendants showed they were targeted based on race. Racial profiling generally is considered a civil rights violation, and former Attorney General John Ashcroft condemned it in March 2001 as an "unconstitutional deprivation of equal protection under our Constitution."

President Bush also has condemned racial profiling as "wrong in America" and in a December 2001 interview had harsh words for an airline that refused to let one of his Secret Service agents board a commercial flight. The agent was Arab-American. "If he was treated that way because of his ethnicity, that will make me madder than heck," Bush said.

Immediately after 9/11, hundreds of Muslims and Arabs were detained, deported and monitored as the government urgently sought information that could prevent another attack. Despite efforts to repair and nurture relationships with those groups, Muslim- and Arab-Americans still complain of being singled out by federal security practices.

Martin Redish, a constitutional and civil rights scholar at Northwestern University School of Law, said courts are likely to give the FBI a lot of leeway in deciding how to open national security investigations.

"But it's a very fine line to be drawn when the basis of the investigation is dominated by the ethnic background of the subject," Redish said. "And when the investigation results in harassment, you have a serious constitutional concern."

Citing Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski and Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh - two white Americans - the ACLU's Fredrickson said: "Profiling has sent us in the wrong direction. ... I thought we learned our lesson in that regard."

___

On the Net:

Justice Department: http://www.usdoj.gov/

FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/

ACLU: http://www.aclu.org/

Not only was Kennedy v. Louisiana criticized for being too lenient on criminals, there came an academic attack which no one could disagree with, coming not from legal scholars but a blogger, CAAflog.com.   The New York Times caught the item and wrote an article about the glaring error in Justice Kennedy's majority opinion.  Kennedy reasoned that the Court's decision aligned with the federal government and that of several other states where the death penalty could not be imposed for child rape.  This "factual" statement was absolutely wrong.  In 2006, revisions were made to the Uniform Code of Military Justice whereby under military law, the crime of child rape could be punishable by death.  The military is under the guise of the federal government.

The article notes that the State of Lousiana has 25 days to seek a reconsideration of the issue from the Court.  But would it really matter?  Probably not.  Justice Kennedy noted that six states provided for the death penalty in cases of child rape.  The addition of one more jurisdiction into the Court's analysis would not have made much of a difference.  Now with the Court's ruling , the military will no longer have the option of imposing the death penalty in those cases. 

I'll start by quoting the 2nd amendment in its entirety, and then I'll analyze it. Then I'll discuss the USSC majority and minority positions.

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.

First, there is the explicatory phrase: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"; this phrase serves to provide a rationale for what follows. It doesn't instruct the government to do anything, it simply explains something the framers thought would help readers understand why the operative phrase to come says what it does.

Even so, let's look at it. Militia meant all able bodied males of a reasonable age, such that they could rationally be expected to fight. It does not mean "national guard", nor does it mean "army" or "state militia." If you doubt me, look it up. I'll wait.

Well regulated meant consistent, and in this specific phrase, it meant consistently armed. Laws on the books at that time went so far as to specify exactly what that meant; so many bullets, so much powder in a container suitable to keep it dry, etc.

The "security of a free state" means either to retain the state of being free, or it means to retain a political state, in which freedom is secure. I admit that I have no particular preference in the reading; they could have meant either one. They both seem to amount to the same thing to me.

So basically what they were saying here in modern English is that consistently armed fighting people are needed in order to retain freedom. Once we unveil the somewhat obfuscatory archaic English, it makes perfect sense. Of course such people would be needed.

Regardless, again, it's not an instruction to the government. It's just an explanation.

Now we come to the actual instruction, the operative phrase: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This is as clear today as when it was written. Infringed still means today what it meant then; The Oxford dictionary has it as:

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on : his legal rights were being infringed | [ intrans. ] I wouldn't infringe on his privacy.

But surely you knew that. Infringe isn't an uncommon word. When I begin to infringe on your personal space, I'm too close. I'm just inside the edges. When I seriously infringe on your personal space, I'm probably way too close, perhaps touching you. If I'm not infringing on your space, I'm far enough away as to not affect your perception of your own space at all.

Keep and bear... I shouldn't have to explain this at all, though I'm perfectly happy to do so. Keep means... keep. To have around, nearby, handy, available, ready to access. I keep peanut butter in the cupboard. I can go get it any time, because I kept it; I didn't get rid of it or give it away. I can bear that peanut butter over to the table or bear it to my neighbor's house; she can bear a child; I can bear a burden; to bear means to carry. Both then, and now.

So what this is instructing the government to do (or rather, not do) is simple: They are not to, in any way, even a little, interfere with the people's right to own, hold, have arms; nor are they to interfere in any way with the people's right to carry them around.

So what does that mean in terms of modern gun laws? Well, for one thing, if they say you can't carry your gun for any reason, that's infringing on your right to carry. For another, if they say you can't keep a gun in your house, that's infringing on your right to keep. This clearly means that they cannot require you to have a "license" for a gun that has any material effect upon gun ownership or carrying such arms; because then they are saying that without such a license, you cannot keep or bear, and that's clearly infringing. So any such law is unauthorized, that is, the constitution forbids such laws.

Likewise, if they say you can't carry some particular weapon, that's infringing as well. The 2nd amendment specifies "arms." So we should at least take a look at what "arms" meant at the time.

In 1791 (when the bill of rights were ratified), "arms" included all manner of pistols, rifles, muskets, cannons, explosive and solid cannonballs, cannonballs filled with shards, frigates with multiple decks of cannon, wagons with explosives and multiple guns rigged to fire in unison, chain shot, flaming missiles soaked with pitch and other inflammable, easily spread and hard to extinguish compounds, swords, knives, bayonets, fighting canes, brass knuckles, battering rams, catapults, siege towers, glass bottles, garrotes, whips, chains, both fused and mechanically triggered explosives, striking weapons like sticks and poles and quarterstaffs and maces and war-hammers, spears, bows, axes, arrows and crossbows... I could go on for quite some time. All of these things were in common use in warfare and self-defense at the time. Yet, knowing all these things, all they put in the 2nd amendment was... "arms." So clearly, that's what they meant. Arms of any kind. They didn't say "muskets and pistols." They said arms.

Today, a few things have changed that make it clear that the 2nd amendment, while it has served us well for centuries, could use some updating. Nuclear weapons are arms; so are biological weapons. I can say with considerable confidence that most people, including myself, are not OK with the idea that John Doe down the street has a working nuke in his basement, or that Jane Doe down the other block has a nice warm batch of weaponized Anthrax baking in the oven. So if we take the 2nd at its word — arms of any kind — aren't we in trouble here?

Yes, indeed we are.

However — the authors of the constitution knew that over time, circumstances change, and that they would not be able to predict in what precise ways they might change. So they put in article V, Amendment.

This prescient section of the constitution provides the government with a legitimate method to change their own constituting authority in a manner that honors the wishes of the people they are supposed to be working for. Imagine that!

In this case, the obvious thing to do is to offer an amendment that modifies the 2nd to say "arms except those that incorporate biological, fissionable, fusionable, or ionizing radiation means of destruction, either direct or indirect."

Now ask yourself: Who in their right mind would object to such a modification of the 2nd amendment? Do you seriously think there would be any trouble at all getting a majority to go along with such a reasonable amendment? Of course not. The very idea is absurd. No sane person wants just any random other person to have power of that magnitude in their hands. No matter if they're far left, centric, far right, libertarian or of any other political and social persuasion.

Unfortunately the government has a long, dark history of just doing what it wants to, as opposed to what it has been authorized to do. That is why you don't see reasonable constitutional amendments. They've got the citizens accepting that the government should be able to rule out things like nukes arbitrarily even though the constitution forbids them to; because, after all, no sane person wants nukes. It sure seems reasonable on the surface.

But the fact is, if they can do one forbidden thing arbitrarily, no matter how well meaning it might be, they can also do anything else forbidden they want to arbitrarily as well, and there's no assurance at all that the underlying purpose or the actual implementation will be well-meaning. This is why we must hold them to the limits imposed by the constituting authority, and furthermore, why we must be be very careful about how we allow the constituting authority to be modified.

So that's my position on the 2nd amendment; I'll elaborate if anyone has any relevant questions, but I think that covers the basics, at least.

Now, as to the four justices who dissented today:

The Washington law forbid any citizen of DC from keeping a pistol at home. We ask: Is this constitutional? Well, does forbidding someone to own a pistol infringe on their right to keep arms? Yes, it certainly does. Well then, there's your answer. This isn't rocket science. The command is that the government shall not infringe; in this case, they are infringing; therefore the law is unconstitutional. End of story.

Ergo, the judges who dissented are either traitors (presuming they have actually read the 2nd amendment and understood it) or incompetents (because it is their job to read and understand that amendment); either way, we need to not have them on the supreme court bench.

As to the five who contributed to the majority decision as written by Justice Antonin Scalia, although they did the right thing (by which I mean they struck down the DC law), they still don't understand why they're doing it. Scalia says that they did it because the constitution protects "the inherent right of self-defense", which is entirely beside the point (and not what the constitution says anyway); the law infringed — therefore, it was illegitimate. Period.

If you want to argue why the 2nd amendment is there, you should begin by studying the Declaration of the Independence and the writings of Thomas Jefferson. But again, those words aren't in the constitution. What is there is simple, clear, and specific. So there's really no need to argue, unless you're being intentionally disingenuous.

Scalia also said:

Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on [...] laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings

Which is completely wrong. Because such laws infringe on the right to carry. Those laws are no more legitimate than the one they just struck down, and for the same reason: The government is forbidden to infringe; if it does, it's out of line. If they want to change this, they must amend. Without an amendment granting it, they have nowhere to go to obtain such authority.

As a side issue, the constitution directly addresses the federal congress, the federal government; so it might seem that we are only talking about federal authority. There is something else to consider, however, and that is the fourteenth amendment, which has been taken to mean that the entire bill of rights (amendments one through ten) apply to the state governments just as they do to the federal government. This means that states also cannot legitimately create such law. Beyond that, the rights fall to the people. So you can say that I cannot keep arms in, or carry arms in, your home or business. But you can't say I can't keep or carry them with regard to my own home or business, someone else's home or business, or out in public.

Now, very seriously, do not go confusing authority with power. Authority is what the government has (from the constitution) that allows it to use a very limited amount of power legitimately.

Power can also be used illegitimately, and that is precisely what we see when government agents infringe on our rights and trample our liberties. Always keep clear in your mind what authority is, and what power is. They are not at all the same thing. Your power, as a citizen, is very limited — I would not advise that you attempt to face down the government's use of power based on your (100% correct) understanding that they are not exercising power backed by legitimate authority. The government stooge's bullet that takes you down doesn't care about authority; it is the very manifestation of arbitrary, illegitimate power, and it will kill you 100% dead just the same, authority or not. At which point you are very little good to anyone, the questionable value of martyrs for a good cause notwithstanding.

So we know one very bad, unauthorized law has been struck down for the wrong reason. We should not be looking at this as an example of proper comportment of supreme court justices, examining an issue to see if it passes constitutional muster. Instead, we should take this as a warning that the entire bench is made up of people who don't regard the constitution as the over-riding authority, literally the constituting authority, for the entire federal government — despite the oath they swore to the contrary. And that, my friends, is nothing less than a wake-up call.

The problem is, as it has been for some time, is that modern Americans are deaf to such calls. This is why our society is literally crumbling around us with regard to our rights and liberties.

Now let's look at gun control. The federal law says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". If any state violates that law, they are subject to federal prosecution for violating a specifically identified right. They say "We're going to violate your federally guaranteed right", and it is therefore the duty of the government to say "This right is constitutionally guaranteed, and the exact law states YOU may NOT withold this right".

To clarify, if fed.gov says it's not against the law, they can say "well, it is here". But if the federal law is "shall not be infringed", they can NOT say "oh yes we will" because they are then in direct violation of a specifically enumerated/recognized human right/law of the land.

Then I got to thinking. This is not merely constitutionally guaranteed. It is a pre-existing human right recognized by the founding fathers, and specifically addressed by them as being inviolable. The government is specifically restricted BY THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF from being able TO violate that human right. It's a start toward overturning ALL state and federal interference with our recognized right to keep and bear arms.

http://gunblast.com/SCOTUS-Heller.htm This is a well written piece. Go read this, IMHO it is excellent.