Ben Carson Tries to Clarify Stance on Second Amendment Rights

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

dr. benjamin carson

 

Hat/Tip to John Blosser at Newsmax.

Most Conservatives, no matter how much they admire and support Dr. Ben Carson, remember his troubling statement on the Glenn Beck show about the Second Amendment. Well, utilizing a conference call, Dr. Carson tried to ‘splain himself.

Potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson used a conference call with supporters Wednesday to tackle an albatross that has hovered over him since an interview with Glenn Beck last year, and set things straight on where he stands on Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

Carson, who caused a furor last year when he told Beck that people’s right to own a semi-automatic weapon depends on where they live, said on the conference call, “There seemed to be group of people — I don’t know exactly who they are — who seize upon one part of something that I said. Sometimes people just hear one little thing and they don’t hear anything else,” Bloomberg News reported. 

As a reminder, here is what he said:

Carson had said to Beck, who asked if people should have a right to own semi-automatic weapons, “It depends on where you live, I think. If you live in the midst of a lot of people and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it. If you live out in the country somewhere by yourself, I have no problem.” 

 

.

.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

 In the aforementioned conference call, he walked back his statements made on the Glenn Beck show and seems pretty adamant about it.

Carson said on the conference call, “Perhaps I didn’t convey it appropriately. I wanted to convey that, you know, I’ve lived in urban areas. I’ve worked in urban areas. I’ve seen a lot of carnage, and I’d prefer a situation where the kinds of weapons that create that kind of carnage don’t fall to the hands of criminal elements or insane people.

“But that is secondary to the desire to always defend the Second Amendment.”

He said that if elected, “under no circumstances” would he “allow a bureaucrat to remove any law-abiding citizen’s rights for any kind of weapon they wanted to protect themselves,” including semi-automatic and fully automatic firearms, Bloomberg reported.

From all accounts, he seems to be sincere.

It’s not the first time Carson has corrected himself over the Beck interview. At the Western Conservative Summit 2014 in Denver in July, he said that the Second Amendment is “vitally important and I would never compromise the Second Amendment in any way. It was put there for a very specific reason, so that the people could act in support of the military in case of an invasion but, more importantly, so that people could protect themselves from an overly aggressive government if that ever happened.

“So we absolutely cannot compromise that because all we have to do is look back through history and see what happened when various dictators rose to power. One of the first things they always did was confiscate the weapons.

“We don’t ever want to allow that situation to occur. We don’t even necessarily want them to know who has weapons. You have a right to have weapons.”

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

DC Police: “The Second Amendment Was Written For When The British Were Coming”

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

 photo 2ndamendment_zps734bf82d.jpg

Hat/Tip to Katie Pavlich at TownHall.com.

The Liberal Gun Control Lobby reminds me of that inflatable clown that lets kids knock it down forever, while it just keeps comin’ back up bozo 3d bop bagagain.

I mean they get a gun ban passed in DC in the late ’70s, and then later Chicago follows suit in the early ’80s. Finally, the Supreme Court steps in and puts an end to all that nonsense, so it’s over. Right?

Wrong.

In very typical Lib/Progressive fashion, they have found a way, although I don’t see a long future for their “solution” around the law and still manage to punish law-abiding gun owners.

Back in July the Washington D.C. ban on concealed and open carry of handguns was struck down by U.S. District Judge Frederick Scullin as unconstitutional. As a result, the DC City Council reluctantly voted to approve concealed carry, giving the power of writing the rules and regulations to the Washington D.C. police. Now, those rules have been written and they’re impossible to follow.

Investigative reporter Emily Miller and author of Emily Gets Her Gun has started the process of applying for a concealed carry permit in the District.

I am a registered gun owner, but I feel that I’m in more danger on the streets of Washington, D.C. than inside my home. So when D.C. recently passed a new law allowing for some rights to carry a gun outside the home, I decided to apply for a permit. I quickly found that it is still impossible to exercise my Second Amendment right to bear arms.

What she has found so far about the process is enraging. Currently, D.C. police are failing to comply with the court order and the required training that is only available through the D.C. police hasn’t been set up yet. Further, the chief-of-police will determine who has enough evidence and justification for “needing” a concealed carry permit. Living in a high crime area with regular occurrences of rape and murder doesn’t count.

“You need to meet two criteria,” Agurs explained. “First that your life is in danger, your family or your property, or you have the type of business you carry large sums of money, jewelry. Under those circumstances, you can get a carry permit in DC.”

“To prove my life is in danger?” I asked. “Obviously there is a rising crime rate and a high rate of murders and sexual assaults in D.C. — is that enough to say I want this for self-defense?”

“You have to prove you need concealed carry as opposed to just wanting one,” he replied.

Prove a need for a constitutional right? That’s what D.C.’s new law says.

The application that Agurs gave me said that living and working in a high crime city is not enough to get a carry permit. I read further down where it says that it has to be “a special danger to your life.”

What’s the difference between a regular danger — like getting raped and murdered on the street — and a special danger? You have to prove you are being targeted.

“Do I have to give evidence?” I asked.

“Yes ma’am,” said Agurs.

“I was a victim of a home invasion. And I’ve gotten a threat against me. Do I just give the police records?” I asked.

“Yes, ma’am,” he said.

But it gets worse. This is about the point that the DC police said, “The Second Amendment Was Written For When The British Were Coming.”

Really?

To make things worse, during an interview a D.C. police department employee essentially argued that Second Amendment rights don’t apply in D.C. because they were written “for when the British were coming.” For the record, “the British were coming” (a reference from Paul Revere’s famous ride) in 1775. The Second Amendment wasn’t written until 1787. Yes, we fought the British again for the War of 1812, but that isn’t why the Amendment was written.

 

So was the First Amendment written for when all communications were handled with quill pens and parchment paper? When the only broadcast media was a printing press? I mean let’s take that argument to it’s logical conclusion. If the Second Amendment was written for the technology of the time, which was muskets, and therefore doesn’t apply to today’s far advanced weaponry; and further, if we are too assume this to be true, then it must apply to all the Amendments.

The First Amendment, guaranteeing our right to communicate our free speech to one another must certainly only apply to the technology of the times.

This means that we’ll have to git rid of all radios, because surely the Founding Fathers could never have envisioned radios!

And we’ll also have to forgo our love affair with our televisions. I mean the Framers of the Constitution couldn’t have thought up a device that broadcasts moving pictures of the world around us, and allows us to communicate our free speech to the world.

Oh, and that little thing Al Gore invented? The internet? Well it’s gotta go, too. Could you have imagined saying the word “Facebook” to James Madison, and then try to explain what it was? Nope, just wouldn’t work. That means that the First Amendment couldn’t have applied to anything more than quill pens, parchment papers and printing presses.

And phones???!! No way could they have intended the First Amendment to apply cell phones!!

How about the Fourth Amendment? It says in part, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”

So the police can search your automobile or your airplane or motorcycle anytime they want, without a warrant or even without probable cause since those weren’t around when they wrote it, right?

I could go on, but I’m pretty sure I’ve made my point.

So the next time a Lib says the Second Amendment had nothing to do with ‘automatic’ or ‘assault’ weapons, just do what I did and show them how utterly absurd they sound, (my apologies to the DC cop who sounded utterly absurd when he said that).

 

DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG
 

Read the full story here.
.
.

Share

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens Wants To Take Your Guns

Share

john paul stevensSupreme Court Justice Ret. John Paul Stevens has a book out and in it he proposes several major changes to the United States Constitution. Chief among them is his desire to take guns away from every individual United States citizen in the country. Why? Well, one look at his voting record and you can see his true liberal colors bleed through.

The 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights reads as follows:

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.

Stevens would insert six words into the 2nd Amendment, essentially rendering it null and void. His proposal would read:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, when serving in the militia, shall not be infringed.

In a recent interview with Stevens about his proposal to the 2nd Amendment, George Stephanopoulos asked, “Wouldn’t that take away any limits to what a legislature could do to the rights of gun owners?”

To which Stevens replied, “I think that’s probably right, but I think that’s what should be the rule; that it should be legislatures, rather than judges who draw the line on what is permissible.”

Stephanopoulos followed up: “But to be clear, if Congress passed a national ban on individual gun ownership, that would be constitutional under your amendment.”

“I think that’s right,” Stevens said.

What Stevens wants to do, is what every liberal wants – to increase government and decrease individual liberty. By giving the states the authority to grant or prohibit gun ownership, he is saying that the Bill of Rights be damned, we (the government) just don’t think you citizens can be trusted with guns. His stance on this is so laughably transparent as to be ridiculous. The Bill of Rights is and always has been a charter of individual liberties, NOT collective liberties. But given his way, Stevens’ revisionist history would switch that around.

And to think, in the beginning of this interview, Stevens categorized his proposals as “moderate.”

“I think every one of my proposals is a moderate proposal.”

The other changes he would make?

  1. The “Anti-Commandeering Rule” (Amend the Supremacy Clause of Article VI) This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges and other public officials. in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
  2. Political Gerrymandering – Districts represented by members of Congress, or by members of any state legislative body, shall be compact and composed of contiguous territory. The state shall have the burden of justifying any departures from this requirement by reference to neutral criteria such as natural, political, or historical boundaries or demographic changes. The interest in enhancing or preserving the political power of the party in control of the state government is not such a neutral criterion.
  3. Campaign Finance – Neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns.
  4. Sovereign Immunity – Neither the Tenth Amendment, the Eleventh Amendment, nor any other provision of this Constitution, shall be construed to provide any state, state agency, or state officer with an immunity from liability for violating any act of Congress, or any provision of this Constitution.
  5. Death Penalty– (Amend the 8th Amendment) Excessive Bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments such as the death penalty inflicted.
  6. The Second Amendment – (Amend 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 when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.

At least his radical ideas won’t be taken seriously anymore since he doesn’t have a vote on the court.

Share

Video Shows Endgame of the Bundy Stand-Off

Share

It seems that a show of force by citizens influenced the BLM to retreat during the Bundy stand-off.  Government goons that were stealing a man’s property were confronted by hundreds of citizens, many of them armed.  Here is the video…

I know, the source of the video is rather, shall we say, sketchy.  However, this could not have been faked to any degree, so I chose to use it.  Of course, the fact that Harry Reid has been exposed as having some influence in this case may have something to do with the rapid retreat as well.

Oh, and this is why we have the Second Amendment.   And, this is why regressives want to get rid of it.

Share

Re-writing the Constitution to our demise … part II

Share

A few days ago I wrote Re-writing the Constitution to our demise to address the latest attack on the 2nd Amendment rights of American citizens. Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens who is 93, and I’m not sure if all his oars are hitting the water now that he’s retired, suggests the 2nd Amendment be re-written or amended to read …

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.

Now anyone can understand what, if that were to happen, would be the result; immediate confiscation of privately owned firearms and disarming of the American public, ie.  anyone not serving in the ”militia”.  And then we have the highly intellectual far-left liberal who takes it a step farther …

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of any of the People who are members of an officially recognized militia, who are engaged directly in the business of an officially recognized militia, to keep and bear arms while engaged in duties pertaining to the performance of the mission and objectives of an officially recognized militia shall not be infringed – – but duck hunting and taking excessive advantage of “Stand Your Ground” laws is not included in the aforementioned definitions.

Asinine at best.

In Justice Stevens’ view the authors of the 2nd amendment were mostly concerned about oppression from a national standing army and were not concerned about the right to self-defense.

Think about what that intellectual giant is suggesting. If the authors were mostly concerned about oppression from a national standing army wouldn’t Justice Stevens’ re-write of the 2nd Amendment create that precise possibility? The “militia” would be the only armed people …  the oppression which concerned the authors of the  2nd Amendment is exactly what Mr. Stevens’ proposal makes possible.

Original Post: Cry and Howl

Share

Meet the 1718 Puckle Gun!

Share

The next time a gun grabber tells you that the Second Amendment only applies to muskets, introduce her to the Puckle Gun…

Whereas our Sovereign Lord King George by his Letters pattents bearing date the Fifteenth day of May in the Fourth Year of his Majesties Reign was generously pleased to Give & Grant unto me James Puckle of London Gent my Exors Admors & Assignes the sole priviledge & Authority to Make Exercise Work and use a Portable Gun or Machine (by me lately invented) call’d a Defence in that part of his Majesties Kingdom of Great Britain called England his Dominion of Wales, Town of Berwick upon Tweed and his Majesties Kingdom of Ireland in such manner & with such Materials as shou’d be ascertain’d to be the New Invention by writing under my Hand & Seal and Inrolled in the High court of chancery within three Calendary Months from the date of the pattent as in & by his Majesties Letters Pattents Relacon being thereunto had Doth & may amongst Other things morefully & at large Appear Now I the said James Puckle Do hereby Declare that the Materials whereof the Machine is Made are Steel Iron & Brass and that the Trepied whereon it Stands is Wood & Iron And that in the Above print (to which I hereby Refer) the Said Gun or Machine by me Invented is Delienated & Described.   July the 25th 1718./.

This is a repeating firearm.  If you had a number of preloaded drums, you could do some damage; compared to the musket, that could be loaded (under the best conditions) three times per minute.  If you had helpers reloading the drums, you could keep up what, back then, would have been a phenomenal rate of fire!

I have to admit some surprise.  I had not heard of the Puckle Gun.  It obviously had not been wildly successful, but it existed, and modern reproductions exist.

Share

Bill Maher Believes the Second Amendment is “Bullsh*t”

Share

gun control endgame

Bill Maher and his brain trust discuss the second amendment and gun rights in the below clip.

These people are absolutely clueless about the second amendment and why the right of the people to bear arms is so important.  They believe in the notion that an all powerful benevolent government would never impose its will on the people.  The one thing I noticed was as the conversation progressed Bob Costas began to reveal just who he was. According him those who support our right to bear arms are all paranoid.  He states we’re paranoid because we’re afraid the government might one day go too far and grow out of control.  Well Mr. Costas I wonder if the Founding Fathers were just as paranoid when it came to the people having the right to defend themselves against an out of control government.  Below are a few quotes.

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment

“To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
George Washington

“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington

“Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”
Thomas Jefferson

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … “
Thomas Jefferson

“The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
Alexander Hamilton

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Richard Henry Lee

Yep they were just as paranoid.  Like I said, these people are clueless.  Or maybe the truth is they know exactly what the second amendment is for, they just don’t support it because they believe that only government should be allowed arms.  If they do then their views on this issue are in direct conflict with the views our Founding Fathers held.  And if that’s the case why are we wasting our time listening to their misguided opinions or even care what these fools believe?

Liberty forever, freedom for all!

Original Post: The Sentry Journal


You can support the Ch 2.0 with your Amazon purchases!

Share

HiViz Shooting Systems Latest to Leave Colorado Due to Gun Grabbers

Share

Another company has announced that they are “going Galt,” and abandoning Colorado due to it’s animosity towards the Second Amendment.  HiViz Shooting Systems recently announce the intention to move their corporate headquarters to a yet-to-be named neighboring state.  Weasel Zippers has more…

Nice job, Hickenlooper.

April 1, 2013, Fort Collins, CO –HiViz Shooting Systems (a division of North Pass Ltd.), announces plans to relocate operations out of the state of Colorado due to recent changes in Colorado state gun control legislation. HiViz President and CEO, Phillip Howe, states that talks are currently under way with officials of a neighboring stater egarding the move.

Mr. Howe comments, “I make this announcement with mixed emotions. Colorado is a beautiful state with great people, but we cannot in clear conscience support with our taxes a state that has proven through recent legislation a willingness to infringe upon the constitutional rights of our customer base.” Mr. Howe notes that prior to the changes in law in Colorado, he made several attempts to persuade state officials via emails and telephone calls to proceed slowly with gun control legislation that would impact individual shooters and the shooting industry as a whole.

Although the relocation will be expensive and time consuming, he adds, “It is in the best interest of our company and our customers.” Starting with corporate headquarters, the operations will be moved over an extended period of time ensuring no interruption of services to its customer base, and HiViz states that the majority of its employees will make the move with the corporate operations. More details regarding the location and timing of the relocation will be announced as details are finalized.

I have to repeat that it does my heart good to see people making a stand.  This company will go to great expense to move their operations and HQ to another state.  Also, it is good to see that they are also invested in their people, and that their employees will be making the move as well.  HiViz has a site that can be found here.  Check them out, and if you can do business with them, please do so. 

You can support the CH 2.0 with your Amazon purchases!

Share

Assault Weapon’s Bans “Just the Beginning,” According to Democrat Jan Schakowsky

Share

gun_control_works

Jan Schakowsky  has been rather useful to us, in giving away Democrat long term plans.  In 2009, she let us know that one of the purposes of ObamaCare was to end the private insurance industry.  And now, in 2013, she has given us the Democrat plans for Gun Control.  She apparently didn’t know that she was talking to a Conservative when she spoke to Jason Mattera.  Breitbart has the video…

Of course, people will say that it was selectively edited, but Schakowsky laid it out nicely.  We’ve known that the Democrat plan for guns has always been total disarmament of the people.  Everyone once and a while, they’d let it slip, but for the most part, they’ve bided their time.  Now, with Obama in office, they feel emboldened to make their plans open.

Share

Obama Nominates Rabidly Anti-Gun Judge, Caitlin Halligan

Share

If you want to look at how Obama see’s things, take a look at his judicial nominees.  We know he has no use for the Constitution, and particularly the Second Amendment.  We also know that the separation of powers means nothing to her, and the checks and balances are seen as an archaic obstacles to the power of the state.  Given those facts, the nomination of Caitlin Halligan does not come as a surprise…

But his most recent nomination is beyond the pale.

Obama Pushing “Most Anti-Second Amendment Nominee” in Recent History

Senators on Capitol Hill [tell us that] Harry Reid is twisting arms to get support for one of the most anti-gun judicial nominees in recent memory.

Her name is Caitlin Halligan, and she has a long track record in favor of gun control. In fact, one Senate Republican said that she is the most “anti-Second Amendment nominee Obama has ever put forward.”

As New York’s Solicitor General, Halligan was one of the chief lawyers responsible for New York’s baseless and politically motivated efforts to bankrupt gun manufacturers using frivolous litigation. In so doing, Halligan proved that she places liberal political activism above fealty to the law.

Halligan’s public hatred for firearms was only matched by her zealotry inside the courtroom. In a speech on May 5, 2003, Halligan called for “handgun manufacturers [to be held] liable for criminal acts committed with handguns.”

Certainly, no other manufacturer of another item — whether it be cars, baseball bats, or anything else — would be held liable for the criminal misuse of its product. And, as Halligan well knows, the application of that principle to firearms would surely eliminate the manufacture of firearms in America.

After attempts of legal extortion of the firearms industry were repudiated by a bipartisan vote in Congress, Halligan’s office did not let up on attacking gun rights, signing a legal brief calling for New York courts to declare the federal Gun Makers’ Protection Act unconstitutional.

Finally, Halligan, in written testimony submitted to the Senate in connection with her nomination, attempted to conceal the extent of her anti-gun animus.

Doug Ross (no relation) has more, so get over there and check it out.

What we are seeing is yet another Obama end-around from the Constitution.  If he can’t get what he wants from the Legislative Process, he’ll get it by executive order, or by judicial fiat.  As evidenced by this nomination, we have a window into Obama’s true beliefs.  And, these beliefs are NOT in line with the rest of us.

Share

Liberal Hypocrisy Alert: MIchael Moore’s Body Guard Arrested on Gun Violation

Share

hypocrite

Imagine that you are the rotund and overwhelmingly self important leftist, like Michael Moore Jabba the Lib.  Naturally, you are going to be against the Second Amendment, because no one should be able to use guns to protect themselves against the state, or criminals, or even union goons (or do I repeat myself?).  They should die for the narrative, like good little drones, and forget about all the statistics and examples of how guns reduce crime and save lives.

But, there is a separate set of rules for self important liberals.  You see, those blabbering masses of flesh that would have you defenceless and perhaps dead are well protected…by the very guns that they would deny you.  And, in Michael Moore’s Jabba the Libs case, the ones that carry the guns that protect them don’t even have to follow the law! Nice Deb has more…

Oh my – the schadenfreude is just too delicious, here:

Filmmaker Michael Moore’s  bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon in New York’s JFK airport Wednesday night.

Police took Patrick Burke, who says Moore employs him, into custody after he declared he was carrying a firearm at a ticket counter. Burke is licensed to carry a firearm in Florida and California, but not in New York.

See, Moore believes in 2nd Amendment rights for his well-heeled self, but in typical totalitarian-embracing left-wing fashion, he just doesn’t believe in 2nd Amendment rights for the less well off or less politically connected.

So, once again.  Al Gore can have ginormous houses with the carbon footprint of Godzilla, but you can live in a thatch hut without electricity in order to save the world.  And, Michael Moore can tell you to face the armed home invader with a sharpened stick, but his body guards are not only armed, but don’t have to listen to gun laws!

Share

Great Moments in Civil Discourse: Liberals Threaten to Kill NRA Members

Share

civility

They’re liberal, tolerant, diverse, and loving…

And they’ll kill you if they disagree with them.  At least that’s what many of the liberals on Twitter were saying as of late. Freedom Outpost has the details, via Free Republic…

kill nra

 

Um, do these people even know that they are proving the point? If someone did go after a NRA event, or a NRA office, what are the odds that they will be killed by an armed citizen?  Go after a bunch of NRA members at an event, and they may go down in a hail of gunfire!  But that’s the point, right?  The reason that mass shootings are successful is that there is no one there to defend the defenseless, or that adults are not permitted to defend themselves, or others.

But, these folks are liberals, so reality doesn’t matter to them, only their own tolerance hate.

Share

Another Reason to NOT Vote for Obama: Gun Grabbers on the Supreme Court

Share

In the next four years, one or two nominations will be made to the Supreme Court.  To emphasize the importance of this to gun owners, here are some comments by retired Justice John Paul Stevens…

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens says your right to self-defense in your own home should be limited to a cellphone “at your bedside.”

Stevens, 92, served on the Supreme Court for 35 years before retiring in 2010. A liberal jurist, Stevens wrote the dissenting opinions on both the 2008 Heller ruling and the 2010 McDonald decision, both of which were 5-4 affirmations that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s civil right to keep and bear arms.

As the guest speaker during an Oct. 15 luncheon hosted by the anti-gun Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington, Stevens offered a suggestion to millions of Americans who legally keep a weapon in their home for self-defense.

“Maybe you have some kind of constitutional right to have a cell phone with a pre-dialed 911 in the number at your bedside and that might provide you with a little better protection than a gun which you’re not used to using,” he said to laughter, according to an Oct. 16 article by Reuters. 
In addition to telling Americans to trade in their rifles for cellphones, Stevens said the Heller and McDonald rulings leave room for restrictions on the right to carry outside the home, bans on certain styles of firearms, elimination of carry rights in “sensitive” places and background-check requirements for private gun sales.

Note that both decisions were 5-4,which means that the legal status if many of our freedoms are hanging by a thread.  And, if Obama get’s to pick even one more justice, it is a safe bet that he or she will be a gun grabber.  So even if you’re a Democrat, your  rights are at risk.

Consider your vote wisely, because the court can allow the state to take your rights by reclassifying them as government granted  privileges.

Share