Obviously, folks reading a site like GunPundit.com are probably as interested in the Second Amendment as much or more than any of the others. And some of the items, such as the Third, don’t have a lot of impact in today’s society.

I’ve always thought that the Bill of Rights, and the battle surrounding it and the ratification of the US Constitution, are significant not only for the actual rights guaranteed, but as a signal that even back then people were terrified that government would overstep its intended bounds.

Alexander Hamilton, I think, once wrote that an amendment guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms was not necessary. Someone found that and tried to use it in an argument against me one day. But they either didn’t know or didn’t care WHY Hamilton thought that. In essence, he believed that the right to keep and bear arms was self-evident and that a limit on government’s power to regulate it was totally unnecessary. Fortunately, enough people had the foresight to know that, despite the Tenth Amendment, the government would eventually try to control everything that wasn’t specifically forbidden.

Incidentally, my reply to the argument was that I didn’t think we needed an amendment guaranteeing the right of US citizens to breathe even though I was opposed to regulation on such activity.

These nut jobs that like to walk around wearing guns to compensate for their lack of abilities elsewhere are to pathetic to even mock. I’m sure you could find a nutty Ron Paul supporter or racist rapture waiting survivalist in the group if you looked a little deeper. Most “2nd amendment advocates” shouldn’t be aloud scissors much less the right to carry their gun around in public.

The 2nd Amendment refers to a “militia,” i.e. military.

There is no need for private citizens to own firearms of anykind. It simply should not be allowed.

Approved hunters can rent rifles from appropriate DNR offices.

I also forgot to mention. If you get a CCW license YOU HAVE TO CARRY IT CONCEALED. With a CCW license you can never carry a gun exposed other than for hunting.

This is just boys wanting to play modern day cowboys.

This is just the latest way for certain males to feel more like a “man”. There must be something missing when you feel the need to carry a gun. And not just carry a gun, but have it out for all to see. Like, “look at me, I can’t handle myself very well, so I’m carrying a gun”. I feel very safe and comfortable without a gun. I guess I’m just more secure than those who “need” to carry a gun, pathetic.

While your “exposed handgun carry” butt is one the ground spread eagle with cops pointing their weapons at you, I will stand calmly by with a CONCEALED 9mm in the small of my back laughing at your constitutiuonally correct butt.

Simply stated, you have a choice here. Carry your handgun gun hidden like a colostomy bag where nobody calls the cops on you OR carry a hand gun exposed and be a cop call super magnet.

Your choice buddy…….you do what turns you on and I will send you a tube of toothpaste and postcard while you rot in jail demanding your Constitutional gun rights.

Where in the 2nd amendment does it say that a bunch of 80 IQs get to wander around public parks wearing their guns on their belts? It’s one thing to own a firearm for home defense or for hunting on private property. What gives some of these wingnuts the impulse to carry a gun around in public? Are they that full of fear and impotence that they feel its necessary? From the comments here I would judge that to be the case.

Some of you people need to lose your fear of dangerous others who want to strike when you are without your “great equalizer,” especially in public. If I ever found myself in a dangerous situation I would like the help of a professional law enforcement officer not some half baked paranoid Ron Paul voter who wants to be a hero and unecessarily escelates a situation without need.

So who are you defending yourself from? The boogie-man? People that look different from you? Your own cowardice?

Do you realize that you are considerably more likely to get killed or injured with your own firearm than detering a crime with it?

The fact is you do not need – and should not have – a personal firearm.

You yokels hardly seem a well regulated millitia to me.

The bottom line is that people who just plain like guns and fear “other,” people not only make us less safe with their itchy triger fingers but they hold back our society by advancing their cause of fear, paranoia, and mistrust of not only our fellow man but of our government, our soldiers, and our law enforcment officers.

We need an activist, aggressive government to deal with a collection of difficult, controversial issues right now, not the least of which is man-made global warming and urban sprawl.

America can’t have greedy, invidualist, “I got mine,” cowboys underminding the government and the needs of the majority of citizens.

What happened in this park is a slap in the face to governmental authority (elections have consequences people) and a chilling precedent. It should never be allowed to happen again!

I will never understand why people think this is a good idea. Seems to me people are trying to find excuses (”the constitution says I can”) to act like clowns. The fewer guns that are available to everyday citizens the better.

I suggest Icemanzero move to the libertarian paradise of Somalia where he can carry whatever kind of gun he wants when and wherever, and never have to worry about the government intruding on his rights. A land without government! Must be a paradise! Let us know how things to over there.

Do you seriously expect me to live in fear of an armed person robbing me at gunpoint? I realize that many people in the country “need” fear as motivation (terrorism, socialism, Obama), that must include you, but I do not need fear. What are the odds you’ll be robbed at gunpoint in this country? Alot lower than that gun you carry being used in a domestic violence incident, or being stolen form your house, or your kids finding it and playing with it. But hey, it’s legal and it makes you fell better *rolling eyes*.

Icemanzero the Gov’t is not trying to take away your rights, and if you were a student of the constitution and the founding fathers you would know the document was not designed to be stationary but to change with the times. For instance we no longer have well regulated millitias we have a bunch of dullards walking around in public parks carrying hand guns and asking to see the president’s birth certificate.

I want to put a moratorium on the term “typical liberal.” It’s completely overdone and condescending. Oblige or I will shoot you with a gun.

Wow! too bad the Community mental health guys weren’t called. When do you get a chance to find that many people in one place suffering from paranoia?

Gun owners show support for open-carry law at picnic in Kalamazoo

It resembled most any Sunday afternoon picnic in Bronson Park. Except most of the people assembled around tables filled with watermelon and grilled goodies had firearms in holsters strapped to their waists.

The Glocks and the Smith & Wessons remained holstered but visible during a three-hour Open Carry Picnic designed to raise public awareness of what organizers called Second Amendment rights in Michigan to openly carry a firearm in most places.

They were high school teachers, college students, computer geeks and housewives with one thing in common. Rather than a cell phone, the leather pouch they wore at their waist contained a gun. The picnic drew about 40 people on a wet afternoon.

Murdoc was actually staying not too far from Kalamazoo this weekend.

Here’s a good news report on the event:

Hat tips to Huffman and Soyer.

A commenter immediately brings up the big switch, pointing out that written tests are needed for “all sorts of licenses, driver’s, Pilot’s, marriage, etc…”

And when the US Constitution guarantees that the God-given right to keep and bear automobiles shall not be infringed, the commenter will have a point.

The era in which firearms were a practical necessity is substantially and thankfully over as of the end of the 19th century. They are possessed now for what most honestly amounts to a hybrid of sport, nostalgia and primordial anxiety.

I guess “honestly” is in the eye of the beholder.

After pointing out that guns won’t stop crime, drugs, homelessness, or pornography, he adds

Use of guns, weapons of any kind, are the definition of chaos. The road to chaos is swift. The road back is nigh impossible.

Just last night I linked to a news story about a pizza guy who used a pepperoni pizza as a weapon against armed robbers. What chaos. The pizza guy swiftly went down that road and his return is apparently “nigh impossible.”

Herrington says that “general prosperity prevents crime.”

The Founders’ Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms by Stephen P. Halbrook:

December 15 marks America’s Bill of Rights Day, the anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. To commemorate this event, we have created the Second Amendment Book Bomb, a unique and powerful way to communicate the importance of the Bill of Rights’ Second Amendment for the protection of liberty. With your help, we can launch constitutional rights to the top of national book bestseller lists, making a loud and clear statement that Second Amendment rights are inalienable!

As you know, the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2008 landmark District of Columbia v. Heller ruling finally affirmed that the Founders fully intended the Second Amendment to protect an individual right to own and bear arms. The renowned Second Amendment scholar and lawyer Dr. Stephen P. Halbrook, Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, was key to the Heller victory—as well as to three previous gun-rights victories in cases before the Supreme Court. And his definitive defense of the Second Amendment is now available in The Founders’ Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms the first in-depth, book-length account of the origins of the Second Amendment and the most readable, comprehensive, and compelling work ever assembled arguing that the right to own a gun is as fundamental under the U.S. Constitution as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

The book bomb is an effort to get the book to the top of the rankings on the big book-buying sites. I haven’t checked out the book yet, but I am often amused by “the Founding Fathers never meant for people to have assault weapons” claims. If people took two seconds to think about what the 2nd Amendment means and why it might have been added to the Constitution when it was, they’d realize it wasn’t about hunting or home defense against criminals.

Meanwhile, Burress has been suspended for the rest of the NFL season.

The easiest thing in the world today would be to focus on what a moron Burress is. He’s a moron for allegedly carrying an unlicensed gun into a crowded bar, endangering himself and others. He’s a moron because he signed a five-year, $35 million contract at the start of this season and then was suspended for one game for failing to show up for practice and team meetings — and not bothering to tell anyone.

But that really isn’t the issue.

Okay, John, tell us what the real issue is.

The real issue — once again — is athletes and guns.

Surprise, surprise.

This isn’t about safety, it is about arrogance. The fact that Burress, according to Giants General Manager Jerry Reese, hadn’t returned his phone calls, tells you how arrogant he is.

Wait a minute. Just a couple sentences ago it wasn’t about Burress, it was about guns. Now it’s about arrogance. Who is it that’s arrogant, John? Is the gun arrogant? Or is it the moron?

He brings up Sean Taylor, the former Redskins player who was killed by home invaders with a gun.

One year ago it was written here that if [Redskins owner] Dan Snyder and [coach] Joe Gibbs really wanted to see some good come from the tragedy, they would use their money and influence to lobby for stricter gun laws.

Ah, see the incident where two morons invaded someone else’s home and shot him to death wasn’t about morons or crime (or even arrogance, I guess) but it was, instead also about “athletes and guns.”

Except, of course, that if the athlete in this case had had a gun instead of a machete he might be alive today.

John seems to think that two criminals breaking into a house and shooting the homeowner is grounds for stricter controls on law-abiding citizens.

His solution, of course:

The owners and players should agree that players can’t own handguns.

And he’s ready for those whiners who think a God-given right is some sort of God-given right:

Now, let’s not start screaming about the Second Amendment. To begin with, the amendment should be abolished — a sensible interpretation of the amendment is that it was written to allow the people to raise a militia for protection and to hunt for food.

Get that? John thinks the Second Amendment “should be abolished” because a “sensible interpretation” means that it was about government militias and hunting.

Got news for you, John. Your common sense has failed you. The Second Amendment is not about either hunting or government militias. Until earlier this year your point was up for debate. No longer.

It would be nice if President-elect Obama had the time to focus his energies on repeal of the Second Amendment

Ah. There we have it. John wants us to listen to his arguments about whatever it is he thinks the real issue is and whatever it is he thinks the solution is. But the foundation of everything he’s saying seems to be his personal belief that part of the Bill of Rights needs to be repealed.

How about another article that goes something like:

1. John Feinstein is a moron
2. But that isn’t the real issue
3. The real issue is arrogance
4. Something needs to be done about this
5. It would be nice if President-elect Obama had the time to focus his energies on repeal of the First Amendment

Make much sense?

Cam Edwards observes that Ignorance Is Bliss when pointing out an op-ed written by a college student. The piece by Sally Sanderson in the Michigan Tech Lode:

The bottom line is this: the Constitution ensures that United States citizens have the right to bear arms, yet it does not define for what purpose. Therefore, it is left for those of us following today’s laws to decide how to interpret the words written over 200 years ago.

She uses Wikipedia(!) as her first reference and includes this:

Though [the Second] Amendment seemingly does reserve the right for individuals to bear arms, it is confusing in the way it is written. The beginning of the sentence causes one to infer that an individual can bear arms if part of a militia, which should be used to ensure “the security of a free state.” However, the second part of the statement could be interpreted differently, as: individuals’ rights to bear arms will not be taken away. According to a Web site sponsored by the United States Senate, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt2.html, “there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects.”

As Cam writes, she seems to be unaware of the Heller decsion.

Now, Michigan Tech is located in the near-wilderness of the Upper Penninsula, but I guess if she’s getting published on the internet, she should be able to do some research and follow a bit of news on the internet, too. (via Sebastian)

Brian Doherty at Reason:

In retrospect, D.C. v. Heller seems almost inevitable, because of shifting public and academic attitudes toward gun rights. But victory came only after a protracted struggle, with many pitfalls along the way. It was pulled off by a small gang of philosophically dedicated lawyers—not “gun nuts” in any stereotypical sense, but thoughtful libertarians who believe Second Amendment liberties are a vital part of our free republic. Together they consciously crafted a solid, clean civil rights case to overturn the most onerous and restrictive set of gun regulations in the country. In the process, they set the stage for further legal challenges to other firearms restrictions from coast to coast.