Acting out of pure political expedience is not something most voters admire in a presidential candidate. Does Obama hold any core principles that are not subject to change?

Quinnipiac is now reporting that majorities in four battleground states want troops in Iraq until it’s stable.

Will Obama change his tune on Iraq as well?

Politicians flip flop to win elections.

Next.

—-
The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of thefounding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” See Linguists’ Brief 18; post, at 11 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,” which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities. See 2 Oxford 21. (That is how, for example, our Declaration of Independence ¶28, used the phrase: “He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country . . . .”) Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. See Linguists’ Brief 18–23. Without the preposition, “bear arms” normally meant (as it continues to mean today) what JUSTICE GINSBURG’s opinion in Muscarello said.

In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.
——

Game. Set. Match.

And that’s why they got the ruling right. All the people who are arguing against this have not taken context into consideration. What do I mean by context? The political (and linguistic) environment at the time the Constitution was written.

Scalia writes for the majority:

“Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. The gun is a tool that has the potential for misuse… just like I can run over you in my car.

::

Now that’s an original response.

Neither one of us has argued otherwise. Neither of us is calling for a ban on guns. Neither of us talked crime rates.

If you disagree with us, then you might want to talk about Constitutional interpretation in general, Second Amendment interpretation in particular, individual rights vs. the rights of the state, and judicial activism vs. judicial restraint.

That’s where we’re coming from.

Don’t get it twisted.

Get serious. Let me tell you about this magical place called Black Market…. anything you want that the government banned you can get here!

Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. The gun is a tool that has the potential for misuse… just like I can run over you in my car.

And if anyone needs any further proof – look to Kennesaw Georgia. In 1983 (or sometime close to that), they made a law requiring citizens to own at least one firearm in the household. Crime dropped DRAMATICALLY the year the ordinance went into effect, which makes sense.

The residents of Washington D.C. have the right to bear arms but not to have a voting representative in Congress.

Is it a coincidence that guns are going to be allowed in D.C. because a Democrat will probably be President? I’m just saying….

If the residents of D.C. can own and carry a gun they deserve to have voting rights too. I’m just saying.

God Bless America?

NO SHOCK, JUST HORROR AT TRIGGER-HAPPY USA
Brian Reade 19/04/2007

THE redneck response to the Virginia Tech massacre could not have been more haunting had it been hollered to the accompaniment of duelling banjos.
Thirty-two deaths would never have happened, argued countless websites, activists and politicians, if the kids had utilised their right to bear arms, taken guns to class and shot back.
So the gun-worshippers’ solution to America’s serial school-slayings is clear. Arm the kids. I can just picture the scene in kitchens across the land each morning:
Advertisement

Mom: Waddaya want in your lunch-box with your pastrami-onrye, honey? A Glock 19 semiautomatic or a Colt AR-15?
Junior: Whatever.
Naturally Tony Blair was off the blocks quicker than Carl Lewis to tell America of our “deep shock”. But I’ve yet to meet anyone remotely shocked by this, the USA’s 19th gun rampage in 10 years.
Why should we be? When an Indian train crash kills 1,000 we shrug shoulders, deride them for not sorting out a recurrent problem, and give it five seconds on the tea-time news.
What do you recall of the methane blast at a Siberian coal mine last month that killed 110 men? Anything? Of course you don’t. Those Russkies don’t give a hoot about factory safety, so why should you? Yet when there’s another US college shooting, we wipe out entire TV schedules, and indulge in a frenzy of fraternal soul-searching. Even though most of us feel contempt for a government which allows 200 million guns in private ownership, killing 30,000 people every year.
If we’d had 18 more Dunblanes after Dunblane, would we expect our allies to send messages of shock and sorrow, or hard advice on the need to address our uniquely horrific problem?

Why don’t our leaders reflect the communal derision towards a people who twist their own constitution? (The Second Amendment originally applied to organised militias, not individuals, fending off outside armies like the British).
Why not protest at the political puppets who do the bidding of the powerful billion-dollar gun industry? Puppets like George W Bush, who allowed Bill Clinton’s ban on the sale of semi-automatic rifles to lapse. The same little rich boy, put in power simply to do rich men’s bidding, who viewed his War On Terror as a game of cowboys and injuns.
This is a country in thrall to gratuitous violence. It’s why it elected the Terminator as Governor of California.
It’s why they whoop like billy-oh when Charlton Heston says gun law reformers will have to take his rifle from his “cold, dead hands.”
Virginia Tech is the latest copycat mass murder, performed by loners who feel ostracised from the most aspirational, paranoid, dysfunctional and de-sensitised nation on Earth.
These are serial cullings of young innocents, which America is prepared to take in its stride to preserve its citizens’ right to kill by bullet.
It’s why, when the funerals of these 32 victims are done, and all the tear-stained flags folded away, normal service will be resumed.
And in a few months, a screwed-up inadequate who was hypnotised by the pictures from Blacksburg, will throw his credit card down in a gun shop in another town we’ve never heard of, and be handed the means to blow away his insignificance.
When it does, Prime Minister, tell them not of my deep sorrow but my deep disgust.

_____________

so, isn’t the second amendment a totally moot point nowadays?

i, for one, do think so.

Thanks. And good luck with your bachelor’s.

Hell, I’m still working on my bachelor’s.

You’re qualified.

just an fyi. . . I have my JD, but I’m not a certified “lawyer” until I pass the bar (which will be later in the year).

I don’t think you have to worry about kids with Tecs.

I do wonder, however, what effect this will have on crime in the District.