Taking aim at the Second Amendment

  • Follow Editorials

Our hearty congratulations to the U.S. Senate, which recently reaffirmed the nation's inane gun policy: Disarm the law-abiding citizens.

Congratulations, senators. You have ensured that only those who wish others harm will be allowed to carry concealed weapons across state lines.

A proposal to allow registered gun owners to carry their concealed weapons when they travel across state lines failed in the Senate this past week when it fell two votes short of the 60-vote supermajority necessary to end debate.

Tellingly, Senate Democrats facing tough opposition in their home states in next year's elections -- such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada -- voted for the proposal. Hmm. They must think a majority of the voters in their states like the idea.

It's interesting that such a law isn't necessary to establish the portability of your other constitutional rights. Your First Amendment rights go with you in all 50 states. So do your Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and so on. (We skipped over your Third Amendment rights, because they involve prohibiting the government from forcing you to quarter soldiers in your home, and you don't need to take that with you on the road!)

So, whither your Second Amendment rights? Where in the Constitution does it say you have to leave them at home? And do lawmakers think there's less risk on the road? Or just that you don't have a right to self-defense in another state?

This is a particular aggravation for those who travel for a living, especially truck drivers, who often sleep in their trucks.

Moreover, who are lawmakers fooling, other than some of their constituents? They know darn good and well that criminals, by definition, don't follow the law. That's what makes them criminals.

So, in preventing law-abiding, registered and trained citizens from taking their firearms with them across state lines, Congress is ensuring that the only ones who are armed will be the criminals.

Other than that, it makes a lot of sense.

Comments (19) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
justus4
113
Points
justus4 07/26/09 - 02:09 am
0
0
Where are the confederate
Unpublished

Where are the confederate yahoos that say, "the Civil War was fought over States' Rights?" while advocating the breaking of individual state laws, which prohibit the tranfer of weapons from different borders. Which proves that the States' Rights justification lie is just that: a lie! U must have a belief and stick to it, not adjust your ideas when U see fit. Its call honest Democracy.

jebko
0
Points
jebko 07/26/09 - 04:04 am
0
0
"Democracy is two wolves and

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Freedom is a well armed lamb."

GACopperhead
6
Points
GACopperhead 07/26/09 - 05:09 am
0
0
THere's a solution, AC, have

THere's a solution, AC, have the States find a consensus on concealed permits. The rights of the individual states cannot be trumped by the Federal Government. States' Rights is alive and well.

overburdened_taxpayer
117
Points
overburdened_taxpayer 07/26/09 - 05:24 am
0
0
"You have ensured that ONLY

"You have ensured that ONLY those who wish others harm will be allowed to carry concealed weapons across state lines." - WRONG, off duty and retired police officers can carry concealed weapons across state lines by federal law so long as that state's or the local laws in the area you are in do not prohibit the practice. The states still have the right to control in this instance.

concernednative
28
Points
concernednative 07/26/09 - 05:30 am
0
0
My point GACopp let the

My point GACopp let the states work out something.

southernguy08
532
Points
southernguy08 07/26/09 - 05:58 am
0
0
Hey JUSTUS and CACOP, there's
Unpublished

Hey JUSTUS and CACOP, there's an old expression. "The greatest fear of criminals isn't the police, it's an armed victim." I personally shot a dirtbag that tried to hold me up 8 years ago. I didn't kill him, but it wasn't for lack of trying. Now maybe I didn't turn him from his evil ways in the long run, but I sure as Hell did that day. My wife and children all have had firearms training and carry a piece on them. Yes, I sleep very well at night.

TechLover
15
Points
TechLover 07/26/09 - 06:44 am
0
0
southern; For once (and

southern; For once (and probably the only time). I support you. You have a definite right to defend yourself and family. How about we let someone from New York who comes to Ga buy booze on Sunday, it's OK in their state. That way a lot of southerners would make friends with a lot of northerners.

southernguy08
532
Points
southernguy08 07/26/09 - 07:42 am
0
0
TECH, glad you agree with me,
Unpublished

TECH, glad you agree with me, but I worry about making friends with northerners about as much as they worry about making friends with me. I'm not sure how you tied in the second amendment with buying booze on Sunday, but I guess it makes some sense in the liberal world. Thanks again.

gjdagis
0
Points
gjdagis 07/26/09 - 07:54 am
0
0
Posted by justus4 said,"Where

Posted by justus4 said,"Where are the confederate yahoos that say, "the Civil War was fought over States' Rights?" while advocating the breaking of individual state laws, which prohibit the tranfer of weapons from different borders. Which proves that the States' Rights justification lie is just that: a lie! U must have a belief and stick to it, not adjust your ideas when U see fit. Its call honest Democracy"

I think the shoe is on the other foot here, buddy! You extremists on the left sure weren't standing along side George Wallace when he fought for states rights. You people didn't support the states when they tried to regulate the killing of babies! The second amendment is a FUNDAMENTAL right, not a state's right concern. All of the time you fanatics interfere with the staes you are simply "giving" so called rights to one favored group while taking them away from some other group you don't like (usually straight, white males). When libertarians do this they always support ALL the people and don't pick and choose favorites!

TechLover
15
Points
TechLover 07/26/09 - 08:10 am
0
0
southern: The tie in that if

southern: The tie in that if you think laws from your state apply to you in another state. dagis: Maybe when you join a "well regulated Militia" you can carry your weapon across state lines.

Riverman1
93552
Points
Riverman1 07/26/09 - 08:11 am
0
0
What some of the commenters

What some of the commenters are missing is that this is a Constitutional right. States rights can't usurp those rights. The Bill of Rights and all that. You can't get more direct than that.

mad_max
0
Points
mad_max 07/26/09 - 08:27 am
0
0
That is the point exaclty

That is the point exaclty Riverman1. A fundamental premise of the Bill of Rights is that the states cannot infringe rights granted under the Constitution. States rights only apply to those rights NOT specifically addressed in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is a Constitutional right and should be NATIONWIDE. If you believe the states have the right to limit the 2nd Amendment then states should also have the power to limit who votes and what religion you can belong to. Yes, I believe in states rights, but not when it infringes on a right specifically addressed in the Constitution which applies to ALL citizens in ALL states. You can't throw up the Constitution to support YOUR cause and hide it behind your back when we talk about my cause.

TechLover
15
Points
TechLover 07/26/09 - 08:34 am
0
0
River: Fine just pass a law

River: Fine just pass a law saying you can't transport a weapon in any form of mechanized transportation. They aren''t mentioned in the Constitution. If you want to walk or ride a horse across country, go for it.

TechLover
15
Points
TechLover 07/26/09 - 08:40 am
0
0
max and river: Glad to see

max and river: Glad to see ya'll support Ga and other states having to recognize gay marriage, if the person moves from a state that allows it,since the Constitution says:Article IV - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

noone
4
Points
noone 07/26/09 - 08:52 am
0
0
is seems alot of the

is seems alot of the "patriots" on here support the costitution. but only if it does not conflict with their personal beliefs
. Like freedom of religion and the fact that no laws should be passed supporting one religion over another. it seems alot of "fundamentalists" cant read and think it says. "religious freedom for christians only"

Riverman1
93552
Points
Riverman1 07/26/09 - 10:12 am
0
0
I don't know what

I don't know what fundamentalism has to do with this issue. It appears to me from the posts on the other thread that EVERYONE is against the Blue Laws. But TechLover, some things we can debate, but the Bill of Rights...no. Your supposition of passing a law that would outlaw guns in mechanized transportation would be judically reviewed as unconstitutional. That's like passing a law to stop all red cars because statistics may show those in red cars are possibly more likely to be doing something illegal. You can't circumvent constitutional rights with specious laws. Kind of funny to hear Democrats arguing states' rights.

joehill
0
Points
joehill 07/26/09 - 10:53 am
0
0
if you have a red pill and a

if you have a red pill and a blue pill and they both do the same thing but the blue pill costs less, then everyone should be a democrat.

mad_max
0
Points
mad_max 07/26/09 - 11:36 am
0
0
TechLover...and

TechLover...and noone.....Matter of fact I do support any state recognizing a valid marriage from another state, gay or otherwise. Personally I do not support gay marriage, but that is because I interpret both the Constitution and the "Laws of Nature" strictly. But my opposition does not mean that it cannot be legal. I oppose a lot of things that are legal but if they are legal then that must be enforced and my feelings are just an opinion. . As for religion, I do not think the government should make ANY concessions to religion other than guaranteeing the right to worship whatever god you want. In fact, I am one of the few who believe that churchs should have to pay income tax and property tax on all holdings, investments, properties, and income. To me, there is a big difference between guaranteeing the freedom of religion and subsidizing religious "corporations" who have huge holdings, big incomes, and elaborate lifestyles. All of that is not to say that government policy cannot be based on the moral values of it's constituents, whether those values stem from their religion or are simply personal beliefs. Taxpayer funded abortion is a good example of that discussion.

KSL
143626
Points
KSL 07/26/09 - 02:11 pm
0
0
Carrying a concealed weapon

Carrying a concealed weapon across state lines carries a lot fewer ramifications than a married gay couple moving into your state does.

joehill
0
Points
joehill 07/26/09 - 04:20 pm
0
0
yes, KSL, a married gay

yes, KSL, a married gay couple might try to turn you gay!! only a matter of time before it is legal everywhere, even in backward GA.

usmcbuckner
42
Points
usmcbuckner 07/26/09 - 05:20 pm
0
0
What part of "shall not be

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

fr8dog
0
Points
fr8dog 07/27/09 - 10:11 pm
0
0
Regardless of how the law

Regardless of how the law relates to interstate reciprocity for carry of concealed weapons, it's irrelevant from the point of view of a strict Constitutionalist like me.
The bottom line is you dont need a 'permit' to exercise a RIGHT not 'granted' but AFFIRMED by the Constitution. So even if this bill had passed, many gun owners with my viewpoint would not apply for permits and never register their guns. Nothing in the 2nd Amd. mentions requirements for either. I always have and always will defy these Unconstitutional laws by carrying an unregistered gun without a permit. And I urge others tired of government intrusiveness and infringement of our Constitutional rights to do the same. Here's the only Constitutional Affirmation required for carry of a weapon, (concealed or otherwise):

Date of Issue: 15 Dec. 1791
Expiration date: NEVER
Issued to: All Law Abiding Citizens
Issuing Authority: The US Constitution

Back to Top

Top headlines

Kettle donations rise in 2014

After a disappointing showing last year, donations to the Salvation Army's local Red Kettle Campaign have risen nearly 20 percent in 2014.
Search Augusta jobs