Bill O’Reilly Doesn’t Get It About The 2nd Amendment
According to Bill O’Reilly it is quite appropriate for the police to disarm law abiding and licensed firearms owners during a national emergency – even though it violates the Constitution and endangers the public who are not guaranteed protection by the police in the first place.?????????
So, then how does any citizen protect himself/herself when anarchy reigns? In the Hurricane Katrina aftermath roving gangs of criminals robbed certain homes and armed home owners were able to fend them off usually without even firing a shot. And let’s not forget the L.A. riots of the early 1990s when Korean merchants some of whom were armed with so-called assault rifles thwarted the rioters. Maybe Bill is confused or doesn’t really understand why we have a 2nd Amendment. The NRA issued a clear and concise rebuttal online.Click Full Story.
February 22nd, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Thank you! You often write very interesting articles. You improved my mood.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ’0 which is not a hashcash value.
February 23rd, 2010 at 7:34 pm
The 14th Amendment settled this argument and it is being revisited due to state ignorance and outright bias against gun ownership. As a matter of fact the 14th Amendment argument was also used in the Heller decision.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ’0 which is not a hashcash value.
February 24th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Incorporation of the Second Amendment against the states via the 14th Amendment is not settled. It is the primary issue in the upcoming case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. But I can pretty much guarantee that the court will extend the Second Amendment against the States.
How was the 14 amendemnt used in the Heller opinion?
February 24th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
The 14th amendment was one of the arguments used [in the Heller Decision] to reestablish the HISTORICAL fact that when certain southern states [during Reconstruction] insisted that the Bill of Rights only pertained to the FEDERAL government and that therefore they could deny blacks the rights enjoyed by whites [including the right to keep and bear arms] for Washington, D.C. to use the same argument was bogus. The states were subject to the 2nd Amendment, too. This controversy is being revisited because of arrogant state anti-gun lawmakers who know very well that they are violating the 2nd Amendment. (See)http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ’0 which is not a hashcash value.