Video: Obama not handling gun-control failure in Senate very well:
Note: This is not brow beating because the lose of lives, especially children is tragic and there is no excuse for it!!!
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.
In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and
transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially
curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by
the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The
opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ‘‘individual
rights’’ thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ‘‘states’ rights’’ thesis whereby
it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their
authority to maintain formal, organized militia units. 1
the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not
extending to state 2 or private 3 restraints. The Supreme Court has
given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only
case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the
constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection
but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other
such public force.
In United States v. Miller,
4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off
A sampling of the diverse literature in which the same historical, linguistic,
and case law background is the basis for strikingly different conclusions is: STAFF
OF SUBCOM. ON THE CONSTITUTION, SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 97TH
CONGRESS, 2D SESS., THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (Comm. Print 1982); DON
B. KATES, HANDGUN PROHIBITION AND THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE SECOND
AMENDMENT (1984); GUN CONTROL AND THE CONSTITUTION: SOURCES AND EXPLORATIONS ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT (Robert J. Cottrol, ed. 1993); STEPHEN P.
HALBROOK, THAT EVERY MAN BE ARMED: THE EVOLUTION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT (1984); Symposium, Gun Control, 49 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 1 (1986); Sanford Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 YALE L.J. 637 (1989).
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886). See also Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S.
535 (1894); Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281–282 (1897). The non-application of the Second Amendment to the States is good law today. Quilici v. Village
of Morton Grove, 695 F. 2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983).
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
4 307 U.S. 174 (1939). The defendants had been released on the basis of the trial
court determination that prosecution would violate the Second Amendment and no
briefs or other appearances were filed on their behalf; the Court acted on the basis
of the Government’s representations.
shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution
dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ‘‘[w]ith obvious
purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second
Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in
The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was
that it was composed of ‘‘civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.’’
It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and
securing of the laws, on a force that ‘‘comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense,’’ who, ‘‘when
called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.’’ 6
Therefore, ‘‘[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that
possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than 18
inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to
the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot
say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and
bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice
that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or
that its use could contribute to the common defense.’’ 7
Since this decision, Congress has placed greater limitations on
the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms, 8 and proposals for national registration or prohibition of firearms altogether
have been made. 9
At what point regulation or prohibition of what
classes of firearms would conflict with the Amendment, if at all,
the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of illumination toward an answer.
5 Id. at 178.
6 Id. at 179.
7 Id. at 178. In Cases v. United States, 131 F. 2d 916, 922 (1st Cir. 1942), cert.
denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943), the court, upholding a similar provision of the Federal
Firearms Act, said: ‘‘Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal
government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well
as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any
weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of
a well-regulated militia.’’ See Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (dictum: Miller holds that the ‘‘Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and
bear a firearm that does not have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation
or efficiency of a well regulated militia’’’).
Enacted measures include the Gun Control Act of 1968. 82 Stat. 226, 18
U.S.C. §§921–928. The Supreme Court’s dealings with these laws have all arisen
in the context of prosecutions of persons purchasing or obtaining firearms in violation of a provisions against such conduct by convicted felons. Lewis v. United States,
445 U.S. 55 (1980); Barrett v. United States, 423 U.S. 212 (1976); Scarborough v.
United States, 431 U.S. 563 (1977); United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336 (1971).
E.g., NATIONAL COMMISSION ON REFORM OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS, WORKING PAPERS 1031–1058 (1970), and FINAL REPORT 246–247 (1971).
Prez. has lost his Swaggar!!! I think the Americans are smelling the coffee. I hope you listen CAREFULLY to the chose words of obama in the above video:
WORDS: severe mental illness, big brother, 90% for gun control support?, “smarter” background checks, ect.
Link To Transcript of Prez. Speech on Lose of Gun Control Vote:
NOTE: Quote below from Obama’s speech and I have this question: If He and others are for “not” seeing LIVES LOST====> “WHY DO YOU AGREE TO PARTAKING OF HUMAN LIVES THRU ABORTION IN ANY FOR???” I mean if you “claim” to care for children—Is not “ALL” human life sacred? Tell it to the aborted babies of the world!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from Obama:
“One common argument I heard was that this legislation wouldn’t prevent all future massacres. And that’s true. As I said from the start, no single piece of legislation can stop every act of violence and evil. We learned that tragically just two days ago. But if action by Congress could have saved one person, one child, a few hundred, a few thousand; if it could’ve prevented those people from losing their lives to gun violence in the future while preserving our Second Amendment rights, we had an obligation to try. And this legislation met that test. And too many senators failed theirs.”
Health Statistics > Abortions (most recent) by country:
|# 2||United States:||1,210,880|
|# 15||New Zealand:||11,173|
FAIR USE NOTICE: These Videos/Articles may contain copyrighted (© ) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior general interest in receiving similar information for research and educational purposes.