There are no atheists in foxholes ed. King Brown often pretends to be on our side, but his anti-2nd Amendment, anti-gun, anti-NRA slant always returns with a vengeance... just like you.

King says he is only making accurate contributions here, citing constitutional debate among Democrats and Republicans. But King's own words show us that he is once again telling us lies. Here he is making the totally dishonest claim that Constitutional scholar Mark Levin does not believe in an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Originally Posted By: King Brown
Looked up Levin in Wikipedia. Seems like some of my conservative friends. His book on the Court confirms my loosey-goosey characterization of its deliberations. Change and change again, nothing sacred or inviolable, eh?

"Men In Black: How The Supreme Court is Destroying America
Levin authored the 2005 book Men In Black: How The Supreme Court Is Destroying America, in which he advanced his thesis that activist judges on the Supreme Court (from all parts of the political spectrum) have "legislated from the bench." In a review of Men in Black, Commentary magazine's Dan Seligman wrote that Levin asks readers "to identify with 'originalists' who look to the text of the Constitution and the intent of its framers, and to reject the 'activists' who construe the Constitution broadly and are more concerned with getting to their own 'desired outcomes'."

That seems to put him at odds with the NRA-promoted amendment. Senator Stevens, a Republican appointee who served for 35 years on the Court with mostly Republican appointees and under three Republican chief justices, argues for amendments that would reduce the role of federal courts in American political life; in other words, amendments to entrench judicial restraint.

Levin and Stevens, on this evidence, appear to believe that the Second amendment should only apply only to those who keep and bear arms while serving in the militia, and not as an individual right. Stevens goes further in his book, saying democratic processes should decide on the matter, not the judges, as a remedy for "what every American can recognize as an ongoing national tragedy."

All from a Reagan conservative and a Nixon-appointed jurist.


Want to hear what Mark Levin really has to say about the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment? Take 5 minutes to listen to this:[/color]

http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-the-...cal-government/

King is not simply reporting facts here. He is distorting and twisting the truth, and frequently adding his own anti-2nd Amendment commentary. You can try to defend him, but no one with a brain is going to see it as anything more than one anti-gunner going to bat for another anti-gunner. You two do that quite often:

Originally Posted By: King Brown
Ed, historically the individual "right" to bear arms is relatively new. I believe John Ashcroft in 2002 became the first federal attorney-general to proclaim that individuals should be able to own guns. The Supreme Court in 2008 overturned all mainstream legal and historical scholarship by ruling that there is an individual right to own firearms although with some limits. Obama said it again last week.

I believe that during the previous 218 years the Second meant what it said: firearms shall be held by "the People"---a collective and not individual right---insofar they are in the service of "a well-regulated militia." Was an individual right even mentioned at the Constitutional Convention or in the House when it ratified the Amendment or when debated in state legislatures? I don't think so.


People who have the "objective of preserving the Second Amendment" don't make statements like these... ever:

Originally Posted By: King Brown
Democracies make choices. Americans accept mass murder to defend an individual right to bear arms in the name of personal freedom.


Originally Posted By: ed good
recognize that there are too many guns in too many hands...reduce those numbers and gun related violence will also be reduced...it is as simple as that...too much of anything is not good.


This post is more 2nd Amendment Informational input. It is to demonstrate, using their own words, that anti-gun Trolls often pose as pro-gunners in order to infiltrate our ranks. King and Ed are not our friends. To say we should welcome them into our tent is about as smart as hiring a convicted pedophile to baby-sit your kids.

A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.