Beck ad claims the Second Amendment of the "Constitution under attack" by the Supreme Court

Limits to first amendment rights were defined by the SCOTUS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Brandenburg_v_Ohio

(A ruling Fox Network's lawyers should carefully review.)

I see no reason why second amendment rights should also not be defined.

Yes, we have these rights, but they come with some level of responsibility.

It's a shame Beck's Fox News show wasn't on the air during the Bush presidency.

Because he certainly would have run ads explaining how the Constitution was under attack FROM THE PRESIDENT.

What exactly does this cowboy want to happen to this country ?Anarchy ?

I tell ya, I haven't felt like my family was safe ever since the feds made me take that .50 cal machine gun off the roof of my garage.

With limits like these, it's like I'm practically begging the muslim crack head commies to invade my home and rape my daughter and kill my wife.

It's not right when the "News" frames a subject in the wrong way. Most people don't know the difference between commentators and journalists and it's worse now because the journalists are commentating.

This is not about protecting yourself it's fire arms which are tools to the endeavor, as some claim. I hope Beck doesn't have one because he's not stable and who knows how many people might get hurt when he melts down from being kicked off air.

and what cases are being consideredby the Supreme court at this time that wouldlead youto believe the wording,or the meaning,of the secon amenment willbe changed ?

Saying that Glenn Beck is a moron is redundant... but here goes... Glenn Beck is a moron.

The Supreme Court agreed to review a lower court ruling that allowed a handgun ban in Chicago. (McDonald v. Chicago) Because in June, the Supreme Court struck down a similar ban in Washington DC which is a Federal enclave, the Supreme Court must decide if the States and localities have the right to ban handguns.

Here's an AP article about the case.

So Becky... the status quo is that Chicao and some of its suburbs have banned hand guns... and because the Supreme Court has already deemed that a similar ban in DC is unconstitutional, it must decide whether their decision applies to state and local governments.

Basically the decision for the Supreme Court is to decide whether to strike down handgun bans...

Now, Becky, please explain to me how this is an attack on the Constitution? Sounds to me like it's our Constitution in action.

Should the state be allowed to make its own laws that are counter to the Constitution? Chicago did and the Supreme Court is going to decide whether that's right or not?

A more reasonable argument under this premise would have been if the Supreme Court refused to hear this case...

Please Glenn... don't let the facts get in the way of scaring people... and oh, btw... the case will be heard next year.

The right is always better at framing an argument whether it's substantive or not. All that is needed is to make people fear that the 2nd Amendment may be altered. How many will verify this? The Democrats will be afraid to do anything on gun control in the near or distant future so long as all this fear mongering is going on. The truth is gun and ammunition sales are up and rights have been broadened to national parks and trains. But, proper messaging is key. Neither Glenn Beck, nor anyone else on the right cares about the truth.

Until the most recent decision, the Second Amendment has always been seen as a collective right, with states and local governments able to regulate the type of arms a person had. When the amendment was written, there were no standing armies, police forces, sheriff's departments, the FBI or state police agencies. Americans relied on their neighbors for protection, and even then, most men didn't own guns. In the present, we have all these professionals, very few of us have a need for a weapon for protection, and a lot of people don't go hunting, so there isn't a sporting need, either. But the NRA has convinced a small minority that they need a gun to protect themselves and their families. They even insist that it keeps crime down, however, that isn't true. The crime rate in most of the states with high rates of gun ownership is average, but the homocide rates are higher. The states with the lowest crime rates are for the post part low gun ownership states, too. I found those statistics in Wikipedia.

Are you KIDDING me? The S.Ct. recently gave a ridiculously BROAD definition of the Second Amendment. They essentially ignored anything in the commas.

See, this goes back to the point Bernie Goldberg made about "commentary" and "journalism".

Beck and Fox are passing this off as a journalistic experience, as if Anderson Cooper was going to join Beck in-studio.

Wingnuts don't care about the Second Amendment, they only care about the second clause of the Second Amendment.

Considering the court doesn't convene till the first Monday in October, I am assuming Glenn's pea shooter is safe till then.

Friggin moron.

EVERY right has it's limits, Glen-duh. Google my last name to see how my ancestor learned that first-hand.

The fear-mongering continues.

It cracks me up that leftists get their panties in a wad when someone asserts (correctly) that second amendment rights are and have been under attack. It is done through incrementalism by people who outwardly claim that they have always supported gun rights. The truth is that if if the left could get away with it politically, they would ban all guns tomorrow. They can't get way with it politcally at the moment though. That's the only thing standing in their way
The reason that our founders created the second amendment wasn't primarily for hunting or personal protection though that was part of their reasoning. The primary reason for the second amendment was that they understood that a gun was the last protection the individual has against an out of control government.
Don't think it can happen here? Look around rubes. BTW, I'm still waiting for the new (same as the old?) administration to repeal the Patriot Act.
Cheers!

Maybe some of the Constitution SHOULD be under attack. One of the areas should be the Second Amendment. Wea re supposed to be mind reraders and try to discern what waa the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. Well, from what I can read from the Constitution, it was to preserve slavery and make sure that power was spread equally among all Americans as long as you were a rich, white male.

Iam not a Fundamentalist when it comes to the Bible, so why should I accept the Bill of Rights, which I know for certain was written by flawed men as unchangeable and unadjustible. We already limit certain freedoms.

Even if the framers were prophets who could see 21st century life, they were still mired in 18th century values. To take a closer look at our Constitution may actually expand freedoms as it has done for blacks and women, but in some cases, such, as the guns, it may be time for a new look.