HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The Second Amendment Has ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:22 AM

The Second Amendment Has Nothing to Do with Gun Ownership

The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.


Retired Chief Justice Warren Burger, "The Right to Bear Arms," Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990.
In 2008, this fraud was furthered by Mr. Scalia, joined by his fellow ideologues Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Kennedy. Yet five zealots in black robes cannot change the historical record. Writing something down on paper or pushing the send button to the internet doesn't make it so. Scalia and gang, in ganging together to pen District of Columbia v. Heller, cannot change history, anymore than a Truther diary about how the 9-11 hijackers were Republican ideologues giving their lives for Bush and Cheney, makes such idiocy so.

In its 2002 decision Silveira v. Lockyer, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals provided a very detailed, extensive, and well researched examination of the historical record surrounding the adoption of the Second Amendment. Although Silveira v. Lockyer would overturned by Messrs. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy in 2008, the 9th Circuit's outstanding research surpasses both Scalia's NRA talking points that passes for a Supreme Court decision, as well as Justice Stevens' far more persuasive dissent. This diary provides a summary of the Ninth Circuit's research that led to that court's conclusion that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of the states to form militias, and was not intended to allow anyone and everyone without restriction to buy whatever guns may be on the market. I hope, in a future diary, to analyze Scalia's Heller opinion and illustrate why Scalia is wrong and a hypocrite to claim that he is governed by original intent.

The Second Amendment states:

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.

"he original intent of the Second Amendment was to protect the right of the states to form and maintain state militias"


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/25/1171716/-The-Second-Amendment-Has-Nothing-to-Do-with-Gun-Ownership#

State Militias = National Guard!

Well regulated could be restrictions on certain types of weapons.

72 replies, 5308 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 72 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Second Amendment Has Nothing to Do with Gun Ownership (Original post)
liberal N proud Dec 2012 OP
MadHound Dec 2012 #1
liberal N proud Dec 2012 #2
MadHound Dec 2012 #3
CTyankee Dec 2012 #12
MadHound Dec 2012 #13
CTyankee Dec 2012 #24
X_Digger Dec 2012 #23
CTyankee Dec 2012 #25
X_Digger Dec 2012 #41
derby378 Dec 2012 #53
CTyankee Dec 2012 #59
CTyankee Dec 2012 #57
X_Digger Dec 2012 #61
CTyankee Dec 2012 #62
X_Digger Dec 2012 #63
CTyankee Dec 2012 #64
frylock Dec 2012 #60
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #16
samsingh Dec 2012 #26
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #29
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #32
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #33
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #35
pipoman Dec 2012 #6
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #11
jody Dec 2012 #27
hack89 Dec 2012 #4
Puzzledtraveller Dec 2012 #58
pipoman Dec 2012 #5
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #7
byeya Dec 2012 #8
hack89 Dec 2012 #15
samsingh Dec 2012 #51
ywcachieve Dec 2012 #9
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #17
Hoyt Dec 2012 #10
H2O Man Dec 2012 #14
buzzroller Dec 2012 #18
slackmaster Dec 2012 #19
derby378 Dec 2012 #54
yodermon Dec 2012 #20
jmg257 Dec 2012 #31
jmg257 Dec 2012 #21
eallen Dec 2012 #22
Aristus Dec 2012 #28
jody Dec 2012 #30
bongbong Dec 2012 #34
jody Dec 2012 #36
bongbong Dec 2012 #38
jody Dec 2012 #42
bongbong Dec 2012 #45
jody Dec 2012 #48
rl6214 Dec 2012 #47
bongbong Dec 2012 #50
rl6214 Dec 2012 #67
crazyjoe Dec 2012 #37
bongbong Dec 2012 #39
crazyjoe Dec 2012 #65
bongbong Dec 2012 #66
crazyjoe Jan 2013 #68
bongbong Jan 2013 #70
crazyjoe Jan 2013 #71
bongbong Jan 2013 #72
Igel Dec 2012 #40
jody Dec 2012 #43
aikoaiko Dec 2012 #44
bongbong Dec 2012 #46
aikoaiko Dec 2012 #52
bongbong Dec 2012 #56
jody Dec 2012 #49
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #55
TRJuan Jan 2013 #69

Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:32 AM

1. Well, that's about the lamest, most cherry picked interpretation of the 2nd amendment I've seen

 

You are ignoring a whole raft of other court decisions that further define that the individual has the right to bear arms, both in a militia and in their own private home.

I'm very much a pro gun control person, I want to get rid of things like assault weapons, high capacity clips, the gun show loophole and other common sense, practical measures. It is people like you with your idiotic legal posturing that makes it so difficult to get such practical legislation through. You are not a Constitutional scholar, you don't play one on TV, and you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

I suggest you rectify that problem and educate yourself.

Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:35 AM

2. So you are a constitutional scholar?


How then did the well regulated militia become the "right to bear arms"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:39 AM

3. Umm, you did notice the second part of the Second Amendment, didn't you?

 

You quoted it above, ". . .the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Look, I'm not going to argue with you about this, because you're going to think I'm some sort of gun nut not worth listening to. Again, I suggest that you do your own research, and I mean real research into the various 2nd Amendment cases that have been brought to the court. You can find most of them online. Start with those cases, not the words of some retired judge as published in Parade Magazine, OK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:16 AM

12. well, that "some retired judge" was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United

States. So I think his qualifications are a wee tad more solidly based in constitutional law than yours...I know that is something you do not want to hear but, unfortunately, 'tis true...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:18 AM

13. As published by Parade magazine, and paraphrased by Daily Kos,

 

Like I said earlier, do your own research, use primary sources, then get back to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:45 AM

24. Do you have any research to the contrary? Please let me know instead of relying on

your own judgment. I will certainly look at any of your scholarly work in regards to Chief Justice Burger. For all I know, you could have written his bio or studied his papers, or maybe you clerked for him.

Sure sounds like you know lots and lots about him and of course have published it in scholarly journals, all properly footnoted and accurately sourced.

I await your documentation. Please feel free to send it to me via pm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:44 AM

23. And the same judge who thought that anti-sodomy laws were constitutional, the death penalty was a-ok

.. and that putting someone in jail for life without parole for kiting a $100 check was just peachy.

Do you *really* want to hold him up as an example of a good judge?

Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #23)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:47 AM

25. we are not talking about his opinion about anti-sodomy laws and the death penalty, now

are we? We are simply discussing his views with which I do agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #25)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:52 PM

41. So his opinion has value only when he agrees with you? That the size of it?

Talk about a failed appeal to authority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #41)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:16 PM

53. I'm seeing a pattern here...

When the Supreme Court approves Obamacare's individual mandate as a tax, they are hailed as non-partisan heroes. When they issue a ruling that strengthens the Second Amendment, they are castigated as Bush-era cronies.

Just because Berger opens his mouth doesn't mean that what he says is the gospel truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #53)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:47 PM

59. same goes for you...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #41)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:47 PM

57. oh, don't be tiresome. I agreed with something he said. So what.

It is as simple as that. I wish I didn't have to explain these things to you because it gets so boring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #57)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 03:48 PM

61. Don't hold him up as an expert if you're not going to stand behind that..

that "some retired judge" was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #61)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:45 PM

62. You know more about constitutional law than he did, obviously...

I'm sorry, I didn't know that I was in the company of such a titan of jurisprudence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #62)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:48 PM

63. It doesn't take an expert to see that he despised individual rights, generally.

But feel free to sing his praises- just be prepared to defend the rest of his positions, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #63)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:22 PM

64. Oh, of course I will my dearest. Anything to please you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #41)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:58 PM

60. this is the problem with binary thinking right here..

most higher forms of intelligence realize there are shades of grey, and not everything is black/white.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:25 AM

16. He's only representing that those words were those of a judge published in Parade Magazine.

 

They weren't.

The Parade Magazine article was published on the web here:
http://www.guncite.com/burger.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:48 AM

26. you make excellent points in your OP

bravo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:58 AM

29. I'm not. So I won't address Burger's legal claims; other more qualified people already have.

What I am, however, is very well versed indeed in linguistic analysis. From that standpoint, Burger's claims are unsupportable, in the main. His statement about the language of the amendment ("The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.") is true only in its qualifier. It does indeed only refer to "arms," which would have meant what we'd call "small arms" in the usage of the day. The language does not, however, restrict the RKBA to members of the militia, as the Heller decision correctly ruled. That would require different language.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #29)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:02 PM

32. You are being conned.

 

Berger did not use those words.

The Parade Magazine article which is purportedly the source for the language was published on the web here:
http://www.guncite.com/burger.html

That article does not contain the language which is being attributed to Burger
"The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #32)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:12 PM

33. Ah, so it's a false citation?

I certainly don't see that excerpt in the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #33)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:24 PM

35. Apparently someone at Dailykos made this up, and then at least two OPs have been created

 

with the false attribution to Burger.

Logically, if Burger had said in 1990 what some are now claiming that he said, wouldn't they or others have pulled it out long before now?

The person at Dailykos and even those who have created the OPs should know that statements attributed to Burger is a fiction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:54 AM

6. Amen

The sooner people quit suggesting ludicrous, obvious lies and constitutional impossibilities, the sooner something substantive might occur.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:11 AM

11. He's not relying upon the actual language published in Parade Magazine and attributed to Burger.

 

He's only relying upon a secondary interpretation by Dailykos.

Dailykos says that Burger said those words, but check out Parade Magazine for Jan 14, 1990
http://www.guncite.com/burger.html

In contrast to what is being attributed to Burger by Dailykos, Burger actually said, among other things,
"Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing -- or to own automobiles."

During all the gun debates since 1990, if Burger had actually said what is being attributed to him, wouldn't others (other than Dailykos) have pointed that out by now?

What I find, repeatedly, is shallow thinking and dishonesty by those who want to further restrict the private ownership of firearms. An act of falsely attributing an anti-gun quote to Burger by Dailykos or by anyone else is as dishonest as calling firearm owners "gun nuts."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:52 AM

27. MadHound I must angrily disagree with your subject. I don't believe OP is that good. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:47 AM

4. I accept the President's position that it is an individual right.

he is a constitutional scholar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:47 PM

58. Not a gun owner myself

but I do like the option of being able to acquire one should I feel the need to. How easily we forget this choice and how lucky we are to have it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:50 AM

5. I have yet to find someone who states

this less than historical view point, who will answer the very simple question...

If the second amendment says, "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." but actually means, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", why isn't that what it says? Why this obvious ambiguity?

Further to state that those who formed this nation and government wished all arms be held by the state (national guard) are completely ignorant of the intent of reasons for revolution in the first place.

No, the true meaning of the second amendment is quite clear, it is wishful thinkers who don't have the votes to amend the constitution who proclaim falsities to something so unambiguous as the second amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:59 AM

7. Since the origional source is Parade Magazine from Jan 14, 1990, that is the best source

 

to review for determining whether Dailykos accurately repeated former Justice Burger's words.

http://www.guncite.com/burger.html

Did Dailykos do that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:07 AM

8. Until 2008 the OP has it correct. Morton Grove, IL, for example was able to ban handguns. The

 

perverted view of the 2nd amendement is only a few years old and we hope another court will revert to the centuries old interpretation.

Obama, the "constitutional scholar", targets people for murder, including Americans, and has no sense of the right to privacy.
Anyone who bases a stance based on how Obama runs his administration is leaning against a weak reed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to byeya (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:23 AM

15. State rights rule!

the notion that every American should have the exact same civil rights is nonsense.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:12 PM

51. agreed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:09 AM

9. liberal N proud, don't let this folks get you down. Thanks for the informative contribution.

Last edited Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:07 AM - Edit history (1)

LOL... I have to remember to go over my posts to make sure there are no typos.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ywcachieve (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:36 AM

17. If facts matter, his informative contribution was to republish something that was untrue

 

from Dailykos

Dailykos purportedly relied upon a Parade Magazine article.

The Parade Magazine article was published on the web here:
http://www.guncite.com/burger.html

Where did Burger say within it, as represented by Dailykos and the OP,
The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:11 AM

10. I agree with OP. Doesn't matter though, even Scalia agrees restrictions are OK. Let's pass them.

Maybe in a few years we will have one less right wing Justice so that the dissenting view in Heller prevails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:22 AM

14. Respectfully disagree.

I am definitely in favor of "gun control." However, this is balanced with an appreciation for Amendment 2 -- which by necessity requires a knowledge of both "how" and "why" it came into being; considerations of minimalist options considered within its first decade; and the very different challenges it faced in the federal courts in the 19th and 20th century. The well-documented fact is that the "militia" concept, while it had a very important and influential role, in no way reduces or eliminates the individual right to gun ownership. Yet, this right is not unlimited: the states and federal government have the right to balance the individual right with that of the larger community/society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:07 AM

18. The 2002 9th circuit opinion

here:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1464183.html

,which I know has now been superseded by the U.S. Supreme Court in "Heller" ,
still contains a good discussion of the arguments of the interpretation of the second amendment. Regardless of what Burger said, I still think it is the correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:08 AM

19. I am the King of France

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #19)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:17 PM

54. Only if I get to be the reincarnation of Emperor Norton I of the United States

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:05 AM

20. A good, lengthy, scholarly book review regarding this topic, "To Keep and Bear Arms" by Garry Wills

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/sep/21/to-keep-and-bear-arms/?pagination=false



...Yet both the general public, which has a disposition to believe that the Second Amendment protects gun ownership, and the NRA lobby are bolstered in that view by the sheer mass of the articles now being ground out and published in journals. It is difficult to sort out all the extraneous, irrelevant, and partial material daily thrown into the debate. Even to make a beginning is difficult. One must separate what the Second Amendment says from a whole list of other matters not immediately at issue. Some argue, for instance, that there is a natural right to own guns (Blackstone is often quoted here) antecedent to the right protected by the amendment, or that such a right may be protected in other places (common law, state constitutions, statute, custom, etc.). All that could be true without affecting the original scope of the Second Amendment. One could argue for instance, that owners of property have a right to charge rental on it—but that is not the point at issue in the Third Amendment (against quartering federal troops on private property).

In order to make any progress at all, we must restrict ourselves to what, precisely, is covered by the Second Amendment. That is not hard to determine, once the irrelevant debris adrift around its every term has been cleared away. Each term exists in a discernible historic context, as does the sentence structure of the amendment.

That amendment, as Madison first moved it, read:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.8

The whole sentence looks to military matters, the second clause giving the reason for the right’s existence, and the third giving an exception to that right. The connection of the parts can be made obvious by using the same structure to describe other rights. One could say, for instance: “The right of free speech shall not be infringed; an open exchange of views giving the best security to intellectual liberty; but no person shall be free to commit libel.” Every part is explained in relation to every other part. The third clause makes certain what Madison means in this place by “bear arms.” He is not saying that Quakers, who oppose war, will not be allowed to use guns for hunting or sport.

Did the changes made to Madison’s proposed amendment remove it from its original (solely military) context? Only two substitutions were made in the wording—”country” became “state” and “the best security of” became “necessary to.” This latter change might demote the right to bear arms by comparison with other rights (perhaps, say, free speech is the very best security of freedom), but it does not alter the thing being discussed.9 Beyond that, nothing was added to the text, so it could not be altered by addition. Was it altered by deletion? “Well armed and” was dropped, in drafting sessions that generally compressed the language, but “well regulated” includes “well armed” (see below, Number 3). Then the whole third clause was omitted—but for a reason that still dealt with the military consequences of the sentence.
...



much much more at link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yodermon (Reply #20)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:00 PM

31. Here's the problem with opinions...they are only that...

"The whole sentence looks to military matters, the second clause giving the reason for the right’s existence, and the third giving an exception to that right...Madison’s proposed amendment remove it from its original (solely military) context"

I read Madison's proposal as just the opposite (especially when compared to the actual 2nd) - Madison's version specifically separates the secured right from a primary purpose - by a semi-colon. Compare that to the version below of his proposal (note the colon) from

http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_jmad.txt.

Pretty obvious there are 2 different, but slightly related, notions, related because the new Congress would now have the power to come up with guidelines for arming "the Militias", which were interchangable with "the people". Hence the people's right existed, and now needed to be secured.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well
armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country:
but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to
render military service in person."



Other differences - "Necessary to.." makes the Militias (constitutional Militias) a requirment, mandatory by law. No other reason but to state just how important they were for securing our freedom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:17 AM

21. Isn't there something wrong with this math? "State militias = National Guard"?

Here's a clue: State <> National

Now if you want to say We the people allowed the federal government to recreate and nationalize the Militias of the several States (by making them part of the federal standing army and controlling their arms) DESPITE the original intent of the 2nd, then just say so.

Well-regulated COULD be restrictions on certain arms, as long as those restrictions allow the people arms for militia duty that are uniform and most effective in a military role. After all, THAT is also part of the original intent.


Apparently the restrictions in the 2nd aren't all that powerful, especially when in conflict with the opinion of the public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:42 AM

22. Laurence Tribe was persuaded, before Heller. Yet another GOP ideologue?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:57 AM

28. Reservist in the Swiss Army are permitted to store military weaponry in their homes.

In fact, I think they are required to. They can "keep" them in their homes, and "bear" them, (presumably in combat, if anyone ever invaded Switzerland), but they do not own them.

Quite a bit different from the American interpretation of "keep and bear", which, evidently means: own an arsenal that would make a Somalian warlord blanch, and blast the living shit out of anybody who looks at you crossways...

God bless America...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:00 PM

30. Congress has all the authority it needs for the militia in Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16.

 

Your OP makes as much sense as "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to procreate, shall not be infringed" would restrict that activity to the militia.

SCOTUS used a similar analogy in Heller.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:13 PM

34. Scholarly discussion of the 2nd Amendment

 

And why the Delicate Flowers (gun nutz too scared to appear in public without a gun) are complete idiots.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SpitzerChicago.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #34)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:35 PM

36. bongbong the best review of both sides of RKBA debate is Heller opinion and dissents and the many

 

briefs submitted.

I don't know if you would understand them but other more objective readers might learn from them at http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dc-v-heller/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #36)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:40 PM

38. More insults from the Delicate Flowers

 

> I don't know if you would understand them

Whenever a Delicate Flower impugns my intelligence, I almost fall over from laughing so much. Imagine Flowers who are too scared to face life without a gun thinking they can comment on my brainpower.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #38)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:59 PM

42. No one has to impugn your intelligence but you do have an opportunity to read the material I

 

recommended and demonstrate your understanding by citing it in your future posts.

One credible cite in lieu of an insult would do wonders to demonstrate your understanding of the RKBA topic.

Regardless of your opinion, the decisions in DC v Heller and later McDonald v Chicago are the law of the land.

Forty-four states have constitutional guarantees on the right to keep and bear arms.

Given that 37 states would have to approve an amendment disavowing the right enumerated in the Second Amendment seems most unlikely.

Even if the Second were removed, RKBA would still be protected as an unenumerated right under the Ninth Amendment.

It seems unlikely that even the most liberal justices would try to misrepresent history and deny that RKBA preexisted our Constitution and do not depend on it.

If they did, they would come face to face with statements by liberal justices in many cases acknowledging PA(1776) and VT(1777) constitutions that recognized RKBA is a "natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable" right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #42)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:26 PM

45. LOL

 

> recommended and demonstrate your understanding by citing it in your future posts.

Oh, so now you're assigning reading to me, and want a book report too?



You Delicate Flowers can't be that unintentionally hilarious, can you? You're KILLING me!!!



I get so many laughs from Delicate Flower posts that I locked out Comedy Central on my cable box. Don't need it anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #45)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:45 PM

48. "yo mama" trash talk doesn't bother me. You use the same old insults so readers will start ignoring

 

you if you don't show a little more creative incivility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #38)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:41 PM

47. "More insults" as you call anyone that disagrees with you a

 

Delicate flower

What a joke

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #47)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:05 PM

50. Not everybody

 

> "More insults" as you call anyone that disagrees with you a Delicate flower

How is that an insult? I'm just using the same language Tom Tomorrow used in a super-careful attempt not to offend gun nuts in his comic about how the NRA gives orders so convincingly to legislators. TT picked language that he wanted to make sure wouldn't offend the super-sensitive psyches of the gun religionists.

Delicate Flowers are really an interesting crew. They are super tough with their guns and the idea of mowing down "evil-doers" in a hail of bullets, but somehow they're super-sensitive about words.

What amazing creatures.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #50)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:22 PM

67. I don't know what a "Tom Tomorrow" is but it doesn't take a rocket scientist

 

To figure out what you really mean. Even you anti gun zealots can see that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:40 PM

37. The folks who own gun shops and sell guns are loving all this anti-gun BS.

 

They cannot keep weapons on the shelves, thanks to people like you, and posts like this.
Your doing more to get people to buy semi-auto hand guns then the NRA.
Good job knuckleheads.
Keep it up, Smith-Wesson is having a stellar year thanks to you. In fact, I think you convinced me, I'm going out today and purchase a 380 auto, before they are banned !!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crazyjoe (Reply #37)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:41 PM

39. That's

 

NRA Talking Point # 5,773

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #39)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:09 PM

65. gun sales are through the roof, real funny.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crazyjoe (Reply #65)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:49 PM

66. Yes!

 

The NRA Talking Point that "threatening to ban guns will cause more sales" is not just another Talking Point. It is reflected in reality since the repigs sell fear, especially fear of a black man running things.

It's an NRA Talking Point because it is designed to stop gun control since it seems like a useless goal. But once gun control laws start being written, then gun sales will go down, or at least will be regulated, unless the "law-abiding" Delicate Flowers decide they're too delicate to follow the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #66)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 09:45 PM

68. what's with the delicate flower crap? grow up

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crazyjoe (Reply #68)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:29 PM

70. It's a term to sooth super-sensitive gun-lovers

 

Gun-nuts bristle at any terminology that identifies them, other than phrases such as "Rambo-like Super Hero", or "Super Patriotic Constitution Defender". But these are too long to type if you have to discuss gun control with them. They certainly don't like "gun-nut" or "gun-religionist".

So Tom Tomorrow came up with "Delicate Flower", to be ultra-sensitive to their super-sensitive psyches. It seemed as if you didn't call them "Rambo-like Super Hero", or "Super Patriotic Constitution Defender", their poor widdle selves would get offended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #70)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:35 PM

71. well, that's pretty immature and stupid.

 

sounds more like a term that bratty child would use to try to irritate
someone on the playground. Name calling....whatever. It's people like you that are killing this place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crazyjoe (Reply #71)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 02:43 PM

72. LOL

 

> It's people like you that are killing this place.

No, it's fear-filled Delicate Flowers trying to make guns more acceptable among Liberals & other civilized people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:46 PM

40. Let's try this with the Establishment clause.

1st Amendment and all that.

At the time, there were state religions. My state was Catholic at the time.

If the Bill of Rights doesn't just acknowledge rights but instead creates them, then there is no "natural right" to freedom of religion. And instead of the Establishment clause's simply not interfering with states' rights to interfere with freedom of religion, it has to be read as *protecting* and even affirming the right to interfere with freedom of religion. (Barring later incorporation doctrine.)


Let's also overlook the incoherence of claiming on the one hand that the Constitution gives the Federal government all the authority to be the only controller and organizer of a militia ("National Guard," as though that really was a unitary federal organization under executive oversight) *and* vouchsafes states' rights to be the only organizer and controller of militias. Granted, different people making different arguments isn't unheard of, but if we assume one side is monolithic and therefore incoherence why not assume *both* sides are monolithic (and, well, incoherent).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #40)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:10 PM

43. IMO some on *both* sides are incoherent.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:20 PM

44. I don't think even the dissenting justices in Heller believe that

Or even Preaident Obama.

Burger's opinion was just another example of a conservative denying a civil liberty to the people. There are a lot of conservatives who don't like the people to have civil liberties - some liberals too.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #44)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:29 PM

46. I agree!

 

> There are a lot of conservatives who don't like the people to have civil liberties - some liberals too.

Yeah, I hate those liberals who want to deprive me of my civil liberty to grow anthrax spores.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #46)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:16 PM

52. I see you're still trying trying to contribute something meaningful.

Keep trying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #52)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:34 PM

56. Yes!

 

Labeling the ability to purchase a super-deadly weapon a "civil liberty" is just like calling growing anthrax a "civil liberty".

Hope you understand. I typed that sentence slowly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #44)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:55 PM

49. aikoaiko I'm disappointed that almost none of the anti-RKBA group have read the Heller opinion and

 

none the dissent.

Even worst, none of them have read the many amicus briefs submitted, e.g. ]
Ignorance is a useless foundation from which to propose laws to prevent another Sandy Hook Tragedy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #44)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:33 PM

55. Burger did not issue the opinion which is now falsely being attributed to him.

 

The alleged source is a Parade Magazine article.

It is published on the web here:
http://www.guncite.com/burger.html

Where, if any place, does it contain the language? It doesn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 09:56 PM

69. I don't give a fuck about the meaning of the second amendment

Repeal it, and ban anything that holds more than one bullet. No one needs to own anything so deadly. Fuck what the geezers over 200 years ago who thought arming society was a good idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread