Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: former Chief Justice Burger - individual right to bear arms was “one of the greatest pieces of [View all]duffyduff
(3,251 posts)16. I have no idea what you are even talking about. His quote is not cherry picked in any way.
Take a look at an article he wrote for Parade magazine in 1990, and then try and convince me there is any individual "right to bear arms" other than the Roberts court making up shit out of whole cloth:
http://www.guncite.com/burger.html
Our metropolitan centers, and some suburban communities of America, are setting new records for homicides by handguns. Many of our large centers have up to 10 times the murder rate of all of Western Europe. In 1988, there were 9000 handgun murders in America. Last year, Washington, D.C., alone had more than 400 homicides -- setting a new record for our capital.
The Constitution of the United States, in its Second Amendment, guarantees a "right of the people to keep and bear arms." However, the meaning of this clause cannot be understood except by looking to the purpose, the setting and the objectives of the draftsmen. The first 10 amendments -- the Bill of Rights -- were not drafted at Philadelphia in 1787; that document came two years later than the Constitution. Most of the states already had bills of rights, but the Constitution might not have been ratified in 1788 if the states had not had assurances that a national Bill of Rights would soon be added.
People of that day were apprehensive about the new "monster" national government presented to them, and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment. A few lines after the First Amendment's guarantees -- against "establishment of religion," "free exercise" of religion, free speech and free press -- came a guarantee that grew out of the deep-seated fear of a "national" or "standing" army. The same First Congress that approved the right to keep and bear arms also limited the national army to 840 men; Congress in the Second Amendment then provided:
"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."
And so forth. Read the whole thing.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
220 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
former Chief Justice Burger - individual right to bear arms was “one of the greatest pieces of [View all]
farminator3000
Dec 2012
OP
Of course it's a fraud. At the time the Constitution was written, we had no standing army and the
world wide wally
Dec 2012
#4
So the first amendment will only apply to material produced on printing presses?
former9thward
Dec 2012
#12
You are criticizing me on grammar? Please check the grammar in your post.
former9thward
Dec 2012
#52
Apparently, Chief Justice Burger didn't know how to read the Constitution either
Hugabear
Dec 2012
#96
Most of my guns are registered except for the one's that I bought before registration was required..
4bucksagallon
Dec 2012
#100
There is a fundamental misunderstanding in some people's heads about rights..
X_Digger
Dec 2012
#161
Still sore that you flubbed the laws about licensing and concealed carry? Hehe
X_Digger
Dec 2012
#167
not sore in the least. i have stuffed your BS like 2 dozen times now give up
farminator3000
Dec 2012
#192
When someone claims that *any* right is unlimited, you be sure to pipe up, ya?
X_Digger
Dec 2012
#194
A majority of today's arms, like handguns or "assault weapons" are "in common use, for lawful purpos
farminator3000
Dec 2012
#195
In common use -- selling like hotcakes.. for lawful purposes -- not used in crime very much.
X_Digger
Dec 2012
#207
ever hear of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? what'd ya miss 2nd grade?
farminator3000
Dec 2012
#198
you think "assault weapons" are cool, in some kind of perverse, pseudo rambo way. i do not
farminator3000
Dec 2012
#206
Nobody ever *gave* me a right to do or have anything- they predate the constitution.
X_Digger
Dec 2012
#209
so you aren't a member of society or a citizen of the US. that is good news!
farminator3000
Dec 2012
#210
A few hundred years ago, the term "right to bear arms" meant the right to carry your family
ladjf
Dec 2012
#6
I have no idea what you are even talking about. His quote is not cherry picked in any way.
duffyduff
Dec 2012
#16
It certainly *was* cherry-picked. Read his homophobic screed in Bowers v. Hardwick:
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2012
#19
*You* offered him up as an authority figure, whose opinion we should take note of.
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2012
#67
"george bush the 1st cut up is nra card, too. you should, too." Wow, you really *are* new here...
friendly_iconoclast
Dec 2012
#86
Who is saying ""Until that time (Heller), legal precedent and conventional wisdom held that the
AnotherMcIntosh
Dec 2012
#72
Err.. no, I'm against it.. but your boy Burger? Is responsible for its reinstatement.
X_Digger
Dec 2012
#90
great. i'm for it, and i don't give a shit what Burger thinks about it. back to the question-
farminator3000
Dec 2012
#91
it was intentional! i don't care what you think about guns your info is 125 years old
farminator3000
Dec 2012
#95
I read law dictionaries. There is a distinct difference between a privilege and a right.
X_Digger
Dec 2012
#108
so far you got right/privilege AND car/gun AND license/permit WRONG! look here!
farminator3000
Dec 2012
#117
Umm.. you do not need a permit to carry outside your home in Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, and Wyoming.
X_Digger
Dec 2012
#118
Is there any right that isn't limited by the extent to which it damages the rights of others?
patrice
Dec 2012
#102
Alas, poor Burger put his money on the wrong horse. The States Rights interpretation lost big.
hansberrym
Dec 2012
#119
Well that settles it, if Reagun thought it a good idea, then it must have been a good idea. n/t
hansberrym
Dec 2012
#135
The government's case was a loser because the court was stacked with RW ideologues
Major Nikon
Dec 2012
#136
So you do remember your post #95, now all you have to do is locate that gun lobby
hansberrym
Dec 2012
#164
do you read? check post 147. you guys are shooting yourselves in the feet
farminator3000
Dec 2012
#170
"it doesn't. that is his view." Wow, I did catch you in a momoment of clarity, so hopefully
hansberrym
Dec 2012
#183
go away, you have lost 3 times already shut up you aren't even reading this you robot later dud
farminator3000
Dec 2012
#184
What a pity the moment has passed, your thinking is once again clouded by your hatred of the NRA
hansberrym
Dec 2012
#185
what a pity your nasty boss embarassed us all in front of the entire world at the UN meeting
farminator3000
Dec 2012
#186
Still no luck, eh? Guess you'll be needing more than 10 minutes afterall ...
hansberrym
Dec 2012
#188
you are a fool. why am i calling an actual robot a fool? i don't know,really
farminator3000
Dec 2012
#190
Because you are unable to back your claims, foot stomping and foolishness are all you can offer. n/t
hansberrym
Dec 2012
#219
The OP is a straw man argument, itself knowingly propped up by the straw man left to us by Burger.
hansberrym
Dec 2012
#138
you become a straw man as soon as you type those words, and the gun lobby is sound asleep
farminator3000
Dec 2012
#141
The lame kind is more like it. It has been quite a bit longer than 10 minutes, and still no
hansberrym
Dec 2012
#146
OIC, so when you are not posting nonsense on the internet, you are working...
hansberrym
Dec 2012
#151