HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Message auto-removed » Reply #17
In the discussion thread: Message auto-removed [View all]

Response to 951-Riverside (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 28, 2015, 12:10 PM

17. The second amendment was not always interpreted the way it is today



http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment

Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? The question, which is suddenly pressing, in light of the reaction to the school massacre in Newtown, is rooted in politics as much as law.

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “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.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.


Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 67 replies Author Time Post
Name removed Nov 2015 OP
TeddyR Nov 2015 #1
Name removed Nov 2015 #2
TeddyR Nov 2015 #6
Waldorf Nov 2015 #9
Name removed Nov 2015 #11
Waldorf Nov 2015 #15
Name removed Nov 2015 #18
Duckhunter935 Nov 2015 #37
hack89 Nov 2015 #44
Duckhunter935 Nov 2015 #48
Hoyt Nov 2015 #30
TheSarcastinator Nov 2015 #66
Waldorf Nov 2015 #67
Hoyt Nov 2015 #3
Name removed Nov 2015 #4
Hoyt Nov 2015 #10
Waldorf Nov 2015 #16
Hoyt Nov 2015 #19
Waldorf Nov 2015 #24
Hoyt Nov 2015 #25
Waldorf Nov 2015 #26
Hoyt Nov 2015 #29
Duckhunter935 Nov 2015 #38
Hoyt Nov 2015 #39
Duckhunter935 Nov 2015 #42
Hoyt Nov 2015 #43
hack89 Nov 2015 #46
951-Riverside Nov 2015 #5
SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2015 #7
Hoyt Nov 2015 #12
Waldorf Nov 2015 #13
LineLineLineReply The second amendment was not always interpreted the way it is today
etherealtruth Nov 2015 #17
hack89 Nov 2015 #27
etherealtruth Nov 2015 #28
hack89 Nov 2015 #41
etherealtruth Nov 2015 #47
hack89 Nov 2015 #49
etherealtruth Nov 2015 #54
hack89 Nov 2015 #55
etherealtruth Nov 2015 #57
hack89 Nov 2015 #61
hack89 Nov 2015 #20
951-Riverside Nov 2015 #22
hack89 Nov 2015 #23
Snobblevitch Nov 2015 #35
Waldorf Nov 2015 #63
X_Digger Nov 2015 #31
Agnosticsherbet Nov 2015 #8
madokie Nov 2015 #14
99th_Monkey Nov 2015 #21
virginia mountainman Nov 2015 #33
Waldorf Nov 2015 #64
virginia mountainman Nov 2015 #32
Name removed Nov 2015 #34
virginia mountainman Nov 2015 #52
krispos42 Nov 2015 #36
Duckhunter935 Nov 2015 #40
Name removed Nov 2015 #45
hack89 Nov 2015 #51
virginia mountainman Nov 2015 #56
Name removed Nov 2015 #58
virginia mountainman Nov 2015 #60
jwirr Nov 2015 #50
Name removed Nov 2015 #59
jwirr Nov 2015 #62
HereSince1628 Nov 2015 #53
ProgressiveEconomist Nov 2015 #65
Please login to view edit histories.