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: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg on the Second Amendment (and Heller a bit) [View all]davidn3600
(6,342 posts)125. Sorry, but she's wrong
She wishes that is what it meant.
But when you read what Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, etc.. all said about the 2nd amendment, their intent is very clear. Now I agree the amendment needs to be updated to today's modern world which is very different from the 18th century. But you have to do that through the amendment process. The Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to change the meaning of the Constitution.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
165 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
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg on the Second Amendment (and Heller a bit) [View all]
Photographer
Dec 2015
OP
Also to note, Justice Bader-Ginsberg and Justice Breyer are President Bill Clinton appointees.
BlueCaliDem
Dec 2015
#87
You are wrong, former9thward. Stevens cites the cases in his Heller dissent.
SunSeeker
Dec 2015
#122
Preferring the progressive--and correct--interpretation of the 2A is not "attacking" it.
SunSeeker
Dec 2015
#141
Bullshit. Madison could not have imagined what gun nuts would do to the 2A. nt
SunSeeker
Dec 2015
#162
Regardless of what she believes, the proper interpretation ot the constitution is...
MohRokTah
Dec 2015
#2
I know they're not the same thing, but a more favorable supreme court will likely
MillennialDem
Dec 2015
#91
You must have not read about half the anti-gun threads over the past two days, then.
MohRokTah
Dec 2015
#47
Well I guess I will say it. I would like something like what Australia did about weapons
LiberalArkie
Dec 2015
#55
Boston, I have the answer to this. There is an interesting phenomenon that I have deciphered:
Squinch
Dec 2015
#67
It increases my respect for her. But at least you're on record: YOU DO NOT RESPECT JUSTICE GINSBURG.
ChisolmTrailDem
Dec 2015
#25
So you think you can decide for me what my stance is on an issue? I have never said a single word..
ChisolmTrailDem
Dec 2015
#34
Mo on Ginsburg: "It decreases my respect for her." Tell us how much you respect her. nt
ChisolmTrailDem
Dec 2015
#40
By the constitution, the proper interpretation of the constitution is ALWAYS...
MohRokTah
Dec 2015
#86
Oh, you mean like Dred Scot or Korematsu or Plessy v Ferguson? The SCOTUS is NOT infallible.
Turn CO Blue
Dec 2015
#119
Agree. And it wouldn't really matter whether or not it's a "constitutional" question.
erronis
Dec 2015
#58
Hopefully we will get a SC again that is not packed with callous, racist right wingers.
Hoyt
Dec 2015
#4
No, you are clinging to keeping your 5 gun safes filled with lethal weapons and ammo.
Hoyt
Dec 2015
#66
If the framers of the federal constitution intended a qualified collective right..
X_Digger
Dec 2015
#7
It's the bill of right because these are rights that it protects! It's right there in the preamble.
X_Digger
Dec 2015
#164
Nice explanation. I guess we will always try to understand what was in the framers' minds,
erronis
Dec 2015
#64
And? You seem to think that the bill of rights (or state constitutions) limit rights. They don't.
X_Digger
Dec 2015
#97
The "right" is citizen militias, not private gun ownership for love of gun play. nt
SunSeeker
Dec 2015
#99
"right of the people to keep and bear arms." -- does not say "the right to form citizen militias".
X_Digger
Dec 2015
#102
The 2A's words: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."
SunSeeker
Dec 2015
#114
"I'm out of soda, I'm going to the store." -- do stores sell more than soda? Am I only buying soda?
X_Digger
Dec 2015
#115
Well, the point being.. these same folks wrote one set of documents protecting an individual right..
X_Digger
Dec 2015
#112
If she truly believed her interpretation of the 2nd then we would have unregistered machine guns
aikoaiko
Dec 2015
#13
This Citizen Suspects That A Ginsburg Smear Campaign Is Now Underway By The NRA
cantbeserious
Dec 2015
#51
Yes - This Citizen Agrees - Weapon Enthusiasts - Must Have Arch Enemies To Battle
cantbeserious
Dec 2015
#80
Smart woman. Too bad so many in this nation are too fucking dumb to understand
CBGLuthier
Dec 2015
#68
The Bill of Rights has an expiration date? Or just the parts you woke up hating?
jtuck004
Dec 2015
#106
If the amendment were reinterpreted to mean what Justice Ginsburg thinks, nothing would change much.
Captain Stern
Dec 2015
#108
Well, she's smarter than me and I don't know you so I'll go with her on this.
Photographer
Dec 2015
#126
Though consider how many gungeoneers are Scalia/Thomas fanboys (and girls) on this issue...
villager
Dec 2015
#127
Rail guns, BFG 9000's, fully auto's w/out permits and the dreaded Sawed off shotgun for a few...
Photographer
Dec 2015
#150
Lighten up. I was just having a bit of fun with your post. The BFG 9000 should have been a hint.
Photographer
Dec 2015
#152
We have different views and opinions on this but we should still be able to talk
Photographer
Dec 2015
#157