a supreme stomping of a low wattage supreme court justice https://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/crburger.htm One of the better parts of this savage beatdown Yet after attacking the Second Amendment as obsolete, Chief Justice Burger's essay affirmed that "Americans have a right to defend their homes." An uncontroversial proposition, except to the gun prohibition lobbies, the Washington Post, and their allies. Next comes the real shocker: "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." In a single sentence, the former Chief Justice asserts that three "Constitutional rights" -- hunting, fishing, and buying cars -- are so firmly guaranteed as to be beyond question. Yet no Supreme Court case has ever held any of these activities to be Constitutionally protected. What part of the Constitution protects the right to fish? The "right" to own automobiles could, arguably, be derived from the right to interstate travel but it's hardly a settled matter of law, despite what the Chief Justice seems to believe. Ouch that one leaves a mark
Even though not ALL the people make up the militia mentioned in the 2nd A (unlike some of the state militias), it IS very clarifying to point out, as you do, that it's the militia that shall not be infringed.
The commas might be a bit confusing (they used them differently back then). But you are correct in that "the security of a free State" was the ULTIMATE purpose of the 2nd A. That is exactly right. And because of the security of a free state, is that militias shall not be infringed. Some states were disregarding their state militias, and that was the fear of the founders. Because those militias were the ONLY defense they had.
What the hell does that have to do with the fact that you made up and ascribed to me a statement I have NEVER made? Fact is that when you can only respond to claims that YOU made up, you signal that you can't respond to the ones I REALLY said.
Like i said, you bash the Justices who actually served on the Supreme Court. And these are hardcore conservative Republican justices.
I don't base my critiques on one's party but on what they say, and Burger's opinion is idiotic and if you want to base your faulty opinion on something a intellectually deficient political hack of a justice wrote when he was not on the court-so be it. can you find ANY quote by ANY founder that supports the oozing excrement Burger voided in that non-scholarly article?
You are addressing it to me. So you're saying you quote my posts and then wander off on unrelated musings?
Is that another example of your mind wandering off to unrelated musings? Or did somebody actually say anything about the militias having rights?
where do I mention YOU. this isnt' all about YOU. But it does accurately describe the goals of a movement you are part of
In the part of your post that says "Golem said". How are we to expect you know how the Constitution works if you can't even figure out how this forum works!
Some people think very weird things about the 2nd A. I mean like there are even people who think that the 2nd A was intended to protect some right to own guns when owning guns was NEVER mentioned in the debates in Congress that led up to its approval. Weird huh!
those of us with far better understanding of the bill of rights and constitutional theory assert ownership was protected. Those who desperately want to re-interpret the second so it doesn't stand in the way of their desire to ban all privately owned firearms, pretend Keep and bear ignores ownership
It could not be more obvious. The 2nd amendment says, and I quote, ".......the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.".. period. This is straight forward and simple to comprehend, at least for most. The rest of the amendment says this right has some kind of connection with the militia.
As Don Kates noted in his seminal U of Michigan law review article-even if the main reason for the second was militia readiness, there is no evidence the individual right was to be neglected and when you read all the quotes of the founders, it is obvious they never even contemplated that the federal government could ban on limit citizens' owning or keeping, using or carrying arms. The anti gun left not only has no founders who support their statist views, what they do, is completely ignore the entire context of the creation of the constitution and the bill of rights
If it has to do with the topic of this forum, it HAS been addressed. Let me know what else you want addressed and I will be happy to move it and respond to it in the appropriate forum.
The latter expands the scope here tremendously, but unfortunately is completely correct. Do the others ever ask themselves how a state can possibly have a well regulated militia if the people can't own guns? It is like a church saying we are going to have a pot luck dinner at the church but you parishioners cannot own any food.
the leftist interpretation makes no sense and refuses to understand how a militia works. They seem to think that militia members would-say in the case of a military emergency, go to some central location to get guns, practice with them bit, and then go off to fight the invaders
Who says they couldn't? To all the boys and girls reading this: The most telling sign that right-wingers have run out of arguments is when they fabricate claims nobody has ever made. They believe them it saves them from having to respond to the arguments we HAVE made.
OK, then maybe you can explain it to me, how a state can have a well regulated militia if the people don't own their own guns. Given the militia, as it was commonly and universally known, was every able bodied male between certain ages and not on any government payroll, and virtually no state supplied guns of any type to their militia and did not have their own military. Sounds like a neat trick. Wanna give it a go???
the problem is this-people like you and I interpret the second based on both the words of the document and the practical realities combined with the environment the founders were in-an environment where citizens using their own firearms started and maintained a successful rebellion against a tyrant. And since a militia is not a standing army, the only way to have a militia in good working order (ie "well regulated using 1780s lingo) was that those who might answer the call up have weapons that they were familiar with and skilled in using.
