"Stop Hiding Behind the Second Amendment"

-Warren Burger (a conservative's conservative)

As quoted in the following article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/saman...ng-behind-the-se_b_8845634.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

I guess the opinions of past conservative Supreme Court justices just don't mean a tinker's damn in this uber patriot world, do they?

 

Not when the current court has ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

 

There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment.

 

Nope, they don't. Nor any other kind of damn other than tinker's either.

 

So you would agree the 2A ain't (*)(*)(*)(*). Maybe you should stop hiding behind it, eh?

 

The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. The Founding Fathers thought it to be so important they put it right after Freedom of Speech/Press/Religion. Before unreasonable search and seizure, the right to a speedy and public trial by a jury of one's peers, excessive bail or fines and cruel and unusual punishment.

The Second Amendment reads: "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."

Notice the part that is bold and italiticized, that refers to SPECIFIC people. I.E., me and you.

 

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." –George Mason

Mason said this before the Bill of Rights was written. The idea of the unorganized militia already existed, so you can shut up about a "well regulated militia".

Also, the term "well regulated" was, at the time, mostly synonymous with "in working order".

 

And you don't suppose Warren Burger was versed in the 2A?

But even I know how it reads and I'm not seeing 1) a well-regulated militia anywhere or 2) where a militia has EVER been necessary for the security of OUR free state or 3) what good even a well-regulated militia would be in the face of state that no longer wanted us to be free.

 

Warren Burger had an opinion. It just happened to be wrong.

 

I'm FOR self defense and the right of people to hold firearms... within limits. And unless the Founding Fathers were insane (which they obviously were not)... they wanted certain controls in place as needed also. If they knew or foresaw the firepower and capabilities of today's weapons, the words they used in the Constitution would be far more specific (as to affective limits). But I'm going to retain some of my sanity and not argue this so fruitlessly with people. I'll just keep voting against those I think are not serving my interests and sharing with friends/family my views on the matter. After all, this issue will hardly be resolved in my lifetime nor in those of the children in my life. I can only hope that they foresee and promote a society that develops and promotes better answers to the problems that we are enduring today.

 

nope; it specifically declares well regulated militias not the entirety of the militia of the United States.

 

It can change and probably will. It is just a matter of time and circumstances.

 

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

- - - Updated - - -

it is Standard practice in our Republic, that Only well regulated militias enjoy literal recourse to our Second Article of Amendment.

 

I just don't think that Liberals understand that Republicans don't have to agree with EVERYTHING another Republican says. We can think for ourselves. Liberals, on the other hand, seem to get their marching orders every day as to what they should say and how they should phrase it. They even use the same catch-words such as "clown car" and now "fear" and "hysteria," of course with the usual "bigot" and "racist" gems. They are very predictable.

 

not at all; even our most senior elders seem to know better than our mere, senior elders.

 

The PEOPLE of the United States are the militia. As the admendment states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". It doesnt' say a "standing militia", just that having one available is necessary. A militia without armed members is useless, so in the wisdom of the founding fathers, declared that we had the right to bare arms.

Like it, don't like it, but that's the deal.

 

Seeing as how SCOTUS judges generally only retire for health reasons and this was 5 years after retirement and 5 before his death, plus the rules of grammar of the english language plus the construction of the constitution all give lie to his opinion. He was a pretty (*)(*)(*)(*)ty justice and no one cares what he thinks. He voted on roe then flip flopped etc.

Seriously: Every other time its "the people" and "rights" in the same sentence its an individual right. Which is again to say nothing of the actual rules of the language in which it was penned.

 

Especially when he delivered may liberal decisions.

 

The 2nd Amendment WILL be changed in the future. It really is outdated, considering all things.

 

You seem to think human nature has changed.

 

you need better reading comprehension.

it specifically declares well regulated militias not the entirety of the militia of the United States.

 

Actually there is truth to that claim - the 2nd Amendment was created to make it clear that state militia's are not considered a standing army and therefore banned under the Constitution. The shift to basing an individual right to bear arms as a 2nd Amendment issue was started in the 1970's, and many people said it was a mistake.

But if you are going to go back to the original intent of the Constitution, then you have to take it all, not just the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution does not grant the federal govt the power to control or ban firearms. Remember, if a power is not explicitly declared to be a federal power, then it is reserved to the people and the states.

And if you are going back to original intent then you cannot claim the commerce clause applies either. You have to use the original intent of the commerce clause - the original intent was not to control or direct interstate commerce, but to ensure proper trade between the states (such as one state could not put up a tariff against another state).

 

You still reject the intent of 2A based on the writings at the time and the Heller decision in favor of a limited and incorrect interpretation.

 

No, it says "A well regulated militia..." without reference to any specific militia. If the need should arise, such as it did during the War for Independence, the people ARE the militia and need to be armed.

 

nope; there is No Thing ambiguous about supreme law of the land; it is merely a reading comprehension issue among those of the opposing view.