"Stop Hiding Behind the Second Amendment"

That remains to be seen. Do you know what it takes to change an amendment? It's not an easy process.

 

no, it didn't; it was an extremely limited ruling based upon one Individual. There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.

- - - Updated - - -

All of the People are the Militia of the United States; Only well regulated militias of the United States are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

 

How many times do we have to go over this? "well regulated" does not mean controlled, organized, or directed, it means trained and prepared. And in the 1700's, militia was understood to be all able bodied men. There were formal professional armies - standing armies, which the Constitution attempted to limit by limiting funding to 2 year increments. And there was the militia - all able bodied men who were responsible for being prepared and armed should the call to arms be declared.

 

"The people" is not one individual, it is the whole population.

 

Wow! Coming from a Conservative! I praise the late Chief Justice for his harsh words directed toward the Second Amendment.

 

What was thought to be a conservative ruled as a liberal so why would he not sound like a liberal?

 

Please explain how it is outdated.

The Founding Fathers were not referring to an organized militia.

 

Seems you know nothing about Earl Warren.

 

Exactly and if one needs further proof of their intent, all we have to do is look at the following amendments.

Third Amendment says "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

It specifically mentions Soldier, not militia.

Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The right of the People, just like it mentions in the Second Amendment, it's the rights you and I have personally, to be secure in our person, home etc. AND to keep and bare arms.

 

do you always appeal to ignorance of the law when trying to convince those of the opposing view?

i don't do that.

- - - Updated - - -

collective rights are not Individual rights.

- - - Updated - - -

yes, they were; well regulated covers that concept.

 

Like the right to life, free speech, etc. that 'We the People' all have?

 

I am not the one that made up the Individual rights angle; a militia of the People is collective, not Individual.

 

You are trying to combine two separate clauses with two different meanings into one.

 

The following are from the Oxford English Dictionary.

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The term "well regulated" did not mean "regulated by the government". It meant "in working order".

 

If the 2nd amendment does not guarantee an individual right, and only the right of a government led militia, then why is it in the Bill of Rights to begin with?

All of the amendments in the Bill of Rights are individual rights.

That alone should be something that is obvious.

- - - Updated - - -

Then why is it lumped in with 9 other things that are individual rights, and it's apparently so important, it's #2.

 

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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."
You fail, the right to bear arms has repeatedly been held up by the Supreme Court. When are you gun grabbers going to get that thru your thick sckulls?

 

LOL, of course you appeal to ignorance, ignorance of both the law and history.

 

danielpalos gets sonned into oblivion.

 

there is Only one Second Amendment; why not acquire and possess a clue and a Cause instead of merely diversion?

 

WHAT THE F! What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is confusing?

 

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law in Article 1, Section 8. Simply claiming what you do, indicates a lack of a clue and a Cause.

- - - Updated - - -

like i said; special pleading is just that.

- - - Updated - - -

too bad it is You and those of Your point of view that are resorting to the most fallacies.

- - - Updated - - -

with what; nothing but spammers who claim they are not parroting bots.

- - - Updated - - -

You tell me; People is not Person. They are not Interchangeable.

 

I think the reason your quote don't mean anything is for the following reasons:

1) Burger's statements came five years after he retired. If you had a quote from a decision he voted in wherein his views were upheld by a majority of his colleagues, you might have something

2) The private opinions of retired judges is not even persuasive authority much less standing precedent in legal terminology

3) Judges are members of the American Bar Association. The ABA is the most liberal organization in the United States. Regardless of where a judge claims to be on the political spectrum, the judge is still an officer of the court and trained (brainwashed) by the most liberal organization in the United States.

Now, let me address you this way. The UNITED STATES COURT RULED:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Well, there you go. I won't have to hide behind the Second Amendment because the Right to bear arms for a lawful purpose existed before the Constitution was written. It is an unalienable Right. An unalienable Right is one that is bestowed upon you at birth by your Creator (whomever you deem that to be) and is above the lawmaking power. Let me prove it to you by way of yet another court ruling:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the state government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed (p.402)to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Current court decisions have courts trying to legislate from the bench by changing standing precedents without changing the statutory language. Our forefathers warned against such a practice. But, at the end of the day, we don't need the Second Amendment because the Right is absolute and not dependent upon the Second Amendment. All the 2A does is to guarantee the Right.

 

Ah, excuse me "People" is the plural of "Person". Therefore it's referring to us all as individuals. Congrats on the epic fail.

 

You think they should have written a constitution for each and every citizen yet to be born? It means very simply that the founding fathers realized that the only thing standing between PEOPLE and a tyrannical government is guns, therefore in order to have a well regulated militia the people need guns and therefore PEOPLE MEANING US.......were given the right to bear arms which SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It cannot be written any clearer. If you don't understand it, you never will because you don't want to accept it. Its called denial. They have help for it.

 

Rights in private property and defense of self and property are secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

- - - Updated - - -

nope; there are no Individual rights in property establish with plurals.

- - - Updated - - -

words have meaning; if our Founding Fathers had meant Persons, they would have written that specific Term in our Second Article of Amendment.