"Stop Hiding Behind the Second Amendment"

What law am I ignorant of?

People still have a right to defend themselves.

They are wrong. There is no evidence that they were referring to an organized militia.

 

Mine is entertaining, and puts an end to your dodging and obfuscation. When you have something relevant to post, then you can stop talking to the hand.

 

so what; i know how to read.

- - - Updated - - -

just projecting?

 

Reading without comprehension is pretty useless.

 

why do y'all resort to so many fallacies, then?

 

You mean when no one agrees with you including SCOTUS and the liberal 9th Court? Is that the extent of your comprehension?

 

no; i mean why only fallacies for your Cause.

 

The only one professing fallacy here is you but hey, lots of people are fooled by their own inflated self importance.

 

projecting much, or do you only know how to parrot and appeal to authority instead of coming up with your own arguments?

 

The above statements were part of an essay by Burger for Parade Magazine after he retired from The Court.

Chief Justice Burger's view of Constitution was a narrowly personal one -- meaning that Mr. Burger interpreted the Constitution to protect only things that the Chief Justice felt personally comfortable with, and not to protect those things with which he did not care to be familiar.

His slender essay on the Second Amendment fits with the rest of his Constitutional thought. That which he thought familiar and appropriate -- hunting, fishing, old-fashioned religious lifestyles, the authority of the policeman and of the state -- are the things which he thought Constitution should protect. Things which repulse him -- a t-shirt with the motto: "(*)(*)(*)(*) the draft", or homosexual sodomy, or the ownership of cheap guns by minority groups -- he placed outside the boundary of Constitutional protection.

It is precisely this idiosyncratic, personalized method of analysis that judges, particularly Supreme Court Justices, are supposed to avoid. Constitutional analysis ought to rigorously and logically examine the Constitution's text, history, legal cases, and principles. Such an examination was what Chief Justice Burger avoided when he found fishermen had a right to stick sharp, pointed hooks in the mouths of river animals; but poor women had no right to affordable self-defense guns.

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/Mags/crburger.htm

This is why Supreme Court Justices should have term limits.

 

Nice. You built a beautiful straw dog and hit it with a flame thrower. Does anyone have any marshmallows?

 

People's options shouldn't mean anything more than any other person's opinion.

And no, I don't agree with him. But than again I'm a libertarian and I am socially liberal.

 

I wasn't aware that the 'wealthy' in this country wanted the 'masses dead.' Where did you come up with that? Daily Kos or something?

 

COnservative, former supreme court justices did not weight in on this issue. Only one did and yes it means nothing.

He is clearly wrong as the USSC has agreed.

One needs only a basic grasp of english to clearly see he is wrong.

The second clearly states that the right which is not to be infringed on belongs to the people, the people means individual citizens. It is not only in the second amendment either.

When the first amendment refers to the right of the people to peacably assemble and petition the government it means individual citizens in general not a select group of people.

When the fourth amendment refers to the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures it means the right of individual citizens not exclusive groups.

When the second refers to the right of the people to keep and bear arms it means individual citizens not select or exclusive groups such as militia members.

It is just that simple and anyone ( even a conservative ) attempting to twist the meaning has to invent and create language which does not exist.

 

Well I certainly don't agree that he holds a view toward the second amendment that even up for debate today. No one holds that the second amendment guarantees our right to rocket launchers, tanks or squad operated weapons. And you probably don't agree with this particular Burger quote.

~ Warren E. Burger

http://www.azquotes.com/author/2171-Warren_E_Burger

And I certainly wouldn't claim that to reflect negatively on you, in any way shape or form.

 

Where is anyone getting tac nukes, chemical weapons and air superiority? Are these being used in crime?

Hell in the 54 years before the 86 automatic weapons regulations, only 1 fully auto firearm had been used in a crime.

 

In order to have a well regulated militia they must be armed. By having every man armed it makes having a well regulated militia easier to raise

 

Well you can still own a cannon

 

Are we having cannon fights or home invasions using cannons?

 

This is a States' right secured by our Second Amendment: The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

So you're saying that in the Bill of Rights, which is there to protect individual liberties, the 2nd Amendment does not apply to individuals, it applies to a government led militia?

 

Get over it.

 

I can't believe how people suddenly lose their ability to read English when they read the second. It is clearly an individual right. It specifically says that it is the right of the people, the people obviously referring to the individuals who make up the people. When it was drafted people could own muskets, cannon, and warships; there were no restrictions.

 

Especially since the Bill of Rights, in its entirety, is there to protect individual rights. Why would they include it in the bill of rights if it wasn't an individual right?

 

What did Berger have to say about the purpose of free speech of the 1st AMD? If he didn't have anything to say, why is his opinion on the 2nd so important?