[libertylover]

neither of the two amendments is a model of clarity or precision.

... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I don't know anyone could make that more clear.

[DesertRhino]

author of “The Cult of the Constitution: Our Deadly Devotion to Guns and Free Speech.”

Bimbo... from the privileged life. Oxford as a student when 9/11 happened. Then Harvard where she refined her hate of America.

[Billthedrill]

This in turn allows the most powerful members of society to reap the benefits of these constitutional rights at the expense of vulnerable groups.

A nice summation of the foundational assumptions of Critical Law Theory. In fact, a carefully written - and they were - amendment lays out rules for everyone that do NOT benefit only the powerful. One may certainly criticize the inevitable flaws in clarity of language resulting over two and a third centuries but not because of any tendency toward "inequity".

For example, here is her reimagining of the Second Amendment:

All people have the right to bodily autonomy consistent with the right of other people to the same, including the right to defend themselves against unlawful force and the right of self-determination in reproductive matters. The government shall take reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of the public as a whole.

This is essentially an excision of the right to arms in favor of the right to abortion, with complete dependence on whatever the government considers "reasonable", up to and including prohibition of the possession of the means of that self-defense. We are no longer even talking about rights in the sense of limitations on what a government is allowed to do, we are talking about privileges granted that may on a whim be withdrawn. In short, she simply does not understand the function of the Bill of Rights as a guard against limitless governmental power. That's pretty fundamental.

[DesertRhino]

Her Chinese momma taught her well about collectivism being better than caring about individual freedom, then Oxford and Harvard refined it.

[arthurus]

There is NO ambiguity in the 2nd Amendment. Liberals try to ambiguize it with the firt clause but that clause does not affect the status of the rest of the Amendment. It only provides one reason for the ban on infringement of the RKBA. Where is the ambiguity in "...shall not be infringed?" The ambiguity comes in the courts and the legislatures. ALL laws save the Kennesaw GA gun law violate the Constitution.

The 1st is likewise clear but is not absolute in itself. If says "Congress shall make no law...." That leaves it for the states to finagle. That is finessed by the "Incorporation" of the amendments to include the states in that ban. The 2nd is not affected by Incorporation. It already applies to all levels of the polity, arguably including individuals and property owners.

[Seruzawa]

Yes. Make it a right to shoot reporters who come within 10 feet of you or your property.

[DFG]

Hollywood Squares

Peter Marshall : “Pride, anger, coveteousness, lust, gluttony, envy, and sloth are collectively known as what?”

Paul Lynde : “The Bill of Rights.”

[TLI]

Bottom of the article...

Mary Anne Franks is the Michael R. Klein Distinguished Scholar Chair at the University of Miami School of Law and the author of “The Cult of the Constitution: Our Deadly Devotion to Guns and Free Speech.”

"Cult of the Constitution."

Straight outta Progville, no hope for this one.

.

[DesertRhino]

” She is also a vocal proponent of hand-to-hand self-defense techniques over the use of firearms: “What troubles me about Florida when it comes to the psychology of self-defense is that our answer for defending ourselves is always a gun. Krav Maga is a nuanced approach to defending oneself and protecting one’s space. You can respond effectively, but no one gets shot, no one dies.”

That’s nice bimbo. Senior citizens should all learn Krav Maga. And even though you are an supposedly an expert, a large male would destroy you despite what you see it so many hit movies today.

[MortMan]

There is no “collective good” in the constitution. It promotes the general welfare by protecting individual rights.

[Political Junkie Too]

All the rights of individuals in the first amendment should be taken together as different sides of the same concept:

• "abridging the freedom of speech" quite literally meant speech as far as crowds of people could hear you. It's the proverbial person standing on a soapbox in the town square shouting his opinions to others.
• "the right of the people to peaceably assemble" means literally to stand together and hear a speaker speak. During colonial British rule, a group of people seen together in public would be suspected as being conspirators against the Crown. Free speech does no good if the People aren't allowed to congregate to hear you.
• "freedom of the press" meant the right of anyone to publish. The spoken word only traveled as far as one could hear it. Printing one's thoughts and distributing them across the colonies extended the reach of thought, and therefore, its influence.
• "the freedom to worship" combines the above three, publishing the tenets of a religion, gathering in common prayer, and speaking about one's beliefs to others.
• "the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances" meant using the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly to call out when the federal government exceeded its Constitutional authority.

The core concept of the second amendment is not about the arms per se, it is that the militia is necessary for the security of a free state. The militia, by definition, is an armed citizenry who are protecting the rights laid out in the first amendment.

-PJ

[Triple]

Ummm - hell no!

[ProtectOurFreedom]

As legal texts go, neither of the two amendments is a model of clarity or precision

What utter, ridiculous nonsense. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the most succinct, shortest, and clear statements of what a government can and cannot do ever written by man.

We can't help it if Mary Anne is too stupid to understand that.

It sounds like she's arguing that preposterous Obama position that the Constitution is a "charter of negative liberties."

[Southside_Chicago_Republican]

Let’s go, Mary Anne Franks!

[spel_grammer_an_punct_polise]

If the first would be changed then this idiot probably would not be able to write this trite garbage.

[mrmeyer]

How about commies push daisies instead?

[Kangarew]

Fuck these ideas. She is a communist. The only good communist is a dead communist. Which makes everything better for everybody in the long run.

[Secret Agent Man]

I would be for it

If I could rewrite them

Or Clarence Thomas could, for me

[fortes fortuna juvat]

Mary Anne Franks is the Michael R. Klein Distinguished Scholar Chair at the University of Miami School of Law and the author of “The Cult of the Constitution: Our Deadly Devotion to Guns and Free Speech.”
...................................................
This ignorant Madonna of the Radical Left would like government to reinterpret the Bill of Rights to deny American citizens the right of free speech and the right to own and bear arms. Typical ideological sycophant of dictators and tyrants of the past and the present.

[ctdonath2]

Allow me to respond with two words published instantly for the world to read:

Molon labe.