Taking a bite out of the 2nd Amendment

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | Sunday, January 30, 2005 | Saul Cornell

[Willie Green]

The Department of Justice decided to revise the Second Amendment. It has produced a 100-page memo designed to give activist judges a historical pretext for striking down existing gun laws.

Rewriting the Bill of Rights has been pawned off as nothing more than a return to the original understanding of the amendment. Yet this revisionist interpretation has nothing to do with the original.

Reads the Second Amendment: "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." The department's revised Second Amendment contends the right of individuals to keep and carry guns shall not be infringed.

The Department of Justice has erased the preamble, which states the purpose of the amendment, to create a "well regulated Militia."

[Willie Green]

It is Mr. Cornell who is the slick-talking revisionist who is ignoring a preamble to further his disingenuous agenda:

THE PREAMBLE TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz. Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

The original intent of the Second Amendment is NOT to enable the federal government to create a militia. The individual right of the People to keep and bear arms is protected so that we may be able to form our OWN militias as the last resort in a system of checks and balances that restrict those who would abuse the power of government office.

[Fenris6]

In 1783, the term "well-regulated" meant efficient and ordered - it had nothing to do with government oversight.

[TheOldGlory]

This is inconceivable! When will they get a clue that it is OUR RIGHT to bear arms and the 2nd Amendment protects this. NRA needs to beef up it's lobbying!

[Mariposaman]

Due to the fact that private ownership of firearms in the original colonies was basically universal, I'd say the 2nd Admendment was meant to guarantee gun ownership for more than just the Militia.

[groanup]

"A well educated citizenry being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

[longtermmemmory]

where is the barf alert?

[JustAnotherSavage]

Read later

[Mr. Mojo]

Due to the fact that private ownership of firearms in the original colonies was basically universal, I'd say the 2nd Admendment was meant to guarantee gun ownership for more than just the Militia.

Right on the money. ....and a fact this author conveniently ignores.

[wolfpat]

To put it another way, We the People are the regulators, not the regulatees.

[Willie Green]

where is the barf alert?

Unnecessary. The title is its own barf alert.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[William Tell]

The author of the article fails to mention the surprising fact that there were virtually no firearms laws on the federal level prior to the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Does the author suppose that the federal government just overlooked this vast area of possible legislation for a century and a half by accident? Or does the history of federal gun legislation prove the very stance now being taken by the administration?

[inquest]

The Department of Justice has erased the preamble, which states the purpose of the amendment, to create a "well regulated Militia."

"Create"? Where does it say that?

And these guys are calling DOJ revisionist?

[King Prout]

good lord, these hoplophobic grabboid (censored) will never cease their distortions, will they?

[Willie Green]

And these guys are calling DOJ revisionist?

The enemies of freedom are very devious.

"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government."

-- Thomas Jefferson, June 1776

[longtermmemmory]

just part of the big lie theory of Hitler that the left uses. KEEP REPEATING THE LIE.

[GnL]

Well, since most adults ARE the "militia," this author's arguments are meaningless.

[King Prout]

they really do beg for a strong dose of the old wood-shampoo.

[longtermmemmory]

You should hear the convoluted nutcase thinking of law professors in the class ( and judges in private conversation) which is desperate to hold that the second (unlike the OTHER amendments) are not about individual rights but collective rights.


(collective right is the new buzz word in legal conference circles to try and bypass certain laws)

[larryw408]

interpreting the Constitution as a living document that must respond to changing times Typical liberal losing mentality. Living document... This associate professor of revisionist history also probably thinks "militia" means the National Guard (regardless of the fact it was formed 150 years later), instead of every adult male, as history has repeatedly shown.