The second amendment is as much a right as the 1st
If we didn’t have liberals, the need for guns would probably drop drastically.
Maybe the idea was "preposterous" at Haaaaaavaad, you ignorant, arrogant, elitist, a$$hole, but the rest of us have known of this individual right for our entire lives.
I have grown weary of Harvard educated "analysts".
I am not a fan of guns. Hate them, actually.
That said, the language of the Constitution is plain. There is a right to bear arms, pure and simple. If I do not like it, I can work through the Congress and Ammendment process to get it changed. If not enough people agree to change it - that is if I cannot convince the percentages outlined in the Constitution required to ammend it - then that is my problem.
I wonder what Toobin’s idea on the existence of the right to privacy is? Considering it doesn’t actually exist in the Constitution, I assume he believes the right to privacy is preposterous....right? :-)
That is absolutely NOT true.
This man is either ignorant, stupid or he is a bald-faced liar.
“To preserve Liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, and member of the first Continental Congress, which passed the Bill of Rights)
Proving William F. Buckley’s statement that he would rather be governed by those in the first page of the Boston Phone Book than the entire Harvard Faculty.
I think that makes the silly question pretty much moot or academic at best.
This is part of the left's orchestrated effort to paint strict constructionists or movement conservatives as something of a new phenomenon as well as something a fringe movement. The MSM carries their water, as usual.
Yes, of course, the 2nd amendment only gives the state government the right to arm the National Guard.
While the deconstructionist Warren Court had to dig through mountains of papers to find one sentence in a Thomas Jefferson letter that they could torture into nullifying the “free exercise” clause in the 1st Amendment, their modern fellow travellers wouldn’t DARE to try looking for anything like that in the writings of ANY of the nation’s founders respecting the 2nd Amendment.
Their writings are so clear, that even the most cynical deconstructionist would have no success in trying to argue that the Founders would nullify the right to self-defense.
“...the idea that you had a Second Amendment right to a gun was considered preposterous.”
That certainly wasn’t true when I was in law school! Most of us took part of November off to go deer hunting. A few of us, myself included, would go bird hunting before and after classes. We’d take our shotguns right into school with us. I don’t remember anyone thinking it was odd at all. Of course, I didn’t go to Harvard....
Funny. The Framers considered it preposterous that one might not have the right to arms.
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. -- Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 28I would demand a tuition refund.
ML/NJ
When I went to school the very idea that liberal elitists like Jeffrey Toobin breathed the same air as we did was considered preposterous.
They actually think that they can just pass a law and everyone will line up and hand over their shotgun.
So will Jeffrey Tobin consider placing a sign on his lawn clearly indicating that the owner of this home does not believe in the constitutional right to own a gun (Neal Boortz once asked Cynthia Tucker this question)?
The sheeple are baffled why everyone else hasn’t rolled over with them.
The fact this azzhole thinks a right is revolutionary tells us all we need to know about academia.
I once heard that if liberals interpreted the second amendment the way they interpret the first amendment not only would people have a right to own a handgun but they would also have a right to own a ballistic missile. Plus not only would they have the right to own a ICBM but everyone should honor and praise the people for owning a missile and a failure to do that would be considered highly intolerant.
Mao said it best: “Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun”.