Both Laurence Tribe (16) and the Illinois team of Nowak, Rotunda, and Young (17) at least acknowledge the existence of the Second Amendment in their respective treatises on constitutional law, perhaps because the treatise genre demands more encyclopedic coverage than does the casebook. Neither, however, pays it the compliment of extended analysis. Both marginalize the Amendment by relegating it to footnotes; it becomes what a deconstructionist might call a "supplement" to the ostensibly "real" Constitution that is privileged by discussion in the text (18) . Professor Tribe's footnote appears as part of a general discussion of congressional power. He asserts that the history of the Amendment "indicate[s] that the central concern of [its] framers was to prevent such federal interferences with the state militia as would permit the establishment of a standing national army and the consequent destruction of local autonomy."
Sounds like another liberal trying to dictate to the rest of us what the Constitution "really" means.
I say let him and his ilk come for our Constitutionally guaranteed right. He'll learn what it really means.
One of the things about FreeRepublic that I have appreciated over these past few years, is the ability to learn from so many different sources, reading the legal arguments of the leading Liberal constitutional attorneys, gives me a clear understanding of their tactics, and their methods. Without that, I can't even begin to refute them.
We spend a tremendous amount of time in FR complaining about our lost constitutional rights, but very little time preparing to battle the enemy to regain them, because often times, in reading their propaganda, we throw our arms up in disgust. To prepare, we need to know their game plan, and their arguments before going into battle.
We already know ours.
Regards;
Luis
PS...Have to go get the boys in their bath, playing Mr. Mom tonight, thanks for the discussion.