[neverdem]

Sunday, Dec. 4: Amendment I--freedom of expression.

Today: Amendment 2--bearing arms

Wednesday, Dec. 7: Amendment 3--quartering soldiers.

Thursday, Dec. 8: Amendment 4--search and seizure.

Friday, Dec. 9: Amendment 5--property rights and double jeopardy.

Saturday, Dec. 10: Amendment 6--criminal rights.

Sunday, Dec. 11: Amendment 7--jury trial.

Tuesday, Dec. 13: Amendment 8--excessive fines; cruel and unusual punishment.

Wednesday, Dec. 14: Amendment 9--unenumerated rights.

Thursday, Dec. 15, Bill of Rights Day: Amendment 10--states' rights.

Friday, Dec. 16: Amending the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights puts you--the individual citizen--in the U.S.Constitution, and spells out liberties that no government official can revoke. Through Bill of Rights Day, Dec. 15, we will offer commentaries on the first 10 amendments that make up the bill. --The Editors

[Tzimisce]

I guess it all depends on how you define the words: "right", "people", "amendment", etc.

[TexasTransplant]

I think that Mark (The Great One) F. Lee Levin should write his next book on the Declaration of Independence, Constitution / Bill of Rights.

TT

[blackie]

Great article ~ good stuff!

[Ohioan]

Bump--A very good article.

I would only add to it, to point out that General Washington recommended the Swiss system for arming and training the male youth, in every household, at the time he gave up his command, after our Victory in the Revolutionary War. He correctly observed the many benefits, which that system of an armed population provided--both to the community at large and to the individual youth, participating.

For more detailed comments The Right & Duty To Keep & Bear Arms.

William Flax

[beltfed308]

Just think that up until the NFA was enacted anyone like Maxim or Browning could design and sell full auto. No questions asked and no complaints from anyone. The 2nd ammendemnt was fully understood and never questioned.

Sickening how those freedoms are gone!

[G.Mason]

"Defend thyself The U.S. Supreme Court reiterated, in the 2005 case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, that government cannot be held liable for failure to protect the lives of its citizens. Personal self-defense remains an individual responsibility."

Supreme Court or no, one either believes in self-defense, or not.

To those that believe the state bears the burden and will protect them, the guillotines, machineguns and gas chambers will be waiting.

[Badray]

bttt

[Billthedrill]

One thing that strikes me as very curious indeed is the lack of scholarly corpus on the matter - when Alan Dershowitz and Lawrence Tribe agree to this it really isn't a matter of debate, but of wonder. The author suggests that it is because this particular area of law isn't very remunerative, but I'm not sure at all that's the case.

It may well be that legal scholars who examine the issue generally come to the conclusion that it really is an individual right (like the other nine in the Bill) despite political predilictions to the contrary. Dershowitz appears to be such a case if I understand correctly what he's written on it. If so, my guess is that it is not soon likely to be seriously tested in court despite all the noise. Could be wrong...

[PsyOp]

"But if any one should ask: must the people, then, always lay themselves open to the cruelty and rage of tyranny - must they see their cities pillaged and laid in ashes, their wives and children exposed to the tyrants lust and fury, and themselves and their families reduced by their king to ruin and all the miseries of want and oppression, and yet sit still? Must men alone be debarred the common privilege of opposing force with force, which Nature allows so freely to all other creatures for their preservation from injury? I answer: Self-defense is a part of the law of nature; nor can it be denied the community, even against the King himself." - Barclay, Against Monarchy.

The Second Amendment - Commentaries
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1016481/posts