How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

POLITICO Magazine ^ | May 19, 2014 | Michael Waldman

[trebb]

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home.

Even more are startled that SCOTUS had to rule on something the Constitution makes absolutely clear....

[marktwain]

The “progressives” invented the who “collective rights” argument in Kansas in 1905:

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-collectivist-right-interpretation.html

[Timber Rattler]

The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun.

James Madison says otherwise in Federalist #46, and he should know.

[marktwain]

who “collective rights” argument

should be

whole “collective rights” argument

[elcid1970]

Warren Burger once appeared on the cover of Parade magazine holding up an 18th century flintlock musket.

He declared that since this muzzleloader was all there was in firearms technology when the Constitution & Bill of Rights were ratified, then the Second Amendment guaranteed citizens the right to own a flintlock musket AND NOTHING ELSE!

Idiot.......

[Lazamataz]

Propagandico strikes again.

[Lazamataz]

Michael Waldman IS pimping a book, an anti-constitutional toilet-confetti tome that even the Washington Post panned.

Waldman actually has the brass clackers to deride Laurence Tribe, among other respected historians and lawyers.

This motherhugger, Waldman, is the very definition of an asshat, and richly deserves the fruit of our gun culture.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Might be good if this “writer” was to read Blackstone’s comments on the US constitution. PRE-Civil War era.

Even the SCOTUS declared(Dred Scott vs Stanford)that one of the rights freed slaves would have was “The right to go about armed wherever they went.”

[voicereason]

Sigh...the 2nd Amendment doesn’t me give me any “rights”, because governments don’t bestow “rights”. The 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Right, is meant to restrict the government from infringing on our inalienable rights.

If a government gives...it can also take away. This was the genius of the founding Fathers.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Private citizens even owned "ASSAULT PLOWS" back then.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***The Court interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to keep and bear military grade firearms,***

And in 1970, the anti-gunners discovered MILLER all over again and wrote many TV scripts using MILLER to “prove” that RIFLES WERE OK, HANDGUNS WERE NOT!
The show I remember about this was ALL IN THE FAMILY in which Archie goes on TV to defend handguns just before he is robbed. Meathead brings up the Miller decision as proof rifles good, handguns bad.

BARNY MILLER also had such an anti-handgun segment along with many other shows of the 1970s.

[ought-six]

“Some days civil war seems inevitable.”

Indeed. Such a tragedy. And tragedy is EXACTLY what it is.

[ought-six]

Warren Burger a rock-ribbed conservative? Is the author daft?

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

I read that PARADE article and wondered where he got his license to practice law. A Cracker Jack box?

[ought-six]

There is nothing underpowered about a .38 Special. It’s all a question of relativity. Yes, it is less powerful than a .44 mag, but is more powerful than a .25 ACP. However, all three will kill if you do your part. It is not the fault of the cartridge.

[ought-six]

“The 2nd A is not about militias having access to weapons but, rather, armed private citizens having the ability
to establish militias.”

EXACTLY!!!

[RWB Patriot]

Fortunately, the Founders were wise to include three other Amendments that protect gun ownership (though granted, if big brother doesn’t care about one, it won’t care about any of the others):

The Fifth Amendment, which protects against loss of life, liberty and/or property without due process. Meaning that those of us who already own firearms can’t be made to give them up without being charged with an actual crime (and I’m willing to bet any law outright banning them will be challenged successfully, as such a law would open the door to the government being able to ban any piece of property it wants, such as your home).

The Tenth Amendment, which speaks for itself...though it also holds the record of being the most violated.

The Ninth Amendment also helps.

At the very least, the gun grabbers won’t ever be able to just say “Da second Amendment don’t protect individual gun ownership, so hand dem ober”. They’ll have to get around several others, and they won’t be as easy to ignore since doing so endangers more than just gun ownership.

[nonsporting]

I agreed with the earlier poster. But you rightly point out how the reasons for separation persist.

At my last few visits to the range, I have noticed a sense of urgency. And people’s choice of weapons, their accoutrement (optics, sights, furniture), targets and shooting scenarios (such as you can have at a public range), are not hunters preparing for the up coming season. Something is brewing and has been for some time.

[rlmorel]

I’ve read it...

Interesting on how the left has managed to demonize militias too...

[ought-six]

The obvious increase in citizens buying up firearms and ammo is not a citizenry that is doing so because it fears a ban on those items; rather, it is a citizenry preparing for armed conflict and war.