But since it is one of the lead articles on yahoo, many low-information people will see it and their ignorance will be reinforced.
The only thing I can think of is that there is an election coming up.
Chaps my you know what.... Bunch of liars!
Whoever is responsible for this “analysis” needs a full-time personal grammarian.
Seriously.
How about this, I’ll give up my firearms as soon as we pry the pens from the cold dead fingers of the idiots who write this garbage.
review article comments
I don’t give a damn what the liberals use as an excuse to confiscate guns. The people of this country have spoken on the interpretation of the second amendment. But like every other right there are people who would give it up!!!
Very good video on gun rights!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis
The author of this piece got nearly everything wrong. For example, no individual rights arguments on the 2A before 1981? I remember arguments on that point in the 60’s.
Pure bull manure.
If the 2nd Amendment only applies to regulating militias, then what does he make of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to organize, arm, train and discipline the militia?
More verbal diarrhea from the Leftards!
Here they come again...Another gun grabber with his head up his ass...
Using his First Amendment rights to chip away at the 2nd...If his interpretation were correct, then only “journalists” would have free speech...His arguments are beyond shop-worn...Sorry, try again if you must...
Like the First, the Second spells out a right “of the People”...That’s all of us, not just the cops and military...Who is the militia? It’s all of us able to bear arms in defense of ourselves, our families and the Nation...Against? Threats from criminal elements, foreign AND domestic...
Totalitarian government, ultimately...
The Second Amendment is clear to all who are not out to obfuscate and deceive...Like my Grandpa Tom used to say, “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure”... Its meaning and purpose are plain; serving as the last highest hurdle for a would-be tyrant...
Useful idiot Cornell and his fellow travelers, like the “sappers” of old, keep on trying to chip away at its foundation...Like the gnawing worms they are, the goal of Schumer, Cornell, et al is not public safety, else they would support the Second...Instead their goal is the tyranny their chosen “leaders” would bring if free to do all they’ve planned...
I wish all such continued bad luck...
Molon Labe!
Charlie Reese used to rephrase the 2nd like this..
” ‘A well educated elite, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to become educated shall not be infringed.’ does not give ONLY THE ELITE the right to be educated.”
This blatant abuse of the language might be valid if none of the opinions expressed in the Federalist Papers etc. were observed.
Kinda like how this Country got started, eh?
Where would the anti-gunners be without their lies.
The "70 years of established jurisprudence" were based on lies about the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in US vs. Miller. The Supreme Court was asked to reverse a lower court decision dismissing weapons charges against Miller based on two theories.
One was that Miller had to be a member of a Militia in order to be protected by the Second Amendment. The second was that the weapon Miller used had to be useful to a Militia in order for possession of such a weapon to be protected by the Second Amendment.
If membership in a Militia had been a requirement, then it would not have mattered what the weapon was. But the Court completely ignored the government's claim that Militia membership was required, and instead remanded the case for further consideration by the lower court regarding whether or not the weapon itself was useful to a Militia; with the clear understanding that the charge against Miller should be dismissed if the weapon itself was useful to a Militia, with no regard whatsoever to whether or not Miller was a member of any such Militia.
It was only the lower courts which later completely misrepresented this case resulting in 70 years of infringements with the collaboration of a silent Supreme Court.
The article claims that there is no relationship between the Second Amendment and state protections of the right to keep and bear arms, despite the use of virtually identical language in most cases.
This is just one huge problem. The founder’s concept of the world ‘regulated’ in the constitution was to make regular, not to stop, control, limit, ect.. but to make regular. In this particular case they all the militia should be armed comparably, and that congress had the ability to do so.
As for disciplining the militia it was very important and stated specifically so that they had to be in-charge of that themselves. The whole idea of a militia as apposed to a standing army was that it consisted of the citizenry not people picked and entirely controlled by Washington. Otherwise there was no difference between the organisations.
But while were on the subject of Original meaning the whole of the Federal Constitution had an entirely different meaning to those who wrote and randifed it than the constitution ‘apparently means’ to the Federal employees in black robes.
I would gladly embrace the original meaning of the 2nd amendment just like every other clause of the Federal constitution including the 14th.
The lawless Federal employees in black robes have done little to nothing to improve upon it in their lawlessness which has almost excursively been directed toward expanding the power of those who hand picked and anointed them.