Posted on 02/28/2020 6:36:52 PM PST by rktman
The Left has long lost this debate, but they keep trying to relitigate it on the campaign stump. The Second Amendment grants the individual right to keep and bear arms. That was the landmark D.C. vs. Heller decision, though it applied only to federal enclaves. The McDonald v. Chicago decision extended this right to the states proper. But the Left is obsessed with the militia portion of the amendment: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
The Atlantic has a good piece about this whole debate, including an analysis of the opinions from the late Justices Antonin Scalia and John Paul Stevens on Heller. The publication explained that they used two databases Corpus of the Founding Era American English (COFEA) which has 140 million words from documents between 1760-1799 and Corpus of Early Modern English, a massive text bank based on one-billion words British English from 1475 and 1800, to analyze their opinions. To no one’s surprise, Scalia’s majority opinion was more grounded in historical fact than Stevens, though both had inaccuracies. Still, even in the afterlife, Scalia is still right for the most part (via The Atlantic):
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
2. See number 1.
The "right" is supposed to be protected from 'infringements' in any manner. Not hard. Of course I didn't attend Hahvahd or Yuhale.
A militia is a civilian army. There can be no “well-regulated militias” if civilians can’t bear arms.
militia is ie armed “WE THE PEOPLE”.
I have always marveled at the notion that the 2nd amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, would be the only one that guarantees a right of the government (militia armaments).
What the Left fails to realize is that “militia” is not the organized forces of the state but the armed civilians. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the right of the civilians to keep and bear arms against the tyranny of the armed forces of the state. Do we really have to remind anyone of the actions of the armed civilians against the King’s troops at Concord and Lexington?
From Stephen Gutkowski in the article: It’s almost as though the Second Amendment protects people’s rights to have and use guns in part because the founders believed a well-armed populace could form into a military force capable of protecting a free society
This has been my understanding since being a small school boy...How can an ordinary raggamuffin citizen have this understanding, but the leading minds of the left can’t come to the same conclusion...
excellent !
Not holding my breath.
The Second Amendment grants the individual right to keep and bear arms.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WRONG!
It recognizes a right that pre-existed the Constitution.
Did I accidentally say that? I know better. The government is supposed to guarantee that NO ONE infringes on my rights in this case. Rights are NOT granted.
Give matt vespa a call then. I know better.
You are correct, sir!
It states the existence of the right as an established fact, and forbids ALL (I say again ALL, not just governmental) infringements!
The signage on my local mall prohibiting firearms is an unconstitutional infringement.
Bump
-Supreme Court Justice, Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
I know that you know better, but obviously Matt Vespa does not.
When Trump gets to replace even one of the Gang of Four....which is what has Leftists so worried.
Sorry Matt. Your ignorance is showing.
2A does NOT "grant" us any right. It tells the government that it cannot abridge our natural, God given right to self protection and bearing arms.
It really, really pisses me off when people who ought to know better claim we derive our right to arms and self protection from a document. A document whose purpose is to put the government on notice that it cannot restrict a natural right of man. Saying that implies that were the document changed (repealed) we would no longer possess that right. Absolutely not!
No different than all Dems and Repubs in Congress that could freely legislate because of the incorporation. But then you also have Trump promoting more gun control than Obama with his illegal bump stop ban and support for red-flag laws with the NRA hiding these facts.
Because we have only cowards at the national level, incorporation advances has to come at the state level. There gun rights wins some (i.e. states with Constitutional Carry) and lose alot ( i.e. the Virginias, New Yorks and Californias, etc.).
As a result millions of gun owners have their rights infringed and there is nothing being done. This will continue with only civil disobedience an option. Gun owners avoid open disobedience as they do not want the risk of felony convictions.
You really don’t have a right if you allow it to be infringed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.