The Second Amendment Doesn't Mean What it Says (Mass ACLU Barf-a-rama)

Massachusetts ACLU Loonies ^ | Mass ACLU

[Skooz]

Assuming you are correct in your assessment of recent Supreme Court decisions vis a vis their adaptation to ACLU doctrine:

So, all SCOTUS decisions are perfect interpretations of the Constitution? The SCOTUS has never been wrong about any element of constitutional law? If SCOTUS declared the 5th Amendment unconstitutional, would that make it so?

SCOTUS is as infallible about constitutional interpretation as the Pope is about Scriptural interpretation? (I'm not Catholic, just trying to make a point)

[Sloth]

You have a seriously twisted understanding of the role and authority of SCOTUS.

[Skooz]

Interesting on how the ACLU advocates the doctrine of original intent for the 2nd. Amendment and not the others.

Good point. The Constitution is a "living document" except for the one part they do not like.

[Alberta's Child]

States found it difficult to organize and finance their militias and, by the mid-1800s, they had effectively ceased to exist.

State militias ceased to exist after the Civil War. To a modern mega-nation, the mere thought of "the Army of Northern Virginia" was a non-starter.

Like any powerful special interest, the NRA works to secure its financial well being.

Which makes the NRA no different than the ACLU, I might add.

If the First Amendment can be used to protect pornography from government prosecution, then the Second Amendment sure as hell guarantees me the right to own a gun.

[Sloth]

After the Revolutionary War, the states insisted on the constitutional right to defend themselves in case the fledgling U.S. government became tyrannical like the British Crown. The states demanded the right to keep an armed "militia" a form of insurance.

Uh-oh... ACLU just accidentally gave away the store.

[nickcarraway]

Maybe free speech is only intended for a well regulated militia?

[Alberta's Child]

The Constitution is a "living document" until it is interpreted in a way that coincides with their left-wing agenda. Then, it becomes etched in stone and can never be changed -- in fact, it must be "protected" from evil people like Republican judicial nominees.

[Alberta's Child]

My nomination for Quote of the Day . . .

[spunkets]

Subject: American Ingenuity An old man lived alone in Minnesota. He wanted to spade his potato garden, but it was very hard work. His only son, who would have helped him, was stationed far away. The old man wrote a letter to his son and mentioned his situation:

Dear Son, I am feeling pretty bad because it looks like I won't be able to plant my potato garden this year. I hate to miss doing the garden, because your mother always loved planting time. I'm just getting too old to be digging up a garden plot. If you were here, all my troubles would be over. I know you would dig the plot for me, if you weren't chasing jiahdists. Love, Dad

Shortly, the old man received this telegram: "For Heaven's sake, Dad, don't dig up the garden! That's where I buried the GUNS!" At 4 a.m. the next morning, a dozen FBI agents and local police officers showed up and dug up the entire garden. No guns were found. Confused, the old man wrote another note to his son telling him what happened, and asked him what to do next. His son's reply was: "Go ahead and plant your potatoes, Dad. It's the best I could do for you from here."

[michigander]

The Supreme Court’s Thirty-five Other Gun Cases: What the Supreme Court Has Said about the Second Amendment

[Constitutional Patriot]

"The idea of gun ownership as an American birthright is nothing more than a popular myth. "

Amazing what passes for scholarship these days. This is just more from the camp that hates Bush, hates individual freedom and limited government, loves socialism, respects tyranny....

To hell with them all.

[RonF]

Which is rather bizarre, considering that the 2nd A is surrounded by amendments that infer INDIVIDUAL rights.

That's one way of looking at it. But they can also be looked at from a different viewpoint, which is that the amendments in the Bill of Rights are written to restrain Congress. Thus, for example, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law ...", not "Congress and the several States shall make no law ...". It states the rights preserved under it from the viewpoint of what Congress is forbidden to do. Now, it has been the position of the SCOTUS in many cases that the limitations on Congress also apply to the several State governments, but not always.

In fact, I've even seen it argued here on FR (during church/state separation threads) that the First Amendment allows states to support established churches, barring only Congress from doing so. After all, there were established churches supported by some of the states at the time of the Constitution. While Americans today would view that as outrageous, it was not so at the writing of the Constitution. Gradually, it has become viewed that the rights conserved (not granted!) by the Bill of Rights should also be conserved by the States, and that the Federal government should be the guarantor thereof. But at least in the case of the 2nd Amendment, this is not universal.

So, after spelling out what the Congress cannot do in the first 9 amendments, a catch-all was put into the 10th, to finish the job, and it made sure to make clear that both individuals and the states had rights that the Congress didn't. The states thus are explictly told that they have rights that the Federal government does not. Gun control would seem to be one of these, at least in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

My personal opinion of gun control, by the way: no non-felonious citizen should have any restrictions placed on either handgun or long gun ownership. Restrictions on automatic weapons are fine by me, as I think that in general that makes me safer (I see the likelihood that a criminal or nut would get ahold of and use one far greater than the likelihood that I'd need one to defend myself). When the Founding Fathers considered the issue of guns, they had no clue that anyone might be able to buy a gun that could kill a score of people in as many seconds.

[Constitutional Patriot]

"Second of all, the ACLU has never embraced either the second or the tenth amendments, making them an extremely hypocritical defender of the rest."

I remember reading somewhere that the ACLU is a left wing organization that was established to dismantle the moral fabric of American society to lay the groundwork for socialism. Judging their actions over the past few decades, I don't totally discount this view.

[El Laton Caliente]

One just doesn’t know where to start attacking this pile of total misinformation...

"the vast majority of constitutional experts agree that the right to keep and bear arms was intended to apply only to members of state-run, citizen militias"

Not true, the vast majority of historians agree that like the Indiana Constitution defines the militia it is all citizens (it read men when first written) above the age of seventeen.

"When James Madison proposed the Bill of Rights in the late 1780s, people were still suspicious of any centralized federal government. Just 10 years earlier, the British army been an occupying force in Colonial America—enforcing arbitrary laws decreed from afar. After the Revolutionary War, the states insisted on the constitutional right to defend themselves in case the fledgling U.S. government became tyrannical like the British Crown. The states demanded the right to keep an armed "militia" a form of insurance. "

And it is still a good reason... And James Madison agreed that it was an individual right.

"Militias in 1792 consisted of part-time citizen-soldiers organized by individual states."

Actually they were controlled at the local community level and not organized by the states unless "Called Up" as a standing militia.

"States found it difficult to organize and finance their militias and, by the mid-1800s, they had effectively ceased to exist."

And just who fought the opening battles of the civil war?
And who were the Sheriff’s posses? They still exist. So do neighborhood watches.

"Beginning in 1903, Congress began to pass legislation that would eventually transform state militias into what is now the National Guard."

There was no transformation; the idea of a National Guard was new.

"State authorities have considerable powers to regulate guns."

Isn't it the fourteenth amendment that applies the first ten to the states' laws?

And, and, and…

[Shooter 2.5]

So you agree with the ACLU?

Is that you, Sarah?

The fact is the dems, socialists, HCI, VPC and all the anti-gun organizations don't fear the other gun groups as much as the NRA. The NRA defeats more anti-gun politicians than any other gun group combined. How do I know this is because if you check to see which organization actively works for pro-gun politicians, it's the NRA. They are the ones sending workers to go door to door, working the phones for pro-gun candidates. Having a website doesn't do the job.

[RonF]

So, all SCOTUS decisions are perfect interpretations of the Constitution? The SCOTUS has never been wrong about any element of constitutional law? If SCOTUS declared the 5th Amendment unconstitutional, would that make it so?

Excuse me, perhaps I could have stated that better. I'm not saying that SCOTUS decisions are always right. I'm saying that they're always legal. "Constitutional" is a defined legal term, not a moral opinion. If the SCOTUS says that state-based gun control is Constitutional, it's Constitutional, up until the point that you can get a new Constitutional amendment passed or get a later session to overturn the precedent of a previous court.

[cavtrooper21]

Ping

[RonF]

See my post #36, please.

[MattinNJ]

Molon labe.

[Alberta's Child]

So you agree with the ACLU?

Absolutely not.