Guns and the Supreme Court

..................

I suggest you take a hike to clear your tiny brain. Regarding the "woman" comment, I was addressing the men who were salivating over certain weapons, not you. BTW, I will be heading out soon to hit some tennis balls. I may even put your name on one.

McTag wrote:

It's nothing to do with self-defence, is it really, David?

You seem to have an infinite capacity for self-delusion.

McTag - with respect, there's only 2 possibilities: offense and defense. If our intent in keeping guns were offense, we would surely had attacked a few people by now! It follows logically that defense is the only possibility.

How on earth has this happened? Was Chief Justice Burger just wrong?

There is a third possibility, involving neither offence or defence, surely.

And while a person interested in self-defence may own a simple firearm, although I personally do not think it a good idea, this in no way explains away the over-excited amassing of enough firepower to equip a platoon.
There seem to be other stimuli at work, not healthy ones either.

High Seas wrote:

McTag wrote:

It's nothing to do with self-defence, is it really, David?

You seem to have an infinite capacity for self-delusion.

McTag - with respect, there's only 2 possibilities: offense and defense. If our intent in keeping guns were offense, we would surely had attacked a few people by now! It follows logically that defense is the only possibility.

There is a third possibility, involving neither offence or defence, surely.

And while a person interested in self-defence may own a simple firearm, although I personally do not think it a good idea, this in no way explains away the over-excited amassing of enough firepower to equip a platoon.
There seem to be other stimuli at work, not healthy ones either.

Advocate wrote:

How on earth has this happened? Was Chief Justice Burger just wrong?

Now there's an easy one. Yes, Chief Justice Burger was simply wrong. The personal right to bear arms is an interpretation of the Second Amendment that reasonable jurists can disagree about. But it's definitely not a fraud, and Burger was simply wrong to call it that.

Being wrong happens to people, even to chief justices. This particular chief justice was 50-60 years out of law school when he gave that interview, talking about a constitutional provision he never had to decide a case under. His mistake should not surprise anyone.

Thomas wrote:

Advocate wrote:

How on earth has this happened? Was Chief Justice Burger just wrong?

Now there's an easy one. Yes, Chief Justice Burger was simply wrong. The personal right to bear arms is an interpretation of the Second Amendment that reasonable jurists can disagree about. But it's definitely not a fraud, and Burger was simply wrong to call it that.

Being wrong happens to people, even to chief justices. This particular chief justice was 50-60 years out of law school when he gave that interview, talking about a constitutional provision he never had to decide a case under. His mistake should not surprise anyone.

No, you're wrong there, Thomas. Chief Justice Burger was right- the wilful misinterpretation of the words of that clause is a fraud perpetrated on the American people by special-interest groups.

No, you're wrong there, Thomas. Chief Justice Burger was right- the wilful misinterpretation of the words of that clause is a fraud perpetrated on the American people by special-interest groups.

Thomas wrote:

Advocate wrote:

How on earth has this happened? Was Chief Justice Burger just wrong?

Now there's an easy one. Yes, Chief Justice Burger was simply wrong. The personal right to bear arms is an interpretation of the Second Amendment that reasonable jurists can disagree about. But it's definitely not a fraud, and Burger was simply wrong to call it that.

Being wrong happens to people, even to chief justices. This particular chief justice was 50-60 years out of law school when he gave that interview, talking about a constitutional provision he never had to decide a case under. His mistake should not surprise anyone.

No, you're wrong there, Thomas. Chief Justice Burger was right- the wilful misinterpretation of the words of that clause is a fraud perpetrated on the American people by special-interest groups.

"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always
possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
-- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788

McTag wrote:

No, you're wrong there, Thomas. Chief Justice Burger was right- the wilful misinterpretation of the words of that clause is a fraud perpetrated on the American people by special-interest groups.

In this case, you and justice Burger must be talking about frauds and interest groups that are ancient. The English Bill of Rights (1689) unambiguously states it's "the subjects which are protestants" which "may have arms"; there's no way of interpreting it as a state right. Blackstone (1765), commenting on the laws of England, speaks of it as one of the absolute rights of Englishmen. St George Tucker (1803), commenting on Blackstone and providing the first scholarly commentary on the American constitution in the process, speaks of an individual right. William Rawle (1829) and Joseph Story (1833), in their commentaries on the US constitution, clearly speak of an individual right. The Founders' Constitution, a print and online publication by the University of Chicago Press, collects the relevant contemporary commentary about the matter.

The record shows it undisputably: Reputable legal scholars have been interpreting the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right for as long as the American constitution exists. Other serious legal scholars have interpreted it as a state right. (There's no reason it couldn't be both by the way.) Anyway, I'm not denying that Burger is in respectable company when he declares: "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all". But if Burger really calls the individual-right-interpretation a fraud (the quote in the article provides no context for what exactly he thinks the fraud is), then he is either being ignorant or dishonest himself. I guess it's the former, since, as I mentioned, he must have been at least 50 years out of law school when he said that, and he had never decided a case under the Second Amendment since.

It's nothing to do with self-defence, is it really, David?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.", Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

I have never owned a gun and I most likely never will. However, I believe in defending every single word of the Constitution, and that includes parts that I don't agree with. Obey it or amend it.

Any public official who supports a law which clearly violates the Constitution should be voted out of office as rapidly as possible. Enemies of the Constitution have no role in our government. Freedom of speech is an individual right, freedom of religion is an individual right - it is the crystal clear intent of the "Bill of Rights" to give the people the means to limit government control. If Madison had meant that armies can have guns, he would have said that. To look right at a statement in the Constitution that the right of the people to own and carry arms may not be limited, and then throw people in jail for owing a gun is an absolutely unacceptable assault on the Constitution.

Quote:

Your post is interesting.

Yes.

Quote:

First, it ain't so crystal clear
that A2 gives all people an unfettered right to bear arms.

It WAS to the professional GRAMMARIANS
with whose impartial professional analyses I have repeatedly confronted u,
and u have never EVEN TRIED to disprove.

Quote:

In fact, former chief justice of the Supreme Court Burger said in an opinion,
in effect, that such an interpretation is laughable.

Getting a little SNEAKY there are we, Advocate ?
When u write it that way,
it sounds like he did so on-the-job,
when his peers cud have corrected his errors,
instead of venting his emotions, after he retired and went his own way.

Quote:

Second, the framers would not have referred to a militia in A2
were such a reference meaningless.

Of course it is not " meaningless ".
It means that armed citizens are secure in their right
to organize themselves into private militia.

In the parlance of the times,
" well regulated militia " were private militia
as distinct from such selected militia as are provided for in Article I Section 8.

High Seas wrote:

McTag wrote:

It's nothing to do with self-defence, is it really, David?

You seem to have an infinite capacity for self-delusion.

McTag - with respect, there's only 2 possibilities: offense and defense.
If our intent in keeping guns were offense, we would surely had attacked
a few people by now! It follows logically that defense is the only possibility.

Advocate - I politely told you earlier to take a hike:
you clearly have lost it completely, suggesting that the women here
(me, for instance) should trade in our guns for.... other women?!
Call ex-governor Spitzer's office, they may be able to assist you with that fantasy -
but please take that hike first

Regarding the "woman" comment, I was addressing the men
who were salivating over certain weapons, not you.

Thomas wrote:

McTag wrote:

No, you're wrong there, Thomas. Chief Justice Burger was right- the wilful misinterpretation of the words of that clause is a fraud perpetrated on the American people by special-interest groups.

In this case, you and justice Burger must be talking about frauds and interest groups that are ancient. The English Bill of Rights (1689) unambiguously states it's "the subjects which are protestants" which "may have arms"; there's no way of interpreting it as a state right. Blackstone (1765), commenting on the laws of England, speaks of it as one of the absolute rights of Englishmen. St George Tucker (1803), commenting on Blackstone and providing the first scholarly commentary on the American constitution in the process, speaks of an individual right. William Rawle (1829) and Joseph Story (1833), in their commentaries on the US constitution, clearly speak of an individual right. The Founders' Constitution, a print and online publication by the University of Chicago Press, collects the relevant contemporary commentary about the matter.

The record shows it undisputably: Reputable legal scholars have been interpreting the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right for as long as the American constitution exists. Other serious legal scholars have interpreted it as a state right. (There's no reason it couldn't be both by the way.) Anyway, I'm not denying that Burger is in respectable company when he declares: "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all". But if Burger really calls the individual-right-interpretation a fraud (the quote in the article provides no context for what exactly he thinks the fraud is), then he is either being ignorant or dishonest himself. I guess it's the former, since, as I mentioned, he must have been at least 50 years out of law school when he said that, and he had never decided a case under the Second Amendment since.

Okay since there are honestly-held but polarised legal opinions on this matter, a clarification is obviously required, and a revision to the wording of the Constitution, written as it was all these years ago for a completely different world.

Maybe something along the lines of

"Whereas it is recognised that the function of law enforcement is nowadays undertaken by the police, and the function of defense of the state is undertaken by the armed forces, and no citizen has need to shoot his slaves or the indians or his neighbours or the redcoats any more,

and whereas many of the the people who own guns seem to be the very last people who should be let anywhere near them,

and due to a large number of regularly recurring regrettable incidents, for the better governance of the country and the safety of its citizens the previous widely-assumed "right of the people to bear arms" is hereby rescinded."