Advocate wrote:Dave, it is pretty far fetched that, because the feds took temporary leadership
of some state militias, this proved that the very wording of 2A is meaningless.
You are essentially asking me to prove a negative, which is undoable.
That is NOT what I assert; I do not affirm that the wording of 2A is "MEANINGLESS".
On the contrary, I claim that the impartial professional grammarians
(whose analyses u have
not even TRIED to disprove)
have been
ACCURATE, and that your interpretation of the purpose
is screwy, whacky, and zany, with no historical basis.
My point is that the Author 's intentions were very simply to prevent
any government in the geographical USA from having jurisdiction
to interfere with any citizen
:
1 ) in his choice of personal defensive firepower
or
2 ) to interfere with any citizens in their choice to organize themselves,
together with their friends into units of militia.
The
Authors were
FREEDOM LOVERS, like me who 'd the NRA leadership in comtempt
for being a sell-out,
compromize organization; Quislings
instead of resolutely fighting for freedom from government interference.
My point is that absolutely
NO ONE in America really believed
your concept that 2A
was enacted to immunize the state governments from having their militia
ripped away from them. The purpose of
keeping them
( in addition to a few other possibilities, like flood control, etc. )
was to enable the states to
overthrow the US Government,
as the Authors of 2A had just finished doing, with another government,
and as thay
ACTUALLY DID or unsuccessfully tried to do, in 1861.
Some of the state governments (including my own in NY) were very leery
of the danger of the US Government and made reservations against it
in their very
instruments of ratification of the US Consitution.
My point is that if, AS U CLAIM, the purpose of 2A was to protect the governments
of the states, from having their militia ripped away from them by Uncle Sam,
then when Ike and the Kennedys
ACTUALLY PERPETRATED the feared deed,
then the victims thereof ( Oval Faubus & George Wallace and their respective
attorneys general and all Dixiecratic Senators ), logically shud have yelled
out
almost REFLEXIVEly: "Hay, Ike: u can 't do that !!!
That 's what we have 2A for !!!
2A says u can 't DO that ! "
However much passion possessed them thru out the South to preserve
racial segregation, and in odium of Brown v. Bd of Ed.,
NOT EVEN ONE OF THEM,
in their desperation, thought of your far fetched concept that 2A was
to protect state governments' possession of their militia from federal intervention.
After Ike did that in 1957, without the KKK or any Dixiecratic Senator
ever even suggesting the possiblity that your argument is correct,
5 years went by during which every segregationist in the entire South
had those 5 years to ponder what had happenend to them in terms of
a state government's militia having been ripped away, before the
Kennedys
DID IT AGAIN, with
NO OBJECTION from the victims
that 2A existed to protect them from this, as u claim to be the reason
for the existence of 2A.
NO ONE even MENTIONED the possibility,
not even
FLEETINGLY.
This shows that no one in America actually believed
your concept of the reason for the existence of 2A.
Quote:
Burger's views were correct, and represented the views of the vast majority of courts
throughout the country. Up to very recently, no court has backed your view of 2A,
That is a foolish thing to say, and unsupported by factual truth.
The Standard Model of 2A prevalent among almost 100% of the legal inteligentsia, including liberals,
is that 2A protects the rights of
individual citizens to KABA,
the same as their right to vote and to speak & to worship freely,
as the USSC says in VERDUGO.
Quote:and we still don't know what the SC will decide in the instant case.
We can only wait and see.
We cannot MAKE them do their job.
We can only wait and see.
Quote:BTW, Parade Magazine is an important, highly edited, publication with a huge readership.
I never found it to be significant; a little Sunday supplement
advertizing throw-away, to circulate ads for soaps and horoscopes.
I don 't know nor care if it has changed over the decades
since Burger's ill considered and probably unresearched personal opinion.
I read it when it came out, along with the funnies.
Unimpressive.
Quote:I am certain that Burger carefully measured his words printed there. I think your saying that he was a $2 whore is disgusting.
On what do you base such intemperate words?
Because for a few nickles n dimes thrown his way,
he abuses the prestige of the court to blither his unresearched personal,
anti-American opinions. The Authors of the Bill of Rights wud have been scandalized,
chagrined & ashamed of him. He shud have known better; he did not care.
I don 't like it when people spit on the Bill of Rights.
David
