Saturday, October 10, 2009

Understanding the 2nd Amendment

Thanks to Laci the Dog, I had the opportunity to watch this wonderful video. It's a lecture by
Prof. Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School given about two years ago.

It's long so I'll just mention a few highlights.

Early on he says, the individual right to bear arms reflects an extremely resourceful social movement and has much less to do with good standard legal arguments than appears.

In the early 1990s, Chief Justice Warren Berger, conservative Republican, said the claim that the 2nd Amendment creates an individual right is one of the greatest pieces of fraud on the American public by special interest groups in his lifetime.

Later the professor uses phrases like "2nd Amendment revisionism" and he speaks at length about the founding period idea of militia being necessary to prevent a standing army of the government from harming the citizens.

He says the thought that citizen soldiers in the 21st century are needed for this purpose is just "ridiculous" and the idea of citizens fighting against government armies, "preposterous."


46 comments:

  1. You're bringing in Cass Sunstein???

    hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahha

    It's like Christmas!

    The Same Cass who thinks animals should be able to sue humans for hunting and eating them???

    hahahahhahahahahaha

    This Cass???

    thinks that in “light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals.”

    or...

    On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done, Sunstein advocates penalizing those that "spread rumors about an appointee of a Democratic president".

    hahahahahahahha

    "Sunstein has argued that “we should celebrate tax day.”

    "In what sense is the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts?"

    "[It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public… There is no liberty without dependency."


    hahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahah


    What a hoot, MikeB.

    I was in a good mood before I witnessed you align yourself with Cass Sunstein.

    Now I'm gonna go mix a drink and lift it to the sky and praise you to the heavens for all the sacrifice you endure to make the pro-freedom crowd look so good.

    Sincerely,
    thankyou.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The same Cass Sunstien who advocates the absolute gutting of the Judicial branch???

    "The interpretation of federal law should be made not by judges but by the beliefs and commitments of the U.S. president and those around him, according to President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.

    “There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him,” argued Sunstein.

    This statement was the central thesis of Sunstein’s 2006 Yale Law School paper, “Beyond Marbury: The Executive’s Power to Say What the Law Is.” The paper, in which he argues the president and his advisers should be the ones to interpret federal laws, was obtained and reviewed by WND.


    Do you agree with this guy???

    ReplyDelete
  3. In the early 1990s, Chief Justice Warren Berger, conservative Republican, said the claim that the 2nd Amendment creates an individual right is one of the greatest pieces of fraud on the American public by special interest groups in his lifetime.


    He then proceeded to pull a pistol on someone who came to his door.

    http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=397

    Virulent anti-second amendment journalist Carl Rowan did the same thing, pulling a handgun on some trespassers at his home not long after writing an anti-gun screed.

    I guess guns are for the "important" people.

    Anyway....

    Let's ask ultra-liberal Laurence Tribe what he thinks of the 2nd Amendment:

    [The Second Amendment's] central purpose is to arm "We the People" so that ordinary citizens can participate in the collective defense of their community and their state. But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes--not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons--a right that directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United States citizens protected by � 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment against state or local government action.

    Liberal Alan Dershowitz and Sanford Levinson have come to essentially the same conclusions.

    Susnstein is a dinosaur.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "In the early 1990s, Chief Justice Warren Berger, conservative Republican, said the claim that the 2nd Amendment creates an individual right is one of the greatest pieces of fraud on the American public by special interest groups in his lifetime."

    Berger correctly states the the 2A does not CREATE an individual right.

    The 2A PROTECTS a pre-existing individual right which predates the Constitution.

    Words matter.

    ReplyDelete
  5. MikeB

    You need to do better than Cass and Berger. SCOTUS has decided that 2A is an individual right. In other words, Cass and Berger are wrong.

    It is likely that 2A will be incorporated against the states and may be subject to "strict" scrutiny.

    All of the "laws" that you are in favor of will likely be thrown out as prior restraint would be unconstitutional.

    The constitution can be changed by means described in the document and not by the whim of the people. Remember that the rights of the people are to be respected even at the expense of society at large.

    All attempts to legislate away rights...any rights is nothing but thinly veiled fascism.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cass Sunstein proves that Glenn Beck isn't completely bonkers. When he talks about Sunstein, he's pretty much spot on.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "He says the thought that citizen soldiers in the 21st century are needed for this purpose is just "ridiculous" and the idea of citizens fighting against government armies, "preposterous.""

    And what's this about citizen fighting against the government armies being preposterous?

    He should go talk to some former Soviet soldiers. They've been manhandled quite a few times by groups of armed citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And I thought we were involved in two un-winnable wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) being waged by citizen soldiers or freedom fighters?

    Here's an exercise in critical thinking for you mikeb, find a video, article, or book from a pro-gun perspective and then write a post on why it is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Aztec, you are advocating treason, which just happens to be the only crime mention in the Constitution: See Article III, Section iii.

    Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) puts paid to the insurrectionist theory:

    The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect existing Government, not from change by peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, but from change by violence, revolution and terrorism. That it is within the power of the Congress to protect the Government of the United States from armed rebellion is a proposition which requires little discussion. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a "right" to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. We reject any principle of governmental helplessness in the face of preparation for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy. No one could conceive that it is not within the power of Congress to prohibit acts intended to overthrow the Government by force and violence. The question with which we are concerned here is not whether Congress has such power, but whether the means which it has employed conflict with the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

    BTW, if you would actually read up on the half quotes, in particular, Patrick Henry's "That every man be armed." speech from
    The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (3 Elliot's Debates 384-7).

    The fact that Justice Scalia is a political hack does not make Heller valid law.

    BTW, the Second Amendment should not be incorporated as it was to protect the States from Federal interference.

    Unless, of course, you really do just prefer using ad hominems and poor logic to run the debate.

    Quite frankly, the Second Amendment is totally irrelevant to modern society, unless of course, you wish to join your Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 militia unit.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Actually, I see a lot of intellectual laziness here as people are discrediting the person rather than what he says.

    Sunstein does give a very good analysis of the change from the civic right to the current interpretation of the Second Amendment which is not based in reality.

    Any review of the discussions from the time of the adoption of the Constitution will show that the Second Amendment was adopted in response to Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 where Congress is given the power of "arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States."

    When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 militia be armed? Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan: they will therefore act as they think proper: all power will be in their own possession. You cannot force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a rifle in the state? for, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.

    BTW, if you think I just made that up then I suggest you read the speeches of Patrick Henry.

    ReplyDelete
  11. To Laci...

    "Aztec, you are advocating treason"

    Care to clarify that, I read his comments and fail to see where he advocates treason.

    "Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a "right" to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change."

    Correct, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms against our own government woule valid and just when the existing structures for peaceful and orderly change is taken from the people.

    "The fact that Justice Scalia is a political hack does not make Heller valid law."

    So are you saying that Heller is not law? Interesting fantasy land you live in.

    "Quite frankly, the Second Amendment is totally irrelevant to modern society"

    Just what is it that made the 2A relevent in non-modern society yet irrelevent in modern society?

    What has changed?

    Be specific.

    ReplyDelete
  12. No wonder Laci's rant was so logically flawed...

    From her web page...

    ABOUT ME:

    I'm a Powderpuff Chinese Crested who likes romantic comedies, Long walks, chasing rodents (especially squirrels), sleeping, running, and hanging with my human companion. I have loads of hairless dogs in my family despite the fact I am a powderpuff. It upsets me greatly that dogs are not allowed to chase Squirrels in England under their dumb anti-hunting laws! Despite that fact, I am a member of the Connaught Square Squirrel Hunt in London.

    ReplyDelete
  13. BTW, Heller just said there was an individual right, but as Justice Stevens said in his dissent, that does not define the Scope of the right.

    Heller was allowed to register and own the gun provided he passed the registration process.

    It also stated that, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

    I am not sure of how to take the Heller opinion in light of Cass Sunstein's lecture since there are many issues, such as it was a 5-4 decision and it didn't totally abolish DC's gun laws, just the ban.

    DC's gun laws reverted to the Pre-1976 laws which were as strict as Chicagos.

    Also, tyranny as defined by the founding fathers was federal interference in state matters.

    Do you see the Irony in the incorporation of the Second Amendment to the States?

    It's like Melanie Hain being shot.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I wouldn't expect much logic from a Kaveman. Yes, your name belies that you are a subintelligent cretin, but...

    Just what is it that made the 2A relevent in non-modern society yet irrelevent in modern society?

    The relevance is that we now have a standing army, which is what the Second Amendment was to prevent.

    It does not contain the words "self-defence", which means that Scalia's logic was flawed. I did a subsequent post that explains why it isn't really valid.

    But, if you would be intelligent as to actually READ some of my posts regarding Heller, you would see whay it isn't really valid.

    Yes, it's an individual right, but so what?

    the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

    I am obviously smarter than a Kaveman

    ReplyDelete
  15. BTW, Kaveman, the secret is that you beat the rocks together.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    I can ad hoominem better than you can.

    And I know the law better than you do!

    I've been to court more than Eugene Volokh!

    ReplyDelete
  16. BTW, besides showing that you are losing the argument, use of an ad hominem (unless you are doing it just to be mean, which I am) shows that you are:
    A) not in a strong position
    B) Not using any intelligence by addressing the issues

    I don't see too much intelligence here, or even consistancy.

    Saying that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right (whatever that means) does not equate to dislike of gun ownership.

    In fact, in light of Heller, saying that an individual right exists does not mean that you are against firearms regulation.

    If you were intelligent and open minded, you would find my posts on Heller and the Second Amendment most educational.

    But, I can only see intellectually laziness here.

    TomB obviously did not listen to Sunstein's lecture since the scholarship he mentions is discussed as the "me too" school.

    Kaveman advocacy of waging war against the government is treason. Read my posts on the insurrection theory. You probably won't be able to understand them though. Too far above your intellectual level.

    One down for Second Amendment bullshit.

    As for most recent Second Amendment "scholarship" read my posts, if you have enough grey matter to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Nice to see your comment policy in action , MikeB.

    Laci, where did I attack you personally?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Assuming that this interpretation of the second amendment is true--what does this version of the second amendment actually do? (I've asked Mike before, I'm also interested in Laci's answer)

    ReplyDelete
  19. " Read my posts on the insurrection theory."

    I see no reason to visit the blog of someone so rude as yourself.

    At least MikeB is civil. You could learn a thing or two from him.

    Do you see what I'm doing here MikeB?

    I'm compilmenting you as a diss on her. My intent is to create a moral division in your head as you contemplate acknowledging my praise of you(which is genuine) or siding with someone who only has personal attacks at their disposal.

    But what do I know, I'm just a stupid kaveman.

    At least MikeB knows where my moniker came from.

    ReplyDelete
  20. hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahha

    Must be funny, eh? Actually, the pro-gun movement always makes me smile with their usual schtick, song and dance routine, the sky if falling!

    We want guns! We want guns!

    The poor 2nd Amendment has been stretched, twisted and spun so many times that it is almost unintelligible any more these days.

    The Founding Fathers never imagined that this piece of legislation would today be used as an excuse for amassing personal arsenals of high-powered weapons.

    No, couldn't imagine that. They just wanted to make sure that the British didn't catch us again with our pants down and that no tyrant would seize the presidency.

    Simple stuff. Clear-cut, easy to understand. Perfect logic.

    But no.

    The gun nuts have torn it apart; its original purpose is gone; extinct like the dinosaur.

    It has been raped!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Laci,

    Its quite obvious you are a self important bag of gas. You are hardly an intellectual. This is evident by the fantasy world you live in. You slavishly give up your God given rights to governments. You are sorely mistaken if you think the government really cares about your well being. Government's exist to perpetuate itself and not much else. Once you understand this simple concept, you will see that it is imperative to keep the government size to a minimum.

    What you think of SCOTUS and the Heller opinion is irrelevant. The individual right exists and will likely be applied to the states. I can't wait to hear you and MikeB squeal like stuck pigs when it happens.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "You slavishly give up your God given rights to governments."

    One point of contention here, VOR.

    Laci is a british subject in the UK. She gave up her rights a long time ago. She is a slave, not a citizen.

    I sense that her blatant hatred towards Freedom in America is tied to the fact that the colonies handed the Crown its own ass.

    Treason in her eyes but the ass handing still occurred, didn't it Laci?

    A bunch of rag-tag minute men defeated what was at the time, the most advanced and disciplined military the world had ever seen.

    And we defeated them.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mud,

    Instead of spouting off like Old Faithful in Yellowstone, (lots of hot gases, blowing and full of muck), why don't you provide some citations for your claims?

    The Founding Fathers never imagined that this piece of legislation would today be used as an excuse for amassing personal arsenals of high-powered weapons.

    How about quoting the words of the Founding Fathers that supports what you say?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Kaveman, you attacked based oupon interests not upon what I said. you are too much of a wimp to take the crap you give. So, Boo effing Hoo that you won't bother with reading my posts.

    And if you eejots read my blog, you would find I couldn't give a rat's arse what you think. Neither is there any need to be polite to people who aren't truly interested in what I have to say. I can tell Kaveman that your opinion isn't worth the electrons, let alone the bandwidth you waste in inflicting it upon others.

    Let alone have no real comprehension of the issues involved.

    I think the real reason you won't bother with my blog is that you are all keyboard warriors. You can't waste my time, therefore, have no interest in reading it.

    Sunstein doesn't really give an interpetation of the Second Amendment as much as run through the history of "Scholarship", an understanding of which is something I see missing in the comments.

    I found his comment about finding an individual right just to find one so that the masses wouldn't be upset interesting in light of Heller.

    I am not sure what interpretation you mean. I directly quoted Patrick Henry and changed the word musket to rifle. The Second Amendment was to ensure the efficacy of the force created Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.

    Since that force is basically non-existant, the Second Amendment is a quaint artifact slighly more useful than the Third Amendment.

    I made comments in my blog relating to the Sunstein piece.

    Well, I say I would rather be a pseudo intellectual than a real dumbf--ks, which most of you are.

    Kaveman, you know nothing of me, but I can tell you are not as smart as you think you are. I bet you really think my dog writes this.

    Since you need to read the profile, but that would strain your grey matter to breaking.

    You also know nothing of history, the rag tag minutemen got their arses kicked and needed the help of France, Spain, and a few other European powers to beat England.

    Bob S. I quoted The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (3 Elliot's Debates 384-7) when I ripped off Patrick Henry.

    As I said, you folks aren't smart enough to spot that I made direct quotes to Patrick Henry and the Heller opinion.

    So, Kaveman you mere existance is a diss.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Laci...

    where did I attack you?

    Care to clarify?

    ReplyDelete
  26. VOR, I am glad that you do not mind the selective reading of the constitution made in Heller. As I said, it was a 5-4 decision, which you obviously do not comprehend. Justice Steven's dissent was proper legal analysis of the issue.

    VOR, you are incapable of critical thinking and need ad hominems to attack me. This is because you can't come up with a valid criticism.

    I suggest that you read some of the posts on Heller on my blog, better yet try doing some research as there are many articles critical of the Heller decision. I found a very good one at Lew Rockwell.

    Of course, I expect that the effort given trying to find posts critical of Heller would tax your minds.

    Critical thinking gives due consideration to the evidence, the context of judgment, the relevant criteria for making the judgment well, the applicable methods or techniques for forming the judgment, and the applicable theoretical constructs for understanding the nature of the problem and the question at hand.

    Kaveman, you obviously don't understand ad hominem as you make them a signature of your posts.

    Should Mike B's policy bar you from commenting?

    I prefer it when people address the issues rather than attack.

    BUt, I can give better than you can get.

    ReplyDelete
  27. MikeB...

    Since Laci seems incapable of pointing out where I attacked her pesonally, perhaps you could point it out for me?

    ReplyDelete
  28. "Also, tyranny as defined by the founding fathers was federal interference in state matters."

    So is it still treason to fight the government when they start interfering in state matters?

    "The relevance is that we now have a standing army, which is what the Second Amendment was to prevent."

    Then it seems the Second Amendment is needed more than ever.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The more of this Laci character I read, the more I find myself needing a shovel and a pair of boots.

    I've read the first page of her/his/its blog and i can't find a single post that isn't filled with lie and half-truths. No wonder comments are closed over there.

    ReplyDelete
  31. What will Cass Sunstein do for me???!!!! I can't read all the rest of the posts since they all seem to smoosh together!

    I live in an area where you can't buy cheese but you can get 100 different types of kimchi. I want to buy cheese!! Don't I have a right to cheese??!! I live in the USA!!! Why does my local grocery have kimchi but no cheese??

    ReplyDelete
  32. Aztec Red, they are lies only because they contradict your view of the world. I cite to my sources.

    You accuse me of lies and half truths, would you care to ellaborate? Beware, Aztec Red, since if you click the links, you will find my sources. Which means that I do have a basis for making those statements, which means your criticism is invalid.

    But, you have to say that I am lyiing since that gives you an out for disagreeing with me: even though it is a baseless accusation.

    If you care to ignore what I say, well then that's your problem.

    I don't allow comments since I find most discourse doesn't address the issues but engages in the diversionary tactics such as baseless accusations and not addressing the issues to avoid exactly addressing the issue.

    If you can't come to the forum with an open mind, then I don't care to deal with you.

    As for this discussion, I can tell that none of you understood Cass's lecture.

    First off, do any of you deny that Berger called the Individual Right theory a fraud upon the American public?

    Secondly, do any of you deny that the decision in US v. Miller was a unanimous decision?

    DO any of you deny that within a span of 10 years, the opinion that the Second Amendment encompasses an "individual right" has gained some acceptability in the legal community?

    Of course, that acceptability is not unanimous as Heller was a 5-4 decision.

    Do you deny that Heller, being a 5-4 decision could easily be overturned?

    In case you missed it, I am an experienced trial lawyer.

    ReplyDelete
  33. You also know nothing of history, the rag tag minutemen got their arses kicked and needed the help of France, Spain, and a few other European powers to beat England.

    So the Hessian, black slaves, and American Indians that fought for the British (and out numbered them) were what, dishwashers? Does this mean that the British were getting their "arses" kicked as well and couldn't fight the war without a "bunch of barbarians" (which is how various British officers described those groups in their personal diaries and letters)?

    Or maybe I just don't know my history. BTW, could you please quit bragging about being a trial lawyer and going to court millions of times. You said it once, you don't need to repeat it ad infinitum.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Just time for a quick ad hom here...

    Laci, you don't win arguments by amount of words written.

    Especially when they don't really say anything.

    Heller is law of the land right now. None of what you write (and write and write and write.....) invalidates that.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Another typical "Progressive" calling names when logic fails.

    Also another great example of MikeB's partisan Commenting policy.

    You guys should be proud of yourself.

    And BTW I say this as a Scientist, so you should bow to my degree and experience! *snerk!*

    ReplyDelete
  36. Also count the points he glosses over. He talks about Miller being a case that prohibits arms not to be in use by the military (which short barreled shotguns ALWAYS have been a part of, so a flawed interpretation) So he's saying "The People" have a right to military arms. And somehow our current laws aren't a blatant violation? Huhh?

    Also I liked how he stated: "After the Civil war gun control laws were widespread and largely unchallenged"

    Yeah, Unchallenged because those laws originated as means to disarm the poor, the blacks and the Indians. They were unchallenged, because violations of the individual rights of these groups were unchallenged as a whole until decades later.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Troop strenght at the Battle of Yorktown:

    French
    11,800 regulars
    29 war ships
    American
    5,700 regulars
    3,100 militia

    British
    9,000 soldiers

    Pro Independence forces
    United States, France, Spain, Dutch Republic, Oneida (tribe of the Iroquois Confederacy), Tuscarora (tribe of the Iroquois Confederacy), Watauga Association, and Catawba

    Pro-Union Forces
    Great Britain, Loyalists, Ansbach–Bayreuth, Hesse-Hanau, Hesse-Kassel, Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, Waldeck-Pyrmont, Iroquois Confederacy, and
    Cherokee


    With the exception of the Hessians. The Black slaves, and American Indians were North Americans as were the Loyalist forces

    The "Hessians" came from King George's German realms (if you know your history, King George I was the Elector of Hanover), which made them subjects of the king. Hessians comprised approximately one-quarter of the British forces in the Revolution. The were not mercenaries in the modern sense of military professionals who voluntarily hire out their own services for money.

    This was a vast difference from the Americans who had the support of three of the "superpowers" of the time France, Spain, and Holland.

    I use as many words as are necessary to make my point.

    Heller was a split decision and still contains the Civic right interpretation.

    There is a fallacy called argumentum ad populum which means because everybody believes it, it must be true.

    If you read legal journals, and some non-legal journals, you would find that Heller has been trashed. I would hope that the comparison to Roe v. Wade would shame the hack that wrote Heller.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Secondly, do any of you deny that the decision in US v. Miller was a unanimous decision?

    I've never heard a good explanation why the Miller case was taken by the Court, sicne it was moot, and there was no defense present.

    Nevertheless, it really wasn't that much of a win for gun control, since it merely decided that sawed off shotguns were not shown to be militarily useful, and therefore could be restricted. If the Court used that logic on machine guns, I don't see any way that they could have come to the same conclusion. Had there been a defendant present, they could have very easily shown that trench guns were issued by the military.

    DO any of you deny that within a span of 10 years, the opinion that the Second Amendment encompasses an "individual right" has gained some acceptability in the legal community?

    Of course, that acceptability is not unanimous as Heller was a 5-4 decision.


    Heller was 9-0 on the individual right portion. The dissent was only on how far the right extended.

    Do you deny that Heller, being a 5-4 decision could easily be overturned?

    Anything is possible, but since there was no dissent on individual rights, I don't see much chance of substantial challenge.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Sevesteen asked, "what does this version of the second amendment actually do?"

    Now, I'm not a lawyer (that's not a snark at you Laci), but I'm beginning to get the idea that the 2nd Amendment does nothing at all for us in the 21st century. If it weren't for the lopsided conservative Supreme Court this would have been made very clear by now instead of all the "willful misinterpretation," as Mike Licht called it, that we have.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Mike, that's a cop-out answer.

    What did the second amendment originally do, and what changed to make it invalid?

    Could a similar change eliminate other rights without a constitutional amendment?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Wow, Laci is really out there, making outlandish statements without backing them up and then accusing us of being mean.

    The fact that Justice Scalia is a political hack does not make Heller valid law.

    So if the SCOTUS decision is one you disagree with then it's "not valid law?" How convenient. You do realize that Justice Scalia is neither the Chief Justice nor does he control the rest of the court, so even if he were a "political hack" why would it matter?

    ReplyDelete
  42. I lost interest in trying to follow this thread when I got to the comment about cheese and kimchi. Between that person, and the one who devotes the bulk of her commentary to long-winded disparagement of the intelligence of everyone who advocates gun rights, the quality of commenters seems to be in decline, Mikeb.

    Still, I would like to recommend Dave Kopel's superb critique of Burger's assertion that the right to keep and bear arms protected by the 2nd Amendment is actually the right of some "collective" entity, rather than individual citizens.

    Well worth the time of anyone interested in the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  43. There is a fallacy called argumentum ad populum which means because everybody believes it, it must be true.

    Since we're discussing logical fallacies, there's also one called argumentum ad verecundiam, or argument from authority. You might want to brush up on that one.

    And despite your claim of legal education, I can assure you there is no precedent in American jurisprudence which allows one to ignore a law because one of the Justices "is a political hack". Also, the Supreme Court is not a sporting event, close scores (decisions) do not carry less weight that blowouts. That you would even argue these points makes me wonder about your claims of expertice.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "If you can't come to the forum with an open mind, then I don't care to deal with you."

    Laci the dog, you never addressed the two points I made:

    1. Is it still treason to fight the government when they start interfering in state matters?

    2. If the Second Amendment was to prevent a standing army, don't we need armed citizens now, more than ever?

    ReplyDelete
  45. It is obvious that MikeB has been caught with his pants around his ankles and his token trial lawyer won't dare come to his defense.

    Cass Sunstien advocates that the judicial branch has nothing to offer and should be abolished.

    Congrats MikeB, you have aligned yourself with a pure dictatorship italy's history would be proud of.

    The wonton slaughter of innocent women and childred should appeal to you...

    Do you ever wake up to their screams????

    ReplyDelete
  46. beowulf, Thanks a lot for that Kopel link. I think that'll come in handy when I write a post about Burger's remarks, which I'm planning on doing soon.

    ReplyDelete