Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Another Supreme Court Justice on the Individual Right intepretation

This time it's former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger (Chief Justice of the United States from 1969-86) on The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, December 16, 1991

"[The Second Amendment] has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

See also Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990, page 4

I think that Justice Douglas's comment I mentioned in an earlier post is more persuasive. Still, this does make the point.


  1. A single Supreme Court Justice's opinion has no legal weight. It only matters what at least 5 of them agree on as to what is Constitutional and what is not.

  2. That's argumentum ad populum, which is fallacious.

    Add in another 4 Justices properly followed legal precedent.

    Jim, if you were in court charged with a serious crime, would you want the Judge to decide your case based on his whim?

    Or follow precedent?

    Anyway, before you chortle about Heller-McDonald and it's bullshit interpretation of the law, realise that there are loads of pro-gun people who are finding that this is proabably a better precedent for the gun control crowd.

    Anyway, I don't need to persuade an idiot like you that I am correct. Because you can be shown the truth, Jimbo, you can read the primary sources for yourself where the quotes are addressing Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, but you won't understand it.

    As I said, the "individual right argument" doesn't hold water, especially when closely scrutinised.

    You might find this an interesting read.

    If you can understand it.

  3. Another "emanation from the penumbra" from one of the scum who invented a "right" that wasn't in the Constitution.

  4. As opposed to someone who came up with an new "original" interpetation of the Second Amendment out of whole cloth.

    IF you don't like the Penumbra, then you should truly hate DC. v Heller.

    That's a right that was not in the Constitution prior to his pronouncement.

    Or are you reading AND understanding my post?

  5. Inventing a right where none is in the Constitution is what you pro-gun guys have done over the last 5 or 6 decades.

    If owning guns is a good thing, what need is there to keep falling back on the silly "rights" argument anyway.