Video from Pix 11
What does the 2A have to do with the Connecticut massacre, you ask? Well, let's see.
It's a distorted understanding of the Amendment which fuels the gun culture in the US. Whenever pressured or placed in a corner, gun-rights folks, whom I blame for the countless tragedies, proffer the old justifications, "it's a right."
Actually, it's not. I say that in spite of the recent mistaken rulings by the conservative and gun-lobby-influenced Supreme Court, rulings which by the way I believe will be overturned in years to come.
ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a
free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second
Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right.
For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.
The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down
Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008
decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the
Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms,
whether or not associated with a state militia.
The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
I believe that Miller can be interpreted to endow a collective State "Militia" with all arms within U.S. borders, (although it has been chosen to interpret this section to bear a different context) and therefore sanction all weapons on U.S. soil as some form of State property, to be appropriated for official use by non-individual entities.
ReplyDeleteThe Right to Civilian Disarmament can be derived from the language in the preamble (of the U.S. Constitution) sanctioning as the duty of Government to "ensure domestic tranquility", "promote the general welfare", "provide for the common defense". As there exists such a Right to Disarmament of the mere citizen as expressed by the constitution, congress bears the obligation to adopt prohibitive statutes concerning the proliferation and possession by mere civilians, who do not convey public authority, are not entrusted with the safety of the populace, and not endowed with coercive power (therefore requiring the use of arms) over other subjects.
I wonder if the ACLU would take the position that it is necessary (and mandated by the Constitution) for the Federal Government to use all means at it's disposal to ensure a monopoly on the lawful use of small arms in all subject territory.
If such measures to ensure the security of the United States Government (and all the terrible firepower that the U.S. military possesses) are not taken, international intervention may be necessary.
You again? So you do agree that individuals have rights, including the right to speak. You're here exercising that right, despite your denials that the right exists.
DeletePlease do take your nonsense to the ACLU. That organization may have a blind spot with regard to the Second Amendment, but on other Constitutionally protected rights, the ACLU has been a champion for individuals against the government.
But read those words first, and get yourself a dictionary to do it. Nothing in the preamble requires disarming citizens, nor is there a "right to civilian disarmament" listed anywhere. By contrast, the Second Amendment specifically says, "the right of the people."
Regarding international intervention, that's either bordering on a casus belli or an act of treason, depending on who you are.
The ACLU does excellent work with regard to other rights, so I'm willing to overlook this one error that they make. I do find their error inexplicable, since on every other matter, they defend the rights of the individual against the state, but you won't see me calling them racists over that.
ReplyDeleteGreg, the fact is you're the inconsistent one. The ACLU is composed of teams of lawyers and other professional people all who have come up with that statement which they find completely consistent with their other positions.
DeleteThe legal profession interprets the law. But lawyers are not all on one side of this issue. The ACLU is inconsistent in its position. It's for individual rights, except when it's against them.
DeleteI'm for individual rights in everything.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1GNu7ldL1LM
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers