Friday, September 13, 2013

Nothing I haven't been saying for a while

Jeffrey Toobin at Frontliine:
The overwhelming consensus was that the Second Amendment gave state militias a right to obtain and bear arms, but it did it not give individuals any rights. … The words of the Second Amendment are ungrammatical and difficult to understand in the best of circumstances. But if you look at the history and context of the amendment, including other references to state militias in the Constitution, it suggests that the amendment only applied to state militias.

Now what makes this subject so difficult in the modern world is that state militias don’t exist anymore, so we have no familiarity with what a state militia is. But it was simply taken as a given in constitutional law that the Second Amendment did not give individuals a right to bear arms.

Of course, what is really needed isn't a legal scholar (or someone who is just a legal scholar), but someone who is also a military historian of the first rate  since what the Second Amendment addresses is national defence and how what would that look like in the nascent republic.  Also, one has to understand that the founding fathers had this idea that they were the new Romans (which could be an accurate assessment since the Romans were basically warlike not very intellectual, but were fond of the Greeks who were).

Anyway, there is loads of evidence that the militia was already irrelevant by the time of the War for Independence (see Adam Smith infra):

But, I'm not going to stop the likes of Greg from believing whatever he wants even though he can't provide a good basis for his belief other than he wants it to be so.

Second Amendment Bibliography


  1. Greg is an NRA dupe. Nothing will deter his delusion, that guns rule. They will come back at you with garbage, but America didn't even talk about an individual right until th20th century. Like the pledge that was fine for 100 years until fanatics (religious) got a majority to put "under God" into the pledge, or our currency that never said "in God We trust" until 180 years after we had been printing money. "Fanaticism is ever vigilant........'

    1. Check your facts on the pledge buddy. Original, short version was written in 1890's; Under God was one of several edits and was done about 50 years later.

      But then, you don't need no steenking facts.

    2. Gun-control Jim, the Pledge of Allegiance was written by socialist minister Francis Bellamy in the 1890s and featured a raised right-arm salute until the Nazis made that unpalatable. It didn't originally even name the country. "Under God"--which phrase I oppose--was inserted in 1954 as a statement against godless communism. Regardless, the Pledge isn't required. Even schoolchildren can refuse to say it. I don't know about military personnel, but ordinary citizens aren't obliged. "In God We Trust" shows up on coins in the Civil War, and it is in the fourth verse of the national anthem. Regarding the idea of arms as an individual right, there are numerous sources to show that the Founders discussed and supported that idea.

      Next time, when you want to criticize what you think I don't know, get your facts straight.

    3. Screw you lying NRA dupe, I said the "under God" wasn't added till the 20th century, what's your problem professor(?)? I know the history of the pledge, but you list it accusing me of not knowing. Fuck you lying NRA death loving shithead.

    4. Jim,

      I will refer you to your comment:
      ". . . but America didn't even talk about an individual right until th20th[sic] century. Like the pledge that was fine for 100 years until fanatics (religious) got a majority to put "under God" into the pledge, . . ."

      You actually only mentioned the 20th Century with regards to the concept of original rights. You then referred to the pledge being untouched for 100 years before "under God" was added to it--something you have twice been shown was an error.

      I'll be waiting to see if you admit the error Greg pointed out to you, or if you will go straight past error into deliberately doubling down on a misstatement of history and a lie regarding what you said and your characterization of Greg's comment.

    5. Gun-control Jim, you said that the Pledge was fine for a hundred years. If you understand arithmetic, you'll find that 1954 minus 1892 is somewhat less than one hundred.

      But then, as you showed in your response, you suffer from the same level of rage that Democommie exhibited. It leads me to wonder if you are in fact that person.

    6. Once again we see the decompensation of a gun control freak. They start out trying to sound reasonable, but soon enough they fall into a fit of rage and incomprehensibility.

    7. Well, looks like Jim's gone the way of Kevin.

      Jim, you like calling Greg and me liars almost every chance you get, but people can see who the troublemaking troll and liar is here--the guy who can't admit he's wrong even when his own post is copied and pasted from above as proof for him.

      Whatever else you may be (gun owner, occasional concealed carrier, etc.) you are a foul mouthed liar who apparently just loves stirring up strife.

    8. Your nit picking criticisms of what Jim said seems to be another attempt at obfuscation. He made good points about the fanatical and extremist movements in The United States, but instead of addressing them you guys zeroed in on dates and exact numbers of years and who's a liar, anything but his point.

      Gun rights fanaticism has bastardized the Constitution's original meaning in the 2A. It culminated in 2008 with the Heller decision, but even before that you guys were pretending there was an individual right.

      Part of the problem is you think without the 2A your guns will all be taken away from you by the evil government. That possibility only exists in your fevered minds, it's no more true than that your toasters are in danger of being confiscated.

    9. Really? There's no more chance of my guns being confiscated than my toaster if you get your way?

      One of my handguns would lose half of it's magazines because they hold 12 rounds. All of my handguns hold more than the 7 NY allows, and there have been proposals to only allow single shot weapons.

      One of my handguns might be outlawed completely because it is an old, com-bloc military surplus gun. All of them use calibers used by one military or another--something which past proposals would have banned.

      I enjoy semi-automatic rifles for target shooting, and your proposal for an AWB would outlaw and not grandfather every one of them.

      This would leave me with my deer rifle and my pump action shotgun.

      Of course, your views might evolve to take that shotgun and require me to only replace it with a break action single shot or double barrel because the pump gun can be fired as quickly as a semi-auto (and more reliably), and it's the same model used in Aurora when the AR malfunctioned.

      As for my deer rifle, it's a com-bloc milsurp bolt action I chose for accuracy, and for the gun and its ammo being cheaper than the traditional Remington 700 (which is used as a sniper rifle by the military and police). This gun's legality would be threatened by proposals to ban military calibers, proposals to ban milsurp rifles, proposals to ban things with more than one shot capacity, proposals to ban long range sniper rifles (it's the rifle used by the sniper with the most confirmed kills in history and all of the famous Soviet snipers in WW2), etc.

      But no, obviously my idea that various gun controllers want all of my guns is total nonsense.

    10. Mikeb, your problem is that you trust the government to take good care of your rights. Haven't you learned by now that trusting the government is a bad idea? Government is a good servant--when carefully guided and watched. It's a fearsome master.

  2. Laci, I've given you my sources many times. How about you do a little digging. I'll remind you that Laurence Tribe is one of those. But if Toobin has difficulty reading the Second Amendment, that makes me wonder about him. Of course, he also attacked Edward Snowden because the latter had the temerity to expose wrongdoing on the part of the government, so I can see why you like him.

  3. "Of course, what is really needed isn't a legal scholar (or someone who is just a legal scholar), but someone who is also a military historian of the first rate . . ."

    Well, that certainly disqualifies the Pooch. Why? Well, he's already proved himself a poor historian in various areas, but let's look at his evaluation of military history given in his post above:

    "Anyway, there is loads of evidence that the militia was already irrelevant by the time of the War for Independence [citation to Adam Smith]"

    And yet, the militia played a key role in the American War for Independence. Yes, as Smith notes, they were not as effective as well trained regulars (most of the time), but the militia fought the opening battles, tied up supply lines in enemy territory, supplied the troops for the Continental Army which were trained and drilled into regulars, supplemented the Army in battles (with disastrous results at Camden, but with excellent results at Cowpens).

    Militia units even won the occasional great victory such as the defeat and capture of Ferguson's forces at King's Mountain--a victory so masterfully achieved that it frightened Cornwallis into believing that Greene already arrived in the South and had flanked him, leading to a hasty return toward Charleston.

    So while the militia may not have covered themselves in glory in most cases, they certainly were not irrelevant to the nascent republic as the Bitter Imperialist would have us colonists believe.

    Considering his biased botching of the topic he called most important, I think I'll have to look at his Bibliography with a great deal of skepticism.

    1. And let's not forget Andy Jackson and the militia that whipped up on the British at the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812--for Laci's benefit, that would be a part of the broader world war going on between Britain and France.

    2. It didn't happen in Laci's mind. Couldn't have! Britain is undefeated, and he is our Royal governor who must bee heeded and obeyed.

  4. "Of course, what is really needed isn't a legal scholar (or someone who is just a legal scholar), but someone who is also a *historical revisionist *of the first rate since what the Second Amendment addresses is national defence and how what would that look like in the nascent republic."


  5. Heller and McDonald determined that the second amendment is a personal right and not a collective one. And Moore vs Madigan has recently suggested that the right to bear arms extends to outside the home. And this was recently supported by the Illinois State Supreme Court in a decision that also says that bearing arms outside the home cant be banned.
    Here is a copy of the decision:

    "As the Seventh
    Circuit correctly noted, neither Heller nor McDonald expressly limits
    the second amendment’s protections to the home. On the contrary,both decisions contain language strongly suggesting if not outright
    confirming that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms
    extends beyond the home. Moreover, if Heller means what it says,
    and “individual self-defense” is indeed “the central component” of
    the second amendment right to keep and bear arms (Heller, 554 U.S.
    at 599), then it would make little sense to restrict that right to the
    home, as “confrontations are not limited to the home.” Moore, 702
    F.3d at 935-36. Indeed, Heller itself recognizes as much when it
    states that “the right to have arms *** was by the time of the founding
    understood to be an individual right protecting against both public
    and private violence.” (Emphasis added.) Heller, 554 U.S. at 593-94."

    1. Laci would prefer to cite to revisionists, obfuscators, and a few other sources he can twist to his purpose.

    2. The 7th circuit just reversed itself on a gun conviction charge against one individual because of the "Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" as the Bill of Rights states as a constitutional protection.,0,576439.story

      Again another court case recognizing the constitutional second amendment civil rights protections afforded to the individual by the Bill of Rights. And in Illinois still again.

      Laci, is this the third of fourth case of recent court cases that "got it wrong"? Its becoming more and more obvious that the overwhelming,,,, "opinions" that you keep putting up from you and from others that you cite as examples are not standing up in court. Again, another court that out right use the second amendment civil right belongs to the individual. Not the collective, not the militia, not the government. But protected from the government. The judge cited that the conviction violated his second amendment rights. This is also the same court that convicted him, but reversed it decision. And did so by citing Heller at the Supreme court and the days old decision of the 7th circuit court.

  6. Oh come on now guys. Surely Laci knows better than the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Illinois State Supreme Court, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, countless other justices throughout our history, Constitutional scholars, historians, language experts, and most certainly the unwashed, uneducated, unenlightened masses.

    - TruthBeTold

    P.S. Laci also knows better than the 96% of 15,000 rank-and-file United States law enforcement officers who believe magazine restrictions will NOT reduce violent crime. And Laci knows better than the 92% of the same 15,000 rank-and-file law enforcement officers that banning semi-automatic firearms (which the gun grabbers like to call "assault weapons") will have no effect on violent crime or possibly even make violent crime worse.

    You can see the results of the survey of 15,000 law enforcement officers here:

  7. "Nothing I haven't been saying for a while"

    All this proves is that Laci is not alone in revisionism, misinterpretations or deliberate misinterpretations of the second civil right. What is posted is not "over whelming evidence" of anything that supports the misinterpretation of the second civil right. I stopped at 320 interpretations and opinions from courts, scholars, lawyers, judges and politicians. There are many, many more to pull info from.

    Every politician will claim they support the second civil right, but most leftists are two faced and will work to infringe on what the claim to support. Some right wingers do the same.

    But the fact remains the second civil right remains as a protection for the individual right, not the collective or the militia. The courts COULD NOT rule in any other way if the right did not exist as such a protection.

    Next we are going to hear from Laci that the Illinois Supreme Court is wrong in its ruling. We have already heard his opinion of the U.S Supreme Court was wrong in their ruling. The fact is that there are more than 600 lower court rulings across the country over the decades that use in one way or another affirm the second civil right belongs to the individual as a protected right.

    Laci, your claim of over whelming evidence is still in a very small minority.