.jpg)
Google images
Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings promise to be contentious. Probably the most contentious part of the hearings will be about the reversal of her lower court ruling regarding an issue of race in the case of the New Haven firefighters which the Supreme Court reversed.
But there will be some Senators, both out of sheer ignorance of the Constitution and also to pander to certain interest groups made up of gun owners and gun organizations, who will question her on rulings she made regarding gun laws on the grounds that she is hostile to the 2nd amendment right of an individual to own a gun.
Of course the problem with that line of thinking is that there is no 2nd amendment right to own a gun, and that is not in dispute among anyone who knows the constitution which admittedly leaves out at least 3/4 of the members of Congress and probably half the states attorneys general in the country .
The fact that there are so many people ignorant of what the 2nd amendment means and who insist on repeating the myth that the 2nd amendment has anything to do with an individual right to own a gun doesn't make it so.
What is so interesting about those who are so ignorant of the 2nd amendment is that it spans the entire political spectrum from ultra liberal Jerry Brown to conservatives like Bob Barr, from President Obama and Jimmy Carter to Newt Gingrich and Lou Dobbs.
In an earlier article about the 2nd amendment I proved beyond a shadow of any doubt that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun. And the facts are irrefutable.
Regarding Sotomayor, the fact that not one of her decisions regarding gun cases were even appealed much less reversed, as was her decision in the New Haven racial discrimination case, should put to rest any issues and any grasping at straws regarding her rulings and their constitutionality when it comes to guns.
But what the hearings may finally do is put to bed this incredible ignorance over the 2nd amendment, ignorance which quite frankly does gun owners no good at all. Except to constantly put them on the defensive because every time they try to invoke the 2nd amendment to achieve something they want, they lose. And always will. Because the 2nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun and never did. And so it is actually in the interest of pro-gun organizations and gun owners to drop these constant references to the 2nd amendment since it will get them nowhere and instead use other tactical means in support of their positions.
I've said this before and I will say it again -- there is not a shred of evidence anywhere that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens are any threat to the public safety. When it comes to making arguments against gun laws that do nothing for public safety but use firearms as a political football, gun owners have the majority of facts on their side and that should to be enough to make their case.
To try to rely on a 2nd amendment right that doesn't exist only makes their position more difficult because they will lose that argument every time and continue to be on the defensive. What gun owners need to do is exercise their first amendment rights and apply whatever political pressures they choose, whether its through contributions to legislators who support their position or to finance campaigns against legislators who oppose their position, and that will get them further than this losing battle that the 2nd amendment gives them rights and that it applies to individuals.
But don't take my word for it. This is what former conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger , appointed by Richard Nixon, said about the 2nd amendment. He said that "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."
"the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. " Burger said that the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state. "
This is of course obvious. Even the most tortured liberal approach to the constitution cant get around the facts relating to the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment isn't a smorgasbord where you get to pick and choose what words you think support your position and pretend the other words don't exist.
The Constitution was written by the greatest collection of minds this country ever had in one place at one time -- Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Hamilton, Madison and the rest. They had a tremendous command of language as the Declaration of Independence and Preamble to the Constitution shows, and they knew exactly what they were saying and how to say it. And they knew exactly what they meant.
There were no accidents in the Constitution. And the second amendment was rewritten and revised seven times. All seven versions are in the Library of Congress to be seen.
The Framers of the Constitution debated every word in the 2nd amendment and knew what every word meant and what they intended. They debated the 2nd amendment for weeks and continued to change a word here and a word there so it meant exactly what they intended it to mean. And that is the foundation for any application of the Constitution -- original intent. When it is clear what the Founding Fathers meant and intended in the Constitution, that and only that is what is applied.
Most misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment comes from complete ignorance of what the words, "to keep and bear arms" means. Lou Dobbs misuses it every time he does a peice on the 2nd amendment, It doesn't mean what someone thinks it means. It means what the Founding Fathers intended it to mean. The word "arms" doesn't mean the gun or collection of guns in someone's house. The word "arms" meant the same thing in 1789 as it did in 1066 at the Battle of Hastings and in 1959 when there was an arms race between the US and the Soviet Union. It meant one thing and one thing only to the Founders and to anyone else who understands the english language. "Arms" means weapons of war.
The "arms" mentioned in the 2nd amendment referred to just that. It meant rifles, cannon, cannon balls,powder, rockets, swords, bayonets, even war ships -- any and all weapons of war -- anything "neccessary to the security of a free state",
And the 2nd amendment guaranteed the states the right to have those and any weapons they wish -- the same weapons as the federal army. And that right continues today. Which is why we have national guard units -- what the militias have morphed into -- fighting in Iraq with their own tanks, F-15's, and other weapons.
The term "to bear arms" also has a specific meaning.And it doesn't mean to go hunting or shoot an intruder or take target practice. It also meant one thing and one thing only. It meant to go to war.
The right to keep and bear arms in the 2nd amendment gives the states the right to have their own armed militias, to have any weapons they wish without restriction of any kind and to use them as they see fit -- to defend themselves against any foreign enemy and to defend themselves against the threat of a future president who might decide to become a dictator and try to take over the country with military force.
As for the words "the people", any constitutional scholar will tell you that when the constitution is talking about an individual right it uses the word "person" and when it is talking about a states right it uses the "the people". "The right of the people" means the right of the individual states.
There are two more irrefutable aspects that prove the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with the individual. One is the last clause which says "shall not be infringed". That clause alone, if the 2nd amendment was a personal right, would invalidate every gun law on the books. It would have made Wyatt Earp's banning of guns in Dodge City unconstitutional as well as New York City's current concealed weapons law which carries a mandatory 3 year jail sentence.
The final proof is that when the Constitution was ratified in 1789, America was 90% rural. Having a gun was as common as having a hammer or a wheelbarrow or a pot to make stew. Guns were used to hunt, to protect livestock from predators and to defend against Indian attacks. Everyone had a gun.They were a neccessary tool. Having a gun was as common as having a lawnmower today in Larchmont. The idea that Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Hamilton and the rest, debated for weeks and revised seven times an amendment to the Constitution dealing with whether or not people should be allowed to have something as controversial as a lawnmower is absurd.
No one was thinking about taking guns away from anyone and so no one was thinking about giving people a right in the constitution to keep them.
There are sure to be Senators who, like most politicians, will pander to those who insist on promoting the myth about the 2nd amendment. and will show how ignorant of the consitution they are. But as Will Rogers once said, "its not what people know that make them look like fools, its what they think they know that aint so."
Sotomayor's decision on race is going to be an issue. With only 47% of the country supporting her confirmation its going to be an opportunity for Republicans to score points and put Democrats on the defensive on an issue that for decades has belonged to the Democrats. But the 2nd amendment issue is just a side show. And like in years past, wont get anyone anywhere.But in the end, it may expose how little of the constitution the people who are sworn to uphold it really know. Or how much they are willing to pander.
Of course there are those will fervently disagree. Myths die hard. But this is not a matter or question of agreement, only what's true. If the 2nd amendment had anything to do with an individual right to own a gun, why do federal, state,and local governments keep passing laws that supposedly violate it? Are they just stupid? Are their lawyers stupid? And if so why doesn't someone challenge these laws in court instead of just complaining?
Gun groups are some of the most well organized and well financed special interest groups in the country.And they have good lawyers. If they are so sure that the 2nd amendment is an individual right why don't they simply stop complaining about it and challenge any gun law in any locality on the grounds that it violates the infringement clause of the 2nd amendment?
If they are as right as they think they are, they will win and every gun law on the books gets struck down on the grounds that they violate the 2nd amendment and everyone can drop it as an issue. And the same will be true if the courts prove them wrong.
But gun groups don't challenge these laws on constitutional grounds, and that says more about what they really think the 2nd amendment says than anything else. Which is why we will probably see a dog and pony show from a few Senators questioning Sotomayor on the 2nd amendment and who will then, when its all over, go back to what they always do when they know they have just been pandering for votes and campaign contributions -- nothing.
UPDATE: At her confirmation hearings Tuesday morning, Sotomayor, under senate questioning, reiterated not just her view of the 2nd amendment, which she used in deciding a lower court case that gun groups criticized, but pointed out was also supported in Heller, by Justice Scalia as well as years of Supreme Court precedent -- that the 2nd amendment is NOT a fundamental right and does not apply to the states or to any laws any state may choose to impose on their citizens regarding guns.
Copyright Marc Rubin 2009
Comments
"Of course the problem with that line of thinking is that there is no 2nd amendment right to own a gun"
This is technically correct. The right to keep and bear arms is inherent. The Second Amendment merely prohibits government infringement of this inherent right.
" As for the words "the people", any constitutional scholar will tell you that when the constitution is talking about an individual right it uses the word "person" and when it is talking about a states right it uses the "the people". "The right of the people" means the right of the individual states."
This definition is not only unsupported by any reasonable reading, but it is also directly contradictory to the usage of the same phrase elsewhere in the Constitution in statements that no scholar argues protects anything other than an individual right, such as in the Fourth Ninth and Tenth amendments.
Marc, You are obviously a stooge for the Illuminati gun-grabbers. "In my last article I proved..." You haven't proved anything. Go and address alcohol, automobiles,skateboarding or something really dangerous. You people aren't concerned with public safety. You lie when claim to be worried that guns make murder easier. That's a lie and you are a liar.
If your premise about 2A is correct, don't you think ONE of the Supremes would agree with you? All 9 said it was an individual right.
Your column --- So many lies and so little time.
You suck at lying. Find your talent. You must have one somewhere, but typing well-written, convincing lies into a keyboard ain't it.
"there is no 2nd amendment right to own a gun"
this doctrine has been put to the test in the highest court of the land. it has failed. moreover, it has failed in the court of public opinion; the majority (by a large margin!) of the people of the U.S. disagree with it, which makes it a political failure as well.
you don't have to like that fact, or agree with the justices --- nor with your fellow citizens, of course --- but trying to pretend like none of it ever happened just makes you a sore loser. wipe your nose and try to deal with the real world, instead.
You consider that linked column to be unassailable "proof"?
It was nothing more than your opinion based upon your interpretation (based, undoubtedly, upon your long and illustrious career as a historian and Constitutional scholar no doubt) of a few cherry picked factoids.
I don't know what you're smoking but it must be some good stuff.
Sorry I wrote that in such a hurry...my grammar and sentence structure was almost painful to read. My apologies.
Wow, this post is beyond words. First, your inherent lack of education and ability to grasp grammar skills make anything you say irrelevant. You cannot take serious something you cannot understand. The second amendment was put in because of gun confiscation sought at Lexington and Concord, which by the way began the revolutionary war. At that time all able bodied men WERE the militia. If called upon, they are still today the militia, as evidence by all men over 18 having to sign up for the draft in case of a conflict. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever, as we are ALL in the militia. The national guard is NOT the militia written about in the second amendment. WE THE PEOPLE are the militia written about, as we all can be called up for service in times of war. Learn history, stop spewing rhetoric garbage of which you know nothing about.
So the Supreme Court got Heller wrong? Maybe if you mail them a copy of your argument they'll meet en banc and retract that decision. Or not.
Heller is now the law of the land. It's about time for you to start reconciling yourself to reality.
As for the words "the people", any constitutional scholar will tell you that when the constitution is talking about an individual right it uses the word "person" and when it is talking about a states right it uses the "the people". "The right of the people" means the right of the individual states.
So when the first Amendment says the people may peacably assemble, that means the states, not individuals?
When the Fourth Amendment states that the people are secure from unreasonable searches, that means the states, and not individuals?
and when the Tenth Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." what it really means is that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the states."
or could it be that you are just an ignorant tool?
That is just a load of unsubstantiated lies. Remember what sparked the first battle of the Revolutionary War? King George tried to seize weapons from the colonists and the 2nd Amendment was directly placed in the bill of rights to ensure that the people would never have to worry about their government seizing their weapons again.
It says the right of the PEOPLE not the right of the militia (which was a very broad an all encompassing term which essentially included every able bodied man capable of using a weapon). The individual right is preserved so militias can exist not the other way around.
Marc Rubin is right. Try parsing this declaration of the right of the people "to keep and bear arms" as an individual right to possess and carry arms:
“That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.” (Elliot’s Debates, vol. 1, p. 328)
In this declaration, approved by both Alexander Hamilton and John Jay during New York's Ratification Convention (1788), “bear arms” cannot mean simply “carry arms.” If it did, the whole provision would be oddly saying that people in general had a right to keep and carry arms but that a well-regulated militia included the body of the people who were actually capable of carrying arms.
Who would have needed to be told that a well-regulated militiaman must be able to carry arms? And aren't most individuals able to carry arms of some sort whether they’re in a well-regulated militia or not?
The Second Amendment wasn’t written to protect a right of the people as individuals to keep and carry arms. It was written to protect the right of the people as a political society to keep arms and provide militia service.
In 18th century America the phrase "bear arms," used in a context that was wholly about the militia, as in the Second Amendment, meant "provide militia service."
Marc Rubin, once again, exposes himself as a moronic fool. The ENTIRE Bill of Rights are about individual, personal freedom from government transgression !
His blatant stupidity of American History and lack of any legal coherence are self-evident.
Marc Rubin's imbecillic words are nothing more than a verbal exercise in projectile-vomiting.
His column should instead be titled :
" Marc Rubin; Insanity on Parade. "
I would gladly debate him on the
2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, anytime; anywhere, in the public forum of his choice.
He is a disgrace to all forms of professional journalism.
Only a fool would believe the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right. Marc has proved nothing except that he his foolish enough to believe his own twisted logic. We have countless examples written by a number of the founders that clarify their intentions.
(continued from above)
Your “irrefutable” facts stand refuted, and it didn’t even require wading into your equally faulty description of the founder’s use of the term “the people,” which has been well handled by other commenters and is obviously self defeating with even a cursory reading of the Tenth Amendment.
(continued from above)
Why not? That would be because the founders gave great credence to the idea of "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” So the second amendment protects an individual right to possess and use weapons because it might prove necessary for individuals to form themselves into a militia to either protect their state or nation, right? Correct. That must mean that laws can restrict individual possession or use of weapons so long as that law doesn’t interfere with the militia, which some people say is the National Guard nowadays, right? No! It is the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” that “shall not be infringed.” Not the right of the people to participate in a militia that keeps and bears arms. Your grasp of the English language is unimpressive and you impeach the quality of and your writings with such obviously faulty logic. (continued)
Those "irrefutable" facts are pretty lacking. If you go back to your 4th grade English teacher and ask how to "conjugate a sentence" they will likely tell you that you conjugate verbs not sentences. Your teacher will probably also tell you that despite the fact that it frequently is, the subject is not always just the first noun in the sentence. In this case the subject is implied. The verb in the sentence is the past tense, third person conjugate of "infringe". The subject would be who or what is doing the infringing. This being the US Constitution, that would be the US Government in all its various incarnations, offices and officers thereof. The object of the sentence is that upon which the verb acts, which in this case is "the right." What right? That would be "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." What about it? It "shall not be infringed." Infringed by whom? It “shall not be infringed” by the government. (continued)
I hope the jack boot thugs get him first... Idiot.
Just like the bible and any other text a person can read, your thoughts are scrutinized to be interpreted to fit your silly claims. I am not extremely educated as i am sure you are laughing at my typing. I do know this. Millions of Americans have served and untold number have died because they know for a fact what the second amendment means and you sir haven't a clue. And to further ad a man armed with a type writer is far more dangerous then an man with a gun. Or even a militia... or the air national guard with the same weapons as the military. I didn't realize the state of Florida owned fast attack submarines with nuc's and the state of West Virginia has stealth bombers incase Ohio gets a little froggy.
Leif is also incapable of understanding English. Read your own quote:
"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.” (Elliot’s Debates, vol. 1, p. 328)
Note that is says that the militia includes the body of the people capable of bearing arms. the word "includes" is a term of inclusion, not exclusion. For example, if I said that, "I have a fine collection of Ford automobiles, including Mustangs," does that mean that I own only Mustangs? Or could I also have a Tempo?
Same here, the Militia includes that segment of the population that is bearing arms, but does not comprise the entire population that bears arms.
I guess you guys are smarter than the entire Supreme Court, huh? Or can't you just admit that your totalitarian scheme to ban freedom has failed?
He's from New York City and works for Obama. Need I say more. If so, I would ask for his credentials in Constitutional law and if he has ever read the Federalist Papers. Where does the Examiner find these people?
The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right.... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the foederal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
-Tench Coxe
Marc Rubin, a legend in his own mind.
As an Obama-loving New Yorker, I find your column embarrassing. People, please note. Not all of us are intellectual midgets.
BIGGIST CROCK IV EYER READ
Then your logic, the 1st amendment is not for an individual as well. Mentioning of "the people" is not an individual but the state or group.
You proved nothing. You are nothing but an over opinionated idiot.
According to you "The 2nd amendment isn't a smorgasbord where you get to pick and choose what words...
There were no accidents in the Constitution. And the second amendment was rewritten and revised seven times."
You'll acknowledge you own words? I hope so.
OK. Let's have a look at the 1st and 3rd amendments.
In the first Congress is identified by name. Therefore only the federal legislative body is bound by that amdt. as it specifically names who is not to make a law on any of those items.
The 3rd adds "but in a manner to be prescribed by law." to allow for quartering of troops in private homes if congress, or states, passed such a law during a war.
If such examples can easily be found, and your argument was that there are no accidents in the constitution one only needs to look to the militia definition to easily dispel your argument. The people ARE the militia, AND the right of the people (which is) shall not be infringed.
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10
Down here in Texas we know what a pile of manure looks like and smells like. Sir I am astounded by your misuse of the english language for your own thoughts,intents and purposes.Please enjoy the freedom of speech that our Constitution and yes, the 2nd Amendment helps to protect.I will exercise my freedom of speech also to call a pile of manure just that,apile of manure
" As for the words "the people", any constitutional scholar will tell you that when the constitution is talking about an individual right it uses the word "person" and when it is talking about a states right it uses the "the people". "The right of the people" means the right of the individual states."
So the 1st Amendment guarantees that the state legislature has the right to assemble? The 4th guarantees that the states can be secure from search and seizure?
Have you even read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights?
This article is garbage of the worst kind. You proved nothing, other thanyour own ignorance of the Founders' intent. One of the parts the phrase liberals focus on is the 'well-regulated' quote. You think those words was meant to imply 'well-controlled' or 'well-restricted' by the Federal government, because you don't study history, you don't care what a bunch of knee-pants-wearing white guys had to say about something so foreign to you as self-determination through the use of firearms at the individual level. In fact, if you were to immerse yourself in the language of the time the Second Amandment was written, you would know that "well-regulated" referred to 'well-functioning'. As proof, I offer an example of what was really said that day in April 1775: " The Regulars are out!" (no one ever said the British are coming, because the British were us and we were already here). So why were the Redcoats known as the Regulars? What did that term refer to? (continued)
This has got to be the biggest bunch of BS I have ever read.
The only ignorant person in all of this Marc Rubin.
What a buffoon.
The reality of this amendment is most easily seen by reading the words of Madison and Jefferson...both clearly, and strongly articulate an individual right to bear arms in the Federalist papers. Sadly, many would prefer to read something else into this; the preamble to the second amendment is just that - a preamble, not the main body. There is extensive documentation on this both within the historical narrative and the Department of Justice's own readings of the law. Of course, none of these facts (and these are facts, not assertions per those discussed above by Mr. Rubin) will sway a closely held opinion...
(continued)
sorry for the typo's. I'm really lame on a keyboard.
The Regulars were called 'regulars' because they regularly performed their duty as soldiers. They routinely dispatched their orders as soldiers on a daily basis. They were good at what they did. They maintained a level of proficiency so as to be thought of as constant soldiers. At this time, America had only an irregular army, as it were. Militia, Alarm companies, and individuals who came and went as they pleased comprised America's fighting force. Pikes, clubs, and fowlers were their weapons. They trained -maybe- on a monthly basis. Later, Patrick Henry specifically demanded a Bill of Rights, which included the 2nd. This was done to ensure that the people had the means to resist oppression, only recently so familiar in their lives.
The founders writing are clear on this subject as well. The INDIVIDUAL RIGHT was never more clear. So go read someting other than anti-gun text and come back with a more coherent screed
Marc
You are such a left wing hack. As for the words "the people",
The first 3 words of the Preamble
WE THE PEOPLE
'A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Yet this loon lies, saying there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. What a crock! That he can blatantly lie about there being no evidence supporting the 2A is astonishing, appalling, and insulting.
Marc, you are unteachable. But know this: no matter what idiot, unconstitutional laws our lying politicians pass, I WILL KEEP MY GUNS! COME AND TAKE THEM IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE COJONES!
Note to “Historian X”:
Contrary to your post, Jefferson did not “clearly, and strongly articulate an individual right to bear arms in the Federalist papers.” He didn’t write any of the Federalist Papers.
From Europe Jefferson wrote a number of letters to Madison and others advocating that a Bill of Rights be adopted. The rights he listed in those letters never included an individual right to arms. Later, writing about the Bill of Rights as President, Jefferson referred to the Second Amendment as “the substitution of militia for a standing army.” (Jefferson to Dr. Joseph Priestley, June 19, 1802)
Note on Marc's post of July 13, 9:56 PM:
In early America, militias were generally regulated by militia law. In his first annual message as president, Thomas Jefferson included the following:
“These considerations render it important that we should at every session continue to attend the defects which from time to time show themselves in the laws regulating the militia, until they are sufficiently perfect.” Once the laws were “sufficiently perfect,” you would have a well regulated militia, assuming the militia performed in accordance with the laws.
Militia laws often used the word “regulate” in their titles. Pennsylvania’s militia act of 1777, for instance, was “An Act to Regulate the Militia of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” It was 19 pages long and full of militia rules and regulations.
I appreciate Mr. Rubin's comments even though I don't agree with them entirely. What I find more difficult to handle (other than its v. it's and wont v. won't typos in one sentence, mind you), is the folks who are hypercritical in their comments. So you disagree with Mr. Rubin, then say your piece without character attacks. Everyone has a right to their own opinions and, frankly, very few people have read the Constitution. There are differences in the interpretation of the Constitution, but to me the most important thing to know is this: EVERY country that has become a fascist country has taken away our weapons. They do NOT want the people to be able to defend themselves from tyrants. We're heading in that direction if you've been paying attention. I think Mr. Rubin is wrong in his analysis, but several of the comments explained his errors.
But seriously folks, why can't we disagree with someone without the condescending attitude?
God, you are such an idiot. Wow. No words.
being armed is just part of what makes us AMERICANS! (a BIG part!)
Mr Rubin and Ms Sotomayor both ignore the history of the Fourteenth Amendment in arguing that there is no individual right to own weapons.
I'd recommend that both of them read Akhil Reed Amar's excellent book, "The Bill Of Rights" (Yale University Press, 1998) for a discussion of how the Second Amendment - indeed, all the Bill of Rights - was effectively modified by the 14th.
Whatever the Second meant in 1791, the intent of the Fourteenth was clearly to extend the right to keep and bear arms to individuals, specifially freed black slaves who were being terrorized in the South.
Read pages 257-268 for more.
Here is what Senator James Nye said at the time reference the rights of black men:
"As citizens of the United States they have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense."
Nothing about the militia in that statement.
Someone needs to ask Ms Sotomayor about that.
Molon Labe.
"...why do federal, state,and local governments keep passing laws that supposedly violate it?"
For the same reason the (ill-named) Patriot Act was passed: power grab. Nothing causes a ignoble bureaucrat more discomfort than a well-armed free man in his right mind.
"Are they just stupid? Are their lawyers stupid?"
No, but they certainly think we are.
"And if so why doesn't someone challenge these laws in court instead of just complaining?"
You do watch the news, right? Certainly you've heard of Heller vs. DC, right?
"Myths..."
Myths, huh? Sir, you couldn't be more wrong. And since we're quoting the Founding Fathers, I offer you this from Samuel Adams:
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrym
It would be simple enough for the writer of this article to read the words of the people who wrote the Constitution.The Federalist papers clearly state their intended meaning for the Constitution and each of the 1st ten amendments.They said that the word 'regulated' meant that once a year or so you checked to make sure the people were armed and knew how to use the weapon they owned(they,not the state).Jefferson said,in his own separate writings,that a personally owned firearm should be the constant companion of every free man.Why would a Bill of Rights that set limits on government,not individuals,have one amendment limiting individual rights in opposition to everything else in the document?Isn't it amazing that the free-thinkers-in-lockstep of the left can't seem to read what these wise people wrote and yet can determine what they meant from a position of complete ignorance?No matter how many times this writer repeats his skewed,ignorant mis-interpretation,it doesn't become fact.
Why all of a sudden are they so frightened by individual's rights to own a gun to protect themselves from criminals and things like that, the only people who are usually scared of gun owners are the criminals of society. Just blatantly not caring about the people of the u.s. to protect themselves? We've had this right for years to protect ourselves and our families and children. 911 doesn't get there fast enough if you've got a rapist who just broke into your house and is going after your teen daughter or someone else in your household. I mean they have got some kind of major scare lately to be so afraid of individuals, what are they scared of, seriously! I mean it's almost funny, we're not that stupid, come on. Crime goes up in every other country when they take people's guns away and they know it! They know it! We know it! Again, we are not stupid.
Mr. Rubin,
Even if the 2nd amendment did not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms....the federal government still has no authority to restrict that right.
Amendment IX -The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
So, if the 2nd amendment does not protect my right to keep and bear arms...the 9th amendment clearly does.
How can you get around that amendment in your quest for gun control?
Rubin, this is trash, pure trash. Get off your high horse already. Criminals will always find guns. Why can't law abiding citizens have them? It really angers me to see Examiner condone such extreme views.
The only you proved was that your proficiency with English is around the 5th grade level. You are truly an idiot with no grasp of the language you speak, the history of the country you live in or human freedom. Have a look at Professor Copperud's explanation:
firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html
He was only the foremost expert on the English language that ever lived, whereas you are NOT.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!