Robb Allen points out something pretty amazing on Examiner.com. Irrefutable proof the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right, and thinks there’s no issue with Sotomayor’s position on guns. But remember, we’re the ignorant ones.
Yes. Keep fighting yesterday’s battles. Please. It only makes our jobs easier here in the pro-Second Amendment community!
Yes, an article written by a judge for “Parade” Magazine is quite the support.
Parade Magazine! If you tried that in Middle School your teacher would beat you down.
“And every word in the 2nd amendment means the same thing today that it meant in 1789 and in all the years in between.”
At least this guy concedes this. This issue is currently the main thing that needs to be pummeled through the Justice’s thick skulls. You have Justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court who feel the Constitution is a “fluid” document changing with the times. That’s treason as far as I am concerned and those Justices should be impeached.
Read some of the comments, very well-thought out, and a few that are entertaining to boot.
“You have Justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court who feel the Constitution is a “fluid†document changing with the times.”
Of course the Constitution is a fluid living document. That’s what the amendment process is for. Unfortunately the amendment process is difficult and would require something akin to direct consent of the governed, so some people prefer to go with BS judicial reinterpretation instead.
Actually, I would honestly prefer it if the anti-rights crowd would field a new argument from time to time… It would add a little variety to the debate, and morons repeating the same, disproven, fallacious arguments over and over again tend to give me splitting headaches…
Oh good, no mention that all nine Justices of the Supreme Court, presumably with a bit more expertise in the Constitution, agreed the 2nd recognizes an individual right. O, they could be wrong, but if so surely there would have been one or two who disagreed?
A brilliant piece of scholarship supported so much by the assertion that no one knows the Constitution like he does. Not even those 9 individuals whose job is Constitutionally defined as knowing and interpreting the Constitution.
Really, why do Presidents keep nominating lawyers to be on the SCOTUS when apparently “an advertising art director, writer and television script writer” is so much more familiar with the Constitution.
He did argue that ALL weapons are protected.
His big claim is that “the people” means “the states”.
If we are to believe this, then “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” really should say “the right of the STATES peaceably to assemble”? The states are allowed to gather in groups and protest????
And “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,”
really should say “The right of the STATES to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,”?? The states are to be secure in their persons?
And the ninth and tenth amendment are just repeats of the same basic idea?
His core idea fails his basic fourth grade English class test.
And yet someone, somewhere is taking this guy seriously.
“The second amendment guarantees the absolute right of the States to have militias?” Let’s see now, “right of the people”…hmm….no, I don’t see any words to the effect of “right of the States.” Yet he said the original words were critical and then he immediiately misquotes them. Let’s go on: “to have militias?”…hmm….no, it says “to keep and bear arms!” The fellow violates his own standard! And Article 1 preserves the States’ select militia, so no Amendment was needed for that.
Verdict: he’s so full of himself he has no room in his head for conscious thought. Ignore him, he’s a loser.
NEXT!
(P.s.: I am usually not this hard on the bad guys but, good heavens, this guy was absurd!)