Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)2. Also from the article:
Burger was speaking for the overwhelming majority of lawyers and judges. The Second Amendment reads: A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. In Burger's view, the opening reference to a well regulated Militia suggests that the Second Amendment was meant to forbid the national government from abolishing state militias.
That view, which contrasts so sharply with the current interpretation, has a long history. In 1840, the Tennessee Supreme Court captured a widespread understanding in announcing that the real object of the right to keep and bear arms is the defense of the public and so refers to military use. It follows that a hunter might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms.
That view, which contrasts so sharply with the current interpretation, has a long history. In 1840, the Tennessee Supreme Court captured a widespread understanding in announcing that the real object of the right to keep and bear arms is the defense of the public and so refers to military use. It follows that a hunter might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms.
Many commenters at DU, and in the media in general, talk about the recent SCOTUS decision on the Second Amendment as if the decision simply reaffirmed what has been long established precedent. The decision was instead an example of an activist Court supposedly determining "original intent" that contradicts centuries of precedent.
TopBack to the top of the page
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
ShareGet links to this post
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
117 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I have been saying this forever. As I equally have been saying how INSANE it is we have
randys1
Oct 2015
#1
There is a proposal in Illinois to automatically register anyone who signs up for a Driver's
guillaumeb
Oct 2015
#3
Election fraud, is what cons do, and they do it in every single election they have a candidate. OT
randys1
Oct 2015
#6
Yet the founding fathers, as Englishmen, enjoyed an individual right to bear arms
hack89
Oct 2015
#7
In my opinion, the problem with the misinterpretation is because people don't understand the
Ghost in the Machine
Oct 2015
#12
cherry picking is an NRA specialty, especially when they make claims about how guns make
guillaumeb
Oct 2015
#14
Umm, Heller was not spearheaded by the NRA; in fact, they dragged along later...
Eleanors38
Oct 2015
#27
To you, all all here who insist that all US residents are part of this "well regulated militia"
guillaumeb
Oct 2015
#30
You might wish to look at Article 8 of the US Constitution, especially the clauses relating to a
guillaumeb
Oct 2015
#65
And also consider this -- well-reguluated as an adj modifies militia and not the people.
aikoaiko
Nov 2015
#103
I am struck by your repeated use of NRA "view" & "talking point." They aren't the only...
Eleanors38
Oct 2015
#43
President Obama & the Democratic Party have stated the 2nd Amendment is an individual right
Lurks Often
Oct 2015
#51
I find this statement to be either uninformed or deliberately obtuse. Or possibly sarcasm?
guillaumeb
Oct 2015
#36
I grounded my argument in the militia view because it corresponds to the Constitution and
guillaumeb
Oct 2015
#54
Correct! A large standing Army-the very thing the militia clauses and the 2nd was trying to prevent!
jmg257
Oct 2015
#86
Ahem. "Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals."
friendly_iconoclast
Nov 2015
#99
This is the last time I engage you, since you can't be bothered to actually fact-check yourself
tortoise1956
Nov 2015
#114
True. Homicide does not directly equate but any time that a homicide takes place,
guillaumeb
Oct 2015
#88