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: Unreal, Canadian being fully prosecuted, for using a home invader's gun against him... [View all]gejohnston
(17,502 posts)70. The New Yorker is wrong,
and Warren Burger was giving his personal opinion in Parade magazine, none of it was based on scholarship nor does he cite any. In fact, the links I provided prove him wrong.
Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety.
That is because there wasn't a gun control movement to speak of. If it weren't for a few billionaires, there still wouldn't be. The NRA reacted.
The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned
Actually, as my links prove, isn't novel at all. The collective rights theory didn't exist until the 1930s, and was rejected by the SCOTUS.
The New Yorker is long on ideology and conventional wisdom and short on scholarship and honesty. Guns only became a left/right issue since he died.
I wouldn't call Burger liberal or conservative, just authoritarian. Nixon didn't like people owning guns either.
It does say the right of the people, as in individuals, just like it does in the other amendments.
BTW, why don't you address the links I provided? Why the appeal to authority from popular publications?
To repeat one relevant to your reply
An Analogue
"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."
Obviously this does not mean that only well-educated voters have the right to read or write books. Nor does it mean that the right to read books of one's choosing can be restricted to only those subjects which lead to a well-educated electorate.
The purpose of this provision is: although not everyone may end up being well-educated, enough people will become well-educated to preserve a free society.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndana.html
Nor can it be construed to deny one's pre-existing right to read books if there are not enough well-educated people to be found. The right to read books of one's choosing is not granted by the above statement. The rationale given is only one reason for not abridging that right, there are others as well.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
76 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
Unreal, Canadian being fully prosecuted, for using a home invader's gun against him... [View all]
virginia mountainman
Aug 2017
OP
Me? out on the street? I wont.. Unless you're pointing a gun at me as you run...
virginia mountainman
Aug 2017
#5
Dunno if you noticed, but this Monroe guy isn't even named AS THE HOMEOWNER ...
mr_lebowski
Aug 2017
#14
Not only does it not say Monroe is the homeowner ... it doesn't even say he's not one of the 3
mr_lebowski
Aug 2017
#15
Judging by the discussion on this, the NRA will have a field day using this as "proof" of what will
Nitram
Aug 2017
#16
"the most tightly regulated consumer product in the US." That is patently false.
Nitram
Aug 2017
#22
No, the National Guards were what became of the militias, which were originally conceived to protect
Nitram
Aug 2017
#63
No, you did not say that. You said, "The National Guard and Reserves are simply reserve forces..."
Nitram
Aug 2017
#67
It does not say THE PEOPLE have a right. It says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary
Nitram
Aug 2017
#69
Like the guy who has 5 cars that he never drives off his property so he doesn't have to
Nitram
Aug 2017
#72
It isn't a restriction, it is a right. Every property-owning white man (as the Constitution
Nitram
Aug 2017
#62
If you have to use that silly argument that you don't have to pay insurance except on vehicles
Nitram
Aug 2017
#57
It is in fact assumed you'll drive it public, so laws are all about driving
marylandblue
Aug 2017
#31
You asserted that it is assumed that most all car buyers will drive in public.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Aug 2017
#33
Maybe you could cut to the chase here and list what you want as law
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Aug 2017
#48
You raised a lot of issues at once: Some questions and responses about that
marylandblue
Aug 2017
#38