Defensive Carry banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,745 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Here's a video from no less than a professor of law at UCLA (he must have tenure to post something like this, but how did he ever get it???). It gives a very clear explanation of the 2A that even a liberal might be able to understand!

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
800 Posts
So that's what Eugene Volokh looks like. Been reading his writings for years, but never saw him speak.

A cogent, well reasoned and clearly articulated explanation. Whether the antis are capable of understanding it, or would even try to, is highly debatable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,745 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
A cogent, well reasoned and clearly articulated explanation. Whether the antis are capable of understanding it, or would even try to, is highly debatable.
I never said they would try to understand it. I only said they might be able to understand it. Actually, I think any reasonably intelligent person could understand it, but they would no doubt say this was an incorrect interpretation. In fact, that's exactly what my liberal uncle told me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
419 Posts
Good video... and it brings up and addresses certain aspects of the debate that I think are far too frequently left out; namely that "militia" is not the National Guard, which didn't officially exist nationally until 1903. Also, the specific use of "the right of the people" as it is used exclusively to secure individual rights.

Nicely done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,636 Posts
Remember, the issue is not settled. There are anti-gun scholars, progressives, who believe in collectivism, collective rights rather than individual rights. They also use history as either proof of current meaning, or proof that current context trumps an outdated historical interpretation. True, they do a bit more language contortion, but their followers are just as avid and very emotionally tied to their dogma.

Here's a good read to start your heartburn in the morning:
Second Amendment A Biography: Michael Waldman: Hardcover: 9781476747446: Powell's Books

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.
(Heller v. D.C. overturns some of this)

In 1791 a majority of states ratified the Bill of Rights, which included the Second Amendment. In its final form, the amendment presented a challenge to interpreters. It was the only amendment with an opening clause that appeared to state its purpose. The amendment even had defective punctuation; the comma before shall seemed grammatically unnecessary.
Legal scholars do not agree about this comma. Some have argued that it was intentional and that it was intended to make militia the subject of the sentence. According to these theorists, the operative words of the amendment are "[a] well regulated Militia … shall not be infringed." Others have argued that the comma was a mistake, and that the operative words of the sentence are "the right of the people to … bear arms … shall not be infringed." ...
The Supreme Court makes the ultimate determination of the Constitution's meaning, and it has defined the amendment as simply granting to the states the right to maintain a militia separate from federally controlled militias. This interpretation first came in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L. Ed. 588 (1875).
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a qualified rejection of the insurrection theory. According to the Court in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S. Ct. 857, 95 L. Ed. 1137 (1951), "[W]hatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a 'right' to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change." Scholars have interpreted this to mean that as long as the government provides for free elections and trials by jury, private citizens have no right to take up arms against the government.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,745 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Remember, the issue is not settled. There are anti-gun scholars, progressives, who believe in collectivism, collective rights rather than individual rights. They also use history as either proof of current meaning, or proof that current context trumps an outdated historical interpretation. True, they do a bit more language contortion, but their followers are just as avid and very emotionally tied to their dogma.
I doubt it will ever be settled. Given that people who want to abolish gun ownership control the mainstream media and teach at most of the universities, I believe it's only a matter of time before gun ownership is outlawed in the U.S. It probably won't happen in my lifetime, I am 64, but I believe it will happen sometime in the next 40-50 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,452 Posts
This is still more complicated than it needs to be. Lets go straight to the words of James Madison as to exactly why 2A was created, and who it applies to. Of course, I am not the only person who is aware of the existence of the federalist papers. Its not about safety, its not about determining the real meaning of 2A, etc. The goal of the liberals is to get rid of guns at any cost. We all know it, so why waste any oxygen trying to explain it to them?

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nmuskier

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,674 Posts
Here's a video from no less than a professor of law at UCLA (he must have tenure to post something like this, but how did he ever get it???). It gives a very clear explanation of the 2A that even a liberal might be able to understand!

Leftists don't watch videos from PragerU. Good video, though, I've share it with friends.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,452 Posts
Again, I did not say they would watch it. I only said they could understand it.
Understanding it is not the problem though, for most anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
642 Posts
But the newest argument seems to be running far afield from the original argument to abolish our second amendment rights. I've heard some say that our constitution is outdated and needs to be abolished being replaced with something that we can all agree on, and if they can get enough people to go along with that line of reasoning then we have just begun to fight. Whomever "they" are its for sure and for certain that "they" are the enemies of our freedom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: G26Raven

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,444 Posts
Something that we can all agree on? You've got to be kidding!

The true miracle of our constitution is that a civil war didn't happen during the state ratification process - but well, yeah, the pot certainly did start boiling so to speak.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
691 Posts
Excellent, I wish all libs and anti gunners would take the time to watch this. Maybe the Supreme Court Justices could learn a thing or two also by watching.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top