Lawyers, Guns and Money (Supreme Court May Have To Define Second Amendment)

Harvard Law Bulletin ^ | Summer 2007 | By Elaine McArdle

[BikerTrash]

I don't know when all those extra commas got inserted, but they're not in the original document.

Are you sure about that, Lurker? I count 4 in this hi-res image.

If I'm missing something here, please educate me.

[gundog]

Sorry. I’ve got plenty to chew on with the first two books. Don’t guilt trip yourself; all work and no play....

I’d rather see your best work than your fastest.

How long ya been back? Did the events of last week soften JimRob’s attitude toward your dust-up with the Snowman?

[William Tell]

Travis McGee said: "Must reading, for those who are not being intentionally obtuse."

Those who support the "collective rights" nonsense would have to believe that the "right to own and read books" could be infringed with respect to any books not concerning political matters. And further, that the right can be infringed by making such books only available at government regulated reading rooms, and then only immediately prior to an election.

All other aspects of the "right to own and read books" would be subject to FULL PROHIBITION, since "obviously" only the political material is meant to be protected and the government can decide which material is of such a nature.

[tpaine]

The "intentionally obtuse" reading would be that the "extra words" change the meaning such that the federal government can infringe the right to keep and bear arms for any purpose other than militia duty.

Is that not so?

No need to ask the obvious.

[Travis McGee]

I don’t know about the internal machinations of this site. I was banned for a year, then unbanned without ceremony. I guess the worm has turned around here regarding the criminal invasion.

[Travis McGee]

The “intentionally obtuse” on this site provide a free look inside of the minds of the grabboids. Good practice for what is to come at the SCOTUS and beyond. Imagine President Hillary, and AG Eliot Spitzer.

[robertpaulsen]

"Your reading would be that the "extra words" change the meaning such that the federal government can infringe the right to keep and bear arms for any purpose other than militia duty. Is that not so?"

Not so much change the meaning as to clarify the meaning. The second part refers to "the people" -- not all persons or all citizens.

So who are "the people"? The first part says they are those who form the state Militia.

If the second part read, "The right of all citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", well, we wouldn't even need the first part, would we?

[robertpaulsen]

"Only wannabee gun grabbers find the 2nd Amd “ambiguous.”

You cannot find two second amendment supporters on FR who both agree on the definition of the terms "keep", "bear", and "arms". So tell me about ambiguous.

[radioman]

Hard to believe that Republicans have had the presidency for 19 of the past 27 years and we cant get 5 pro-2A votes on the Supreme Court. Even harder to believe that we still debate this collective right BS.

It is hard to believe. Leads one to think that we're being conned with a circle jerk of endless debate.
.

[gundog]

Well, you were worked up into a righteous fit of anger and nobody seemed to understand why. I regarded your banning as a sign that FR was falling into the PC trap and purging the righteously indignant as racists, zenophobes,
nativists or whatever they’re calling us this week. The problem remains, but the spanking that the Senate got may send them looking for real answers...even Gordon Smith had to pull his head out of his nether regions. At any rate, I regard your return as good news.

[tpaine]

I don't know about the internal machinations of this site. I was banned for a year, then unbanned without ceremony.

The same exact 'one year ban, automatic reinstatement' happened to me more than a year ago. - I'd bet the system is programmed that way.

[Travis McGee]

Thanks for bumping the thread. With your help, many more lurkers will read the essay.

[robertpaulsen]

All well and good, but who were "the people" the Founding Fathers referring to? That's the question.

Were they referring to "all persons"? All citizens? All adults? All males?

Or were they referring to all Militia members?

[Travis McGee]

At any rate, I regard your return as good news.

You and me both!

[robertpaulsen]

In the second amendment, “the people” referred to who?

[Travis McGee]

I don't find it productive to debate the intentionally (or unintentionally) obtuse. Not on the definition of the word "is," nor "the people;" no more than how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

It's not even a form of mental masturbation: it's a complete waste of time. One might as well debate the village idiot mumbling in front of the local 7-11 about the meaning of the messages coming from the fillings he believes the CIA planted in his teeth.

But hey, thanks for bumping the thread.

[Travis McGee]

You could be right. Maybe there’s a big spinning wheel somewhere, that occasionally gets turned.

[Jasper]

Dang Travis.
That dude looks a lot like my cousin.

BTW, I heard ya on the 'Bill Haft Show' last night. Good job.
You definitely had ol' Mimi "a steppin' and a fetchin'" - LOL

Regards,

/jasper

[tpaine]

Only wannabee gun grabbers find the 2nd Amd 'ambiguous'.

Historian Paul Johnson said, "beware of those who seek to win an argument at the expense of the language. For the fact that they do so is proof positive that their argument is false, and proof presumptive that they know it is.
... Those who treasure the meaning of words, will treasure truth, and those who bend words to their purposes are very likely in pursuit of anti-social ones. The correct and honorable use of words is the first and natural credential of civilized status." ~~~~

[robertpaulsen]

"With your help, many more lurkers will read the essay."

Well, I doubt nothing will change unless and until Judge Reinhardt (and many others) reads it, slaps his forehead and says, "Gosh! All along I thought it was a clause and it turns out to be a present participle. Well, that's it -- I'm going with an individual right!"