THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Second Amendment Law Library - Valparaiso U. Law Review ^ | FR post 09-04-01 | David E. Vandercoy

[philman_36]

Yet another good read. I hope that you all are keeping up with this.
Dusting out the attic...this thread sure didn't get much attention. I keep on keeping on though. The tortoise and the hare.

If this van's rocking don't bother knocking

[philman_36]

Find a place to set a spell, brush aside the dust, and open this rustic tome.

[Mercuria]

THANK YOU, PHILMAN!!!

Bookmarking for my profile page!!

[VOA]

Thanks for the ping on this learned article.
I might only have time to cruise the article, but I noticed that there is
no reference to Lawrence (sp?) Tribe, the constitutional law Professor that
has slowly, grudgingly come to the idea that the Second Amendment does describe a
personal right.
And this from a Clinton apologist.
Could be this is a recent conclusion of Tribe, thus not in this paper.

[Squantos]

Awesome ! Outstanding work ! Printed, bookmarked and forwarded to all my RKBA contacts........

Stay Safe !

[Travis McGee]

Check out the grim story from Maryland.... the future of RKBA does not look bright.

[CounterCounterCulture]

BUMP for later viewing!

[Squantos]

Name added to list for future reference......... tick !

Stay Safe !

[Travis McGee]

Near the top of the list.

[Landru]

Pretty words.
And quite meaningless to Socialists.
Socialists who will not abide by those rules; or any others, for that matter.

...just ask Mr. Arnold of Maryland, what I mean.

[blackie]

Stop the attacks on our God given Rights by the extreme wacko left !!

Guns Save Lives !!

Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!

The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed !!

An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen !!

No Guns, No Rights !!

Molon Labe !!

[reformjoy]

Thanks for the link!

[Ohioan]

A very scholarly work.

One might add, that the philosophy recognized by the author as pertaining to private arms, and a citizenry responsible for preserving their freedom, is the same philosophy of individual responsibility that made the American economic miracle materialize.

In every particular, the Founding Fathers trusted our future to responsible individuals. As we lose that sense of individual responsibility, we lose everything that made America unique. Since that original sense arose in a major sense from the actual experiences of the pre-Revolutionary Settler societies; once really lost, it is extremely unlikely that the urbanized multi-cultured, polyglot population of today, will ever recover it. The idiotic pursuit of restricted private arms closely parallels the overall assault upon our Cultural heritage.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[76Tiger]

The 2ndLawLib.org site is no more, but some of the content is available on www.constitution.org/2ll/2ll.htm , including the Vandercopy paper.

[Double Tap]

Bump and Bookmarked.

[76Tiger]

er, make that Vandercoy...

[Double Tap]

OK, thats strange, how do I bookmark the thread?

[backhoe]

See this between the last of the article & comment?

---------------------------------------------

[219] U.S. Const. amend II.

---

[ Report Abuse | Bookmark Article ]

---

Yet another good read..... -------------------------------------------------

Control-d will also put it in your browser's "favorites..."

[sig226]

[5] See Don P. Kates, Jr., Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 207 (1983). The ACLU's summary of its national board's action at the June 14-15, 1980, meeting sets out the following policy considerations: The setting in which the Second Amendment was proposed and adopted demonstrates that the right to bear arms is a collective one existing only in the collective population of each state for the purpose of maintaining an effective state militia. The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation of efficiency of a well regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.

The ACLU is resting their entire argument on Supreme Court rulings that do not exist. I usually offer a thousand dollars to any person who can cite a US Supreme Court decision that says this.
Anyone want to guess whether I'll ever write that check?