Yay,modern conservative movement in the ’70s and ’80s.
- Ronald Reagan and Edwin Meese, who was his attorney general,
- Orrin Hatch.
- They made a continuous effort and argument that the courts had misunderstood the Second Amendment for hundreds of years Then
- in 1977 the good old National Rifle Association went from a gun-safety organization to a forceful political that fought gun control and became an integral partner with Reagan, Meese and Hatch in the “theory” that the Second Amendment gave an individual the right to bear arms.
Now, this should be fun:
It’s very enjoyable I like to read all the misinterpretations of the constitution and amendments – the religion is the best – by couch surfing scholars pre -photographing kittens, their food and posts of “neat videos.” So, chew on this. There are a number of ways to look at the Second Amendment so if you’re against look a this one and use it on a one of your rants:
“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.”
NOW: DO THIS
EXPLAIN THE: assertion that (plain language and paraphrase) – if you’re not part of a militia etc. that is well regulated, and state governed” you citizen do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.”
• THEN SCREAM IN ALL CAPS THAT: IN 1939 the Supreme Court considered In: United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174.
• THEN: 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
• Evidence did not suggest that the shotgun
• “Has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . ..”
• The Framers (the interpretation I view as intended. How about you?) Included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military and not the “rights” of knuckleheads for centuries ensuing.
So, go join a militia or if you don’t like certain things call your damn Congressmen/woman and do your complaining there AFTER you understand some of the complexities of the amendment and where wiggle room can be found to make your point.
There are many cases that make strong arguments both ways. So, heh heh, be armed with some knowledge and make a valid point when you want to successfully take insidious weapons away from potentially devastating populace.
This has been a completely prejudiced (but real look) at the major sentence in the 2nd amendment (prejudiced as I wrote the interpretation I like). So “do gooders and badders” learn the damn amendment already and stop confusing it.
There’s plenty of reality to fight over without all the mindless drivel that abounds on a place that thrives on games and kitten videos.
“Rap on Brother Rap On”