re: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

quote:

---

a want

---

Oh, a want, you made the mistake of believing anyone on this board would actually read the article.

It's a good read, especially if you want some context over the gun control debate.

I love how liberals continue to cry about the 2nd amendment, trying desperately to re-word it and convince people what the founding fathers really meant despite what they actually said.

All because they don't agree with it.

That damn pesky constitution seems to get in their way a lot.

Yeah. I shoulda' known.

You know what's really funny: I'm not even for gun control legislation. Of course, I shouldn't have to say that in an adult conversation....but...

quote:

---

[u]That damn pesky constitution seems to get in their way a lot.

---

Bingo, but it's political suicide to say "frick this"

For now

quote:

---

I'm pretty sure the founding fathers instituted a representative democracy with checks and balances to keep the government in check, not the constant threat of violence towards the government.

---

Again, how fricking dumb do you think the framers were? Do you believe they thought they had created an inpenetrable machine? FDRs court packing scheme could never be imagined by them.

Maybe you should stop reading politico and read something that actually puts the "debate" in context

They explicitly state that the threat of violence was meant to keep them in check. I guess Thomas Jefferson just needed more politico context though.

quote:

---

Oh, a want, you made the mistake of believing anyone on this board would actually read the article.

---

I read the article, did you?

It's says the SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun in the 2nd paragraph.

quote:

---

A lot of this is addressed in the article.

---

Not in much detail. He writes, "We don’t really know what he meant by it," meaning the language of the Amendment, ignoring a lot of writing at the time from Madison and his contemporaries that would give us clues. But, those clues would negate the point of his article, so they were mysteriously left out.

His opening quote of Warren Burger is a popular anti-gun reference, but it, again mysteriously, ignores a lot of critical deconstruction of that quote and its context.

I get that he's not writing a novel on the subject, but his premise seems pretty flawed to me. Its reads as if he'd have been better served by talking about the evolution of the NRA than trying to assert that it "rewrote the Second Amendment." If he really intended to explain how lobbies can shape law, he picked a bad example IMO. But, I suspect, he picked the example not simply to write about how lobbies shape law.

quote:

---

I read the article, did you?

---

Yep. I'm not arguing there is the right of an individual to carry arms.

quote:

---

From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun

---

bullshite.

Keying on the "every single one"

quote:

---

He wrote a book on it. The article was adapted from his book.

---

You linked the article. I haven't read the book. Articles are usually shorter than books, so I get the need to be brief when making an argument in an article, as opposed to a book. He does a poor job of the former, so I wouldn't be too hopeful for the latter.