- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
Posted on 5/20/14 at 8:32 am
Posted on 5/20/14 at 8:32 am
Pretty interesting article. Long, but interesting.
Politico: The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.
Politico: The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.
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. The first to argue otherwise, written by a William and Mary law student named Stuart R. Hays, appeared in 1960. He began by citing an article in the NRA’s American Rifleman magazine and argued that the amendment enforced a “right of revolution,” of which the Southern states availed themselves during what the author called “The War Between the States.”
At first, only a few articles echoed that view. Then, starting in the late 1970s, a squad of attorneys and professors began to churn out law review submissions, dozens of them, at a prodigious rate. Funds—much of them from the NRA—flowed freely. An essay contest, grants to write book reviews, the creation of “Academics for the Second Amendment,” all followed. In 2003, the NRA Foundation provided $1 million to endow the Patrick Henry professorship in constitutional law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University Law School.
This fusillade of scholarship and pseudo-scholarship insisted that the traditional view—shared by courts and historians—was wrong. There had been a colossal constitutional mistake. Two centuries of legal consensus, they argued, must be overturned.
quote:
One lesson: patience. The fight for gun rights took decades. Another lesson, perhaps obvious: There is no substitute for political organizing. A century ago the satirical character Mr. Dooley famously said in an Irish brogue, “No matter whether th' Constitution follows th' flag or not, the Supreme Coort follows th' iliction returns.” Before social movements can win at the court they must win at the ballot box. The five justices in the Heller majority were all nominated by presidents who themselves were NRA members.
But even more important is this: Activists turned their fight over gun control into a constitutional crusade. Modern political consultants may tell clients that constitutional law and the role of the Supreme Court is too arcane for discussion at the proverbial “kitchen table.” Nonsense. Americans always have been engaged, and at times enraged, by constitutional doctrine. Deep notions of freedom and rights have retained totemic power. Today’s “Second Amendment supporters” recognize that claiming the constitutional high ground goes far toward winning an argument.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 8:37 am to a want
The phrase "separation of church and state" does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution. Millions believe that it does.
everything else in the article could apply to this issue too. and, a hundred other issues.
everything else in the article could apply to this issue too. and, a hundred other issues.
This post was edited on 5/20/14 at 8:39 am
Posted on 5/20/14 at 8:39 am to a want
quote:
The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun.
Is this the same "unregulated" right in which you have to undergo background checks, waiting periods, class training, etc. in order to exercise it?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 8:40 am to a want
So the founders didn't believe that an individual should have the right to own guns for hunting?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 8:41 am to a want
Liberals amaze me. A2 is a deliberate and specific sentence. They somehow interpret it as if there was a 200000 page addedum to the law, but nooooooooo it's the NRA that is reinterpreting it.
it really takes a special kind of stupid
it really takes a special kind of stupid
Posted on 5/20/14 at 8:42 am to a want
"How Obama and the 'Progressives' rewrote most all amendments in order to strip your rights and ruin this country"
Well, it started in 2008....
Well, it started in 2008....
Posted on 5/20/14 at 8:43 am to a want
quote:
every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun
From 1888 through 1959, what did "shall not be infringed" mean?
What did "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" mean?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 8:44 am to a want
I think the historical context given by the SCOTUS in Heller is a lot more reliable than Politico.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 8:44 am to a want
quote:
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment by going back in time to lobby for it!
Posted on 5/20/14 at 8:45 am to NC_Tigah
The liberal objective is full scale confiscation
Anyone who thinks otherwise is lying to themselves
Anyone who thinks otherwise is lying to themselves
Posted on 5/20/14 at 8:46 am to a want
quote:OK. Now I'll admit that I do not have access to this index or, if I do, I've never seen it. But, I smell horse shite from a mile away. EVERY law review article for 71 years huh.
om 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.
I seriously doubt you can think of a single issue in the history of man where lawyers went 71 years with NOT A SINGLE ONE disagreeing with a particular position.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 8:47 am to a want
quote:Law review articles written 100 years AFTER the Constitution...now define what the FF's intent was? Good grief.
From 1888, when law review articles
This post was edited on 5/20/14 at 8:48 am
Posted on 5/20/14 at 8:47 am to NC_Tigah
We're missing about 100 years, but even Scalia has stated the same thing that guns were "regulated" at conception.
But something tells me there is a difference between the regulation considered in 1800 versus the type of regulation that spawned the "unregulated" movement.
But something tells me there is a difference between the regulation considered in 1800 versus the type of regulation that spawned the "unregulated" movement.
This post was edited on 5/20/14 at 8:48 am
Posted on 5/20/14 at 8:48 am to hashtag
quote:Nor is there a Right to Privacy.
The phrase "separation of church and state" does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution. Millions believe that it does.
This post was edited on 5/20/14 at 8:49 am
Posted on 5/20/14 at 8:51 am to a want
Enlighten us, oh wise one.
How exactly would a militia be formed without the right of individuals to "keep and bear arms?"
A militia, as I'm sure you know, is NOT a standing army. Back in the 1700s, EVERYBODY had a firearm of some sort. When a call to arms went out in a community, the men simply grabbed their weapons and met in the town square.
How exactly would a militia be formed without the right of individuals to "keep and bear arms?"
A militia, as I'm sure you know, is NOT a standing army. Back in the 1700s, EVERYBODY had a firearm of some sort. When a call to arms went out in a community, the men simply grabbed their weapons and met in the town square.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 8:52 am to a want
quote:
Pretty interesting article. Long, but interesting.
No, not really
Posted on 5/20/14 at 8:54 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Nor is there a Right to Privacy.
The famous "penumbra" opinion. Like it or not they pulled that one out their arse.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 8:57 am to a want
Politico
Michael Waldman
Brennan Center for Justice
I think I'll defer to the writings of the founders themselves.
Michael Waldman
Brennan Center for Justice
I think I'll defer to the writings of the founders themselves.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 8:57 am to a want
They didn't rewrite the 2nd. Seems to me they fought for what they believed was the proper interpretation of it and the courts agreed. Just because prior courts had a different opinion doesn't mean they were correct nor does it change the fact Americans have always owned guns and felt they had a right to.
The Federalist Papers are pretty clear about the founders intentions regarding the 2nd amendment and it's clear that they wanted an armed populace.
I guess since the emotional argument didn't work for Libs wanting gun control they will now try to say the founders didn't intend for us to have guns
The Federalist Papers are pretty clear about the founders intentions regarding the 2nd amendment and it's clear that they wanted an armed populace.
I guess since the emotional argument didn't work for Libs wanting gun control they will now try to say the founders didn't intend for us to have guns
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News