Indeed.The constitution is largely based on English common law, and orginally, the colonists did not wish independence, just representation in the Parliament, or their own colonial parliamebts w/a measure of autonomy.They were forced into conflict by British high-handedness.
Those who want to keep and bear arms should join the "well-regulated militia." That's what the US Constitution says. In trying to invoke the Constitution, this is the only time the Regressives simply elect to ignore half of what it says.
Now, what does "well-regulated" mean? Not that BS the gunhumpers cut 'n' paste from each other on the Internets. Read the Militia Acts of 1792. That's some serious regulation right there. Passed when the ink on the Constitution was barely dry.
As for the idiots who contend gun laws never work, point out to them we don't have to deal with Tommy gun-armed gangsters since the National Firearms Act of 1934.
Heller is a terrible decision. Justice Scalia just made up a bunch of crap.
This is not to argue with your post - I agree with it.
If you are interested in constitutional law, I can not recommend too highly the excellent Originalism As Faith, by Eric J. Segall (2018). It exposes the bankrupt judicial philosophy of Scalia and his ilk. They cloak their personal opinions as "originalism." It's fascinating reading.
Shortly after Georgia passed its open carry law two armed guys in a convenience store drew on each other, each thinking the other was "a bad guy." Fortunately, neither pulled a trigger. And wasn't there a "good guy" shot by police in an Alabama shopping mall a couple of years ago over an active shooting event? He was trying to be a hero, but the police saw him before they saw the "bad guy."
Let us not give up on the Federalist Papers just yet. There is wisdom here.
Want to join the debate about removing, or at least severely modifying, the filibuster in the United States Senate? Here's what Hamilton wrote about the majority dancing to the tune of the minority (Federalist No. 22):
"To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision) is in its tendency to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser number.12 Congress from the non-attendance of a few States have been frequently in the situation of a Polish Diet, where a single veto13 has been sufficient to put a stop to all their movements. A sixtieth part of the Union, which is about the proportion of Delaware and Rhode-Island, has several times been able to oppose an intire bar to its operations. This is one of those refinements which in practice has an effect, the reverse of what is expected from it in theory. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must in some way or other go forward. If a pertinacious minority can controul the opinion of a majority respecting the best mode of conducting it; the majority in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will over-rule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence tedious delays—continual negotiation and intrigue—contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet in such a system, it is even happy14 when such compromises can take place: For upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savour of weakness—sometimes border upon anarchy."
Thx for the reference.I'm well aware of Scalia's political/legal philosophy, and of his acolytes.I enjoy citing his single only significant majority opinion to gunnerz because he pretty much undercuts most of their claims while being one of the most conservo justices of the modern era. It's a delicious irony. And here, another of those conservos, Bybee, cites Scalia.It's humorous.But I disagree w/you on the ruling. It was initially hailed as such a breakthrough for firearms pilossession rights, but as Section 2 points out, and Bybee herein confirms, it's reallyn limited to private persobal possession { in the home }, and most of the gunnerz just don't get that.Scalia actually confirmed the legislative power to regulate public possession and commercial sales of arms. And remember, "arms" isn't a term limited to firearms. In this context, it means any/all arms. I believe those passages have been highly underrated, and Bybee's ruling now illuminates them.Cheers.
I simply find the entire opinion very poorly reasoned. I'm pleased you're going to check out Segall's book - I very much doubt you will be disappointed.
ISTR that during the Tucson mass shooting where Gabbie Giffords was almost killed that a GGWAG drew down on another GGWAG and if he didn't actually use judgment and trigger discipline there would have been at least one more casualty that day.
I don't have a URL for this, but it shouldn't be hard to find. Another goofball with a good premise who can't resist a dig at liberals while making his srgument.I assume you're familiar w/Woo's resume.Anyway, thought it might be of interest:
National ReviewA Universal-Background-Check Law Would Not Violate the Second AmendmentJohn Yoo 8/9/2019
Still not arousing.
"stilladoe" is an antique misspelling of "stilletto", a thin and pointy stabbing knife; still not effective against any virus, but not a gun.
So should John Yoo, but:
National ReviewA Universal-Background-Check Law Would Not Violate the Second Amendment John Yoo
Indeed.The constitution is largely based on English common law, and orginally, the colonists did not wish independence, just representation in the Parliament, or their own colonial parliamebts w/a measure of autonomy.They were forced into conflict by British high-handedness.
Those who want to keep and bear arms should join the "well-regulated militia." That's what the US Constitution says. In trying to invoke the Constitution, this is the only time the Regressives simply elect to ignore half of what it says.
Now, what does "well-regulated" mean? Not that BS the gunhumpers cut 'n' paste from each other on the Internets. Read the Militia Acts of 1792. That's some serious regulation right there. Passed when the ink on the Constitution was barely dry.
As for the idiots who contend gun laws never work, point out to them we don't have to deal with Tommy gun-armed gangsters since the National Firearms Act of 1934.
Heller is a terrible decision. Justice Scalia just made up a bunch of crap.
This is not to argue with your post - I agree with it.
If you are interested in constitutional law, I can not recommend too highly the excellent Originalism As Faith, by Eric J. Segall (2018). It exposes the bankrupt judicial philosophy of Scalia and his ilk. They cloak their personal opinions as "originalism." It's fascinating reading.
Shortly after Georgia passed its open carry law two armed guys in a convenience store drew on each other, each thinking the other was "a bad guy." Fortunately, neither pulled a trigger. And wasn't there a "good guy" shot by police in an Alabama shopping mall a couple of years ago over an active shooting event? He was trying to be a hero, but the police saw him before they saw the "bad guy."
Let us not give up on the Federalist Papers just yet. There is wisdom here.
Want to join the debate about removing, or at least severely modifying, the filibuster in the United States Senate? Here's what Hamilton wrote about the majority dancing to the tune of the minority (Federalist No. 22):
"To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision) is in its tendency to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser number.12 Congress from the non-attendance of a few States have been frequently in the situation of a Polish Diet, where a single veto13 has been sufficient to put a stop to all their movements. A sixtieth part of the Union, which is about the proportion of Delaware and Rhode-Island, has several times been able to oppose an intire bar to its operations. This is one of those refinements which in practice has an effect, the reverse of what is expected from it in theory. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must in some way or other go forward. If a pertinacious minority can controul the opinion of a majority respecting the best mode of conducting it; the majority in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will over-rule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence tedious delays—continual negotiation and intrigue—contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet in such a system, it is even happy14 when such compromises can take place: For upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savour of weakness—sometimes border upon anarchy."
A side note: I would argue the "Torture Memos" permit rape as an interrogation technique,
heh heh "hungry for dick jokes."
Thx for the reference.I'm well aware of Scalia's political/legal philosophy, and of his acolytes.I enjoy citing his single only significant majority opinion to gunnerz because he pretty much undercuts most of their claims while being one of the most conservo justices of the modern era. It's a delicious irony. And here, another of those conservos, Bybee, cites Scalia.It's humorous.But I disagree w/you on the ruling. It was initially hailed as such a breakthrough for firearms pilossession rights, but as Section 2 points out, and Bybee herein confirms, it's reallyn limited to private persobal possession { in the home }, and most of the gunnerz just don't get that.Scalia actually confirmed the legislative power to regulate public possession and commercial sales of arms. And remember, "arms" isn't a term limited to firearms. In this context, it means any/all arms. I believe those passages have been highly underrated, and Bybee's ruling now illuminates them.Cheers.
I simply find the entire opinion very poorly reasoned. I'm pleased you're going to check out Segall's book - I very much doubt you will be disappointed.
Damn!*shudder*
One of my oddest books is the Wayne La Pierre edition of Tom Paine I acquired. Function over form.
ISTR that during the Tucson mass shooting where Gabbie Giffords was almost killed that a GGWAG drew down on another GGWAG and if he didn't actually use judgment and trigger discipline there would have been at least one more casualty that day.
I don't have a URL for this, but it shouldn't be hard to find. Another goofball with a good premise who can't resist a dig at liberals while making his srgument.I assume you're familiar w/Woo's resume.Anyway, thought it might be of interest:
National ReviewA Universal-Background-Check Law Would Not Violate the Second AmendmentJohn Yoo 8/9/2019