The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
Bravo, sir, bravo!
Kevin, Amazing as always. When do we have our first Tucson Blogshoot?
I got only to Cornell's quoting of the courts before I had to stop and say this: I don't give a $h*t WHAT he thinks the courts said or what they indeed have previously said. I can read the Constitution, namely the Second Amendment, myself perfectly well, thank you, and I don't need his or their interpretation of plain English.
I'm not saying it doesn't matter but I am saying don't fraakin' piss on my shoes and try to tell me it's raining.
Now, I'll read the rest.
And, Kevin, thanks for all you do here.
"Sometimes I wish someone had the power to revive the Founders just so they could bitch-slap these people."
You seem to be doing O.K. without their help. Madison, Jefferson and all the rest may slumber peacefully in their graves because men such as you have proved themselves to be competent caretakers of our political liberties.
JMHO, (and only semi-relevant), but I believe Professor Tribe's take is mistaken on one point, when he says:
"...the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification..."
No. No. No. The prohibition is absolute, and without referent as to who may or may not infringe.
Evidence? The First places a specific prohibition on the federal government: "Congress shall make no law..."
But the Second commands, "...the right of the people... shall not be infringed."
My reading of this is that it not only prohibits the federal government, but all other entities, public and private.
And there is no mention of justification for infringement of any weight or strength. Justice O'Connor's "compelling public/state interest" is invidious and deserves to be anathemtized by all citizens of a free state.
Private businesses which put up "No Guns" signs are guilty ipso facto of a civil rights violation.
And THAT ought to be the goal of RKBA activism -- to enshrine the recognition of that FACT in law.
As I say: just my humble opinion.
Sorry, Mark, but I don't think you'd get that one past the Founders. By your argument, you couldn't disarm prisoners.
If you have had due process of law, then your rights - even your life - can be taken. But, as the 5th Circuit said in Emerson "limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country" must be allowable.
Aha! So that's how you landed Mrs. Baker.
Thank you once again for the superb job of showing the obfuscation (and often deliberate mendacity) on the part of those who would destroy a part of our Constitution. Your efforts to thoroughly debunk their misinformation is GREATLY appreciated.
Please keep up the good work.
U.S. vs Miller keeps coming up in these arguement. I wonder if this case should be appealed to the Supreme Court whethe r the attorney's will be bold enough to argue that it should be overturned. Considering that Miller appears to have been decided based on a lack of evidence presented it shouldn't be a hard arguement to make.
Your muscular buttocks. :)
You can tell the people that are trying to change history, they are the ones who cannot cite the actual text of anything to back up their arguments.
They can only name drop and then explain what the person said. It is a tactic that unfortunatly works because people generally will not bother to read for themselves.
The other tactic, also present in Mr. Cornell's (sorry, I only call people who actually try to teach the truth, a "Professor") article is one of scape goating. It's that dang NRA or "gun rights scholars" that caused the confusion.
Underlying all of that though is the fact that many people will go only by what they are told. If they somewhat agree with it, then there is no need to fact check.
Unfortunatly they are not told that Mr. Cornell is a paid mouthpiece for an anti-gun group. When such groups are involved, fact checking is always required.
EXCELLENT refutation of Saul Cornell's bizarre fantasies, sir! I would only have emphasized the part about "the kind in common use at the time", since this gives added impetus to the argument that the 2A means we CAN have assault weapons if we so desire.
Selective quoting is the anti-gunners friend. On the Brady Blog, the sole defender quoted Judge Emery from 1915 to support "collective rights" theory. I presented the entire quote showing he was talking about the ability of people to own and carry firearms to defend themselves but not to cause havoc.
Negating "compelling state interest" is what the 2cnd amendment is all about.
"bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
""of the kind in common use at the time.""
It seems to me that this phrase would be an argument that "We the People" should be able to buy ANY weapon that is in common use, meaning that since the military commonly defends the United States, then the people should have the ability to purchase any weapon commonly used by the military.
Any weapon carried by the common soldier is the general consensus.
What a maroon, way to take him to task.
It's amazing how fast the left will revert to cries of "judicial activism" when an intelligent jurist exercises sound reasoning skills in public. I've never read a circuit court opinion so logical and thorough in its consideration of every relative point throughout judicial history. You have to admire their tenacity in uncovering the true meaning of 2A from underneath all the liberal BS that's been piled on it since Miller. I can find no flaw in their decision, one which clearly follows from the tremendous base of evidence presented (evidence sorely lacking from the dissenting opinion, not by coincidence). One has to seriously question the merit of a history "professor" who lacks the ability to comprehend. I guess activism does trump intellect...
Just read the E.C. WaPo thing. If the purpose of the DC law was to minimize gun deaths particularly, and crime generally, boy did that not work. Why can these people not see the verifiable truth? All they have to do is study statistics therein related. Cold hard numbers do not lie. Idiots.
(And sorry it took me so long to get back around here.)
Are you saying then that arrest and booking are NOT due process of law?
(I can understand a leftist taking that stance, but... ::grin:: )
Excellent blog entry, couldn't agree more!