The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does
Posted in the Minneapolis Forum
#1 Aug 19, 2014
Less than a month after the December 2012 Newtown massacre, the National Rifle Association's then-president, David Keene, warned that the new White House task force on gun violence would "do everything they can to strip Americans of their right to keep and bear arms, to essentially make the Second Amendment meaningless." Three weeks ago, after a killer shot three people and wounded eight near Santa Barbara, California, conservative activist "Joe the Plumber" posted an open letter to the victims' families. "Your dead kids," he wrote, "don't trump my Constitutional rights."*
As America grapples with a relentless tide of gun violence, pro-gun activists have come to rely on the Second Amendment as their trusty shield when faced with mass-shooting-induced criticism. In their interpretation, the amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms—a reading that was upheld by the Supreme Court in its 2008 ruling in District of Columbia. v. Heller. Yet most judges and scholars who debated the clause's awkwardly worded and oddly punctuated 27 words in the decades before Heller almost always arrived at the opposite conclusion, finding that the amendment protects gun ownership for purposes of military duty and collective security. It was drafted, after all, in the first years of post-colonial America, an era of scrappy citizen militias where the idea of a standing army—like that of the just-expelled British—evoked deep mistrust.
In his new book, The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, digs into this discrepancy. What does the Second Amendment mean today, and what has it meant over time? He traces the history of the contentious clause and the legal reasoning behind it, from the Constitutional Convention to modern courtrooms.
This historical approach is noteworthy. The Heller decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, is rooted in originalism, the concept that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the original intent of the founders. While Waldman emphasizes that we must understand what the framers thought, he argues that giving them the last word is impossible—and impractical. "We're not going to be able to go back in a time machine and tap James Madison on the shoulder and ask him what to do," he says. "How the country has evolved is important. What the country needs now is important. That's certainly the case with something as important and complicated as guns in America."
#2 Aug 24, 2014
Why do the Socialists in the US always want to take guns away from law abiding citizens and only allow gang bangers to have them?
Add your comments below
|Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10)||34 min||WHAT||37,484|
|Man-turned-woman convicted of restroom sex assa...||1 hr||LVPD is Incompetent||5|
|WhiteTrash NFL Fans||1 hr||Davycrockett||16|
|Ebony Star Famlies||1 hr||The Elk Hunter||1|
|Black Eye For The FBI!||17 hr||Davycrockett||7|
|Davycrockett Trash||20 hr||Space ace||9|
|Fallen soldier’s mother: ‘Trump did disrespect ...||Thu||Davycrockett||9|
Find what you want!
Search Minneapolis Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC