Conservative think tank on the Supreme Court's upcoming DC gun ban case

I see them talking about a militia. We've already got those. No thanks.

Read it in its entirety. BTW - our society is based on the common law tradition. Only the civil court system of Louisiana is based upon the Napoleanic Code (which stems from Roman civil law).

Common Law = Precedent
Civil Law = Law Exists

Therefore, you cannot claim that rights exist or do not exist simply based upon the Constitution referring to them. In order to see that common law rights are set in stone, you need an Amendment.
 
I see them talking about a militia. We've already got those. No thanks.

explain how the framers of the constitution, who feared and distrusted standing armies, specifically wrote an amendment that guaranteed the right of standing armies to bear arms? doesn't that sound just a bit.....stupid?

personally, i've always found the 'right of the militia' argument as 'reaching'. A method to try to throw away a fundamental right because people are too afraid to stand up to that responsibility and would rather shove it off on an unknown group of people.
 
Rights don't exist if they aren't explicitly stated in the constitution?

Good. I'd like to trade my right to privacy for the right to shoot black people.
It would have been smarter to say Amendment 9. But thankfully you don't know the constitution. However, gifts are not rights in any form. Nobody has a right to receive something from the government. That would be an "entitlement", different thing.
 
explain how the framers of the constitution, who feared and distrusted standing armies, specifically wrote an amendment that guaranteed the right of standing armies to bear arms? doesn't that sound just a bit.....stupid?

personally, i've always found the 'right of the militia' argument as 'reaching'. A method to try to throw away a fundamental right because people are too afraid to stand up to that responsibility and would rather shove it off on an unknown group of people.
"The right of the militia" argument is ridiculous.

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The first portion is an explanation as to why they recognized this right, not a limitation on it. If they wished to limit the right of the people they would have written what limitation there was in the portion they outlined the right. As they did in Amendment IV with Warrants.
 
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bare Arms shall not be infringed.

Or, in modern language:

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be taken away or restricted."

Unfortunately for the left and other such spinners of fantasy, the 2nd amendment is plain and straightforward. The govt can't restrict guns. Period. And it even gives a reason.

All the talk of militia membership, hunting and sporting use, etc., is nothing but smokescreens used in atempts to cover up or ignore the fact that so-called "gun control" is illegal. The twisted and distorted "logic" behind such diversions, pales before the 2nd's plain language.

The government can't restrict guns. Period.
 
Last edited:
It would have been smarter to say Amendment 9. But thankfully you don't know the constitution. However, gifts are not rights in any form. Nobody has a right to receive something from the government. That would be an "entitlement", different thing.

And the right to shoot black people is an entitlement?
 
Supporters of gun rights have all the love of armies going around and shooting random things for pointless reason in the world. There's no skeptiscism.
And people who like to ban guns must love kids getting shot in "gun free" zones like schools....
 
Back
Top