Burger was a lawyer and a judge for 55 years. I'll take his word for his experiences rather than your claim that he lied.
Again, I suggest you read his commentary in Parade that I linked to earlier.
In Parade, Burger states that there is an unquestioned right for Americans to defend their homes with firearms; that such a right, "
need not be challenged". He continues that, "
the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game," in the same fashion that no one could, "
challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing . . . ."
Burger goes on to tell us what types of guns are protected by the Constitution; "
To 'keep and bear arms' for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; 'Saturday night specials' and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles."
So, Burger does admit that the express constitutional mention of [the right of the people to] "
keep and bear arms" guarantees private citizens (not connected to any militia nor acting under militia orders) a constitutional right to own guns for home defense and a right to own hunting guns.
OK
Sounds to me like Burger is saying that machine guns (and cheap, low quality) handguns can be regulated in a fashion like motor vehicles but guns suitable for defense of the home and guns suitable for hunting should be as immune from governmental oversight as fishing equipment since the right to own such things is unquestionable and not subject to challenge (including any militia based attack on the right).
Sounds like in 1990 he's advocating the NRA's position that a unassailable constitutional right to own guns for various legal purposes without any militia conditioning exists . . .
And then he becomes a paid shill for handgun Control Incorporated to say such a position is a "fraud" less than a year later????
Hmmmmmmmm.
...1876 in U.S. v. Cruikshank. The case involved members of the Ku Klux Klan not allowing black citizens the right to standard freedoms, such as the right to assembly and the right to bear arms. As part of the ruling, the court said the right of each individual to bear arms was not granted under the Constitution.
You can not be serious; really, you are joking right? There is no individual right to arms recognized by SCOTUS in
Cruikshank because the Court said that the right to arms is not granted by the Constitution?
Ten years later, the court affirmed the ruling in Presser v. Illinois when it said that the Second Amendment only limited the federal government from prohibiting gun ownership, not the states.
Presser doesn't help you either.
Presser re-affirmed
Cruikshank saying that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. The
Presser Court specifically said that the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms and that federal rights enforcement (to stop the states disarming its citizens) exists without reference to or appeal to the 2nd Amendment.
And while
Presser did say that the 2nd Amendment did not bind state action, why do you think that point helps you now given that SCOTUS has since incorporated the 2nd under the 14th?
The author wrote "There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision." If you think this is false, show me Madison's notes, ratification debates etc. that refute it.
The conclusion of the author (that there is no individual RKBA because the framers did not specifically mention or allow for it in the 2nd) is preposterous and is refuted by the framers endorsement of delegated powers / retained rights theory. I would recommend reading the
Federalist 84 and
Madison's introduction of the proposed amendments for an explanation of the rights theory. An understanding of the framer's understanding of the nature of rights disallows the maintenance of the author's position (that our rights are fully dependent upon the provisions crafted to secure them).
Again, this isn't about my mindset. It's about the pro-gun crowd reading the article and refuting it with certifiable facts, not opinion and name-calling.
I've read it (and a thousand before it that say the same thing) and I'm quite willing and able to refute the premise and conclusion with certifiable facts.