Skip to main content

View Diary: The only constitutional right that comes at the annual cost of thousands of human sacrifices (625 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Questions: (7+ / 0-)

    1. What do you mean that no other amendment would be allowed to stand?

    2. Is each justice with the majority in Heller a right-wing extremist?

    I see what you did there.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:09:50 PM PST

    •  As to #2: (22+ / 0-)
      2. Is each justice with the majority in Heller a right-wing extremist?
      With the exception of Anthony Kennedy (on a few issues), the answer is pretty much yes.  

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:13:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

        •  Damn thing reminds me of the famous sci-fi story, (13+ / 0-)

          "A Canticle for Leibowitz," in which a 600-year-old post-apocalyptic grocery list is taken as holy script.

          “pound pastrami, can kraut, six bagels–bring home for Emma.”
          That's about what the poorly worded, widely misunderstood, slave-militia-preserving (as Richard Lyon noted here) Second Amendment represents.

          The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

          A Canticle for Leibowitz

          "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

          by Kombema on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:35:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What do Walter M. Miller, Jr., Joseph Heller, (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kombema, Gooserock, rbird, ItsSimpleSimon

            and Howard Zinn have in common?  All were in B-25s in the Italian campaign of WWII.  And Kurt Vonnegut experienced the bombing from the other end.  Send shivers down my spine to think of it.

            "We refuse to fight in a war started by men who refused to fight in a war." -freewayblogger

            by Bisbonian on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:49:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  2nd Amendent not about slave patrols (11+ / 0-)

            http://www.theroot.com/...

            Please at least not distort history for partisan aims.  

            Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism the roles are reversed.

            by DavidMS on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:51:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sorry, no, that was at least a big part of it. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Blood, a2nite

              Read the following and tell me otherwise. It was slave states maintaining their right to keep armed white slave militias to prevent or put down the many slave rebellions that had occurred by 1792, in large measure to keep the federal government from taking away their arms.

              THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT -- Carl T. Bogus

              The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

              "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

              by Kombema on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:07:39 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  cites michael bellesiles (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ancblu, DavidMS

                therefore its credibility is zero.

                the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

                by happymisanthropy on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:59:19 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Wrong. One discredited academic doesn't invalidate (0+ / 0-)

                  the clear history of the actual principals at the time, whose own words indicate the central role of the slave-state militia issue in pushing for the Second Amendment in the BOR, to enable ratification.

                  "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

                  by Kombema on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:22:00 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If one congressman supported a federal highway (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    noway2, ancblu

                    just so he could profit from a real estate deal, this does not prove that the "central role" of graft in creating the federal highway system.

                    You don't get to cite a tiny faction and pretend that their interests are the "central role" of anything.  Especially since the second amendment these people apparently wanted bears ZERO RESEMBLANCE to the second amendment that actually exists.

                    the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

                    by happymisanthropy on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 09:18:06 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Slave states were not a "tiny faction" (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      a2nite, Kombema

                      of resistance to ratification. They were the largest voting bloc during the Constitutional Convention and the Articles of Convederation period which preceeded it.

                      Slave interests in the north supported this. Financiers, cotton merchants, tobacco brokers, land speculators; as Lincoln said, no region was guiltless. All were complicit in creating an entire continental economy based on jackbooted thuggery and terror.

                      Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                      by OregonOak on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:04:55 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  everyone supported militias (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        annecros

                        so naming people who supported militias is meaningless.

                        OH NO Hitler ate pancakes.  Pancakes are EVIL.

                        the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

                        by happymisanthropy on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 12:00:55 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Simply pointing out that.. (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          a2nite, Kombema, indie17

                          NO ONE wanted to really talk about the Slavery Issue in the Ratification Debate. Many items on the agenda were not possible to discuss if the Slavery Issue was brought forward, so the issue was studiously and diplomatically avoided as much as it could be. There are few discussions recorded about it, since both factions knew that emotions around slavery ran high, and yet, many provisions were tailored around the slavery issue without it being explicitly mentioned, for the obvious reason that to do so would have imploded the whole proceeding.

                          People supported militias for their own reasons, north, south, urban and rural, or did not support them, but in any event the issue was profoundly touchy for all sorts of reasons in 1789 and the legacy of such contention is what we have today; a debate ranging all over the map with few terms agreed upon, and people feeling free to claim anything which supports their view. The founders, out of ambiguity in wording and opaqueness in discussion, clearly wanted US to decide for ourselves, because they couldnt do it. It was not part of the politics of the possible then. It may be now.

                          Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                          by OregonOak on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 12:24:11 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  No, the 13th amendment settled it. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            annecros

                            ...if you want to discuss the way the Supreme Court butchered the 14th amendment at the end of Reconstruction, that's another matter, but then you'd have to agree that Cruikshank was just as bad a decision as Plessy.

                            the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

                            by happymisanthropy on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 12:51:10 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  The Bogus thesis is completely bogus ... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                noway2

                In order to construct his historically unsupported argument that the 2A was developed to protect slave patrols in the South, he simply wands away the right to bear arms as one of many designed protections against unlawful sovereign rule revealed in the real historical genesis of the English Civil War(s), the Glorious Revolution (1688) and the English Bill of Civil Rights (1689).  

                Carl Bogus butchers history in order to advance his particular political agenda.  The Davis Law Review article and his other work is more ideological polemics than reliably argued scholarship.

                •  Anton.. is that you? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  indie17

                  Invoking the English common law as more important precedent than the Articles or the Constitutional Convention is the trick which Scalia depended upon in his rewriting of the Second Amendment in Heller.

                   Good to know where you stand. Maybe youd like to go back to the Magna Carta as the founding document while you are at it. Then, at least nobles would have the right to talk back to the King.. the NRA.

                  Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                  by OregonOak on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:08:27 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh ... clever. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    annecros

                    You don't have a clue about the federalist/anti-federalist history and resort to the Scalia slur to disguise your ignorance.

                    Classic.

                    The law and politics of the Articles of Confederation and Constitution are direct and immediate descendents of English political and legal history -- that's why we call it Anglo-American jurisprudence.  Is it really that difficult to grasp?

                    •  Wow. You are wrong in so many ways. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      indie17

                      The founders were, in their view, creating a clean break with the past. They may have been operating in the context of English Common Law, but they saw no value of quoting it, referencing it, referring to it, and basing future developments upon it. That was for later Tories in the US to do, which you have.

                      Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                      by OregonOak on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 12:29:29 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm certainly not wrong that you're a (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        annecros

                        snide little asshat, Lambchop, so let's move on from there.

                        And in matters of law, are you serious?  The signers of the Declaration of Independence were British subjects until it was signed in 1776 ... their lives were indisputably infused with established English political philosophy, legal theory and precedent and that is exactly what they relied upon in articulating their grievances and declaration of liberty in the that document.

                        So here's what 1 minute on teh Google might have turned up for you to remedy your extraordinary illiteracy on the subject:

                        For example, following the American Revolution in 1776, one of the first legislative acts undertaken by each of the newly independent states was to adopt a "reception statute" that gave legal effect to the existing body of English common law to the extent that American legislation or the Constitution had not explicitly rejected English law.[59] Some states enacted reception statutes as legislative statutes, while other states received the English common law through provisions of the state's constitution, and some by court decision. British traditions such as the monarchy were rejected by the U.S. Constitution, but many English common law traditions such as habeas corpus, jury trials, and various other civil liberties were adopted in the United States. Significant elements of English common law prior to 1776 still remain in effect in many jurisdictions in the United States, because they have never been rejected by American courts or legislatures.[60]

                        For example, the New York Constitution of 1777[61] provides that:

                        [S]uch parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State,subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same.

                        Instead of pretending that you know something in this field, just study up a wee bit.
                        •  So for you.. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          indie17

                          and all your pettifogging contortions to keep your weapons of mass destruction, we are just a little bit different from the English. Just small adjustments. Tweaked a bit.

                          Good to know. We could have saved ourselves a whole revolution or two, a decade or two of wrangling a new Constitution and a whole lot of angst. God Save the Queen, buttercup.

                          Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                          by OregonOak on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 07:45:44 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

            •  Yes it was, in part. (5+ / 0-)

              Patrick Henry specifically brought up the specter of slave insurrections during the Constitutional Convention, and this fear is one explanation (not the only) for both the need for the Second Amendment and the change from "the security of a free country" to "the security of a free state."

              "If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress insurrections. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress..." (Patrick Henry)

              •  The slave reference (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite

                was illustrative, not explanatory, of the central issue presented in the Virginia ratification debates.

                Henry was addressing a problem with delegating militia authority to the federal government that would preclude the exercise of any pre-existing or retained rights to the states.  Henry and other leading anti-federalists -- in New York and New England as well -- opposed strong central government chiefly because it emulated the tyrannical monarchy against which the colonies and citizenry had successfully rebelled.

                Any form of popular insurrection would serve as a similar illustration -- consider, for example, the Whiskey Rebellion in primarily the northern states during the early 1790s over the Federalist Hamilton's imposition of a whiskey tax to fund federal expenditures.  It had nothing to do with slaves and everything to do with federal authority to raise a militia to suppress local agitation or resistance and irrespective of any state's involvement or particular wishes.

                •  Semantic weaseling... illustrative not explanatory (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Recall, tytalus

                  worthy of Mr. Scalia. Congratulations, you get the Scalia Rhetorical Oratory award of the day.

                  Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                  by OregonOak on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:10:09 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  ancblu, you are making the argument for a militia (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Recall, indie17

                  But apparently, THAT part of the argument fell off the turnip truck that Antonin Scalia was riding on.

                  Your whole argument is that Patrick Henry didn't want the FEDERAL government to control he army.  Therefore, he insisted that the STATES get to have an army, too.  READ THE 2nd AMENDMENT IN IT'S ENTIRETY.

                  A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
                  Free state, like Virginia, or Massachusetts.

                  Am I missing something??

                  Would that be that the 2nd Amendment DOES NOT support an individual's right to a gun, but rather the right of each state to control its own local army, made up of its own citizens, who get to carry guns when they serve in the militia??

                  "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." -- Patrick Henry

                  by BornDuringWWII on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 12:25:34 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Expanding on the slavery point (10+ / 0-)

            The second amendment's purpose was specifically to preserve state militias.  But far from the theories expressed by the gun lobby, this had nothing to do with allowing citizens' militias to rise up to oppose tyranny.  The whole concept is idiotic -- no nation would build in the right to violently overthrow its own government, and that fact was proven many times over the years, most tragically in the civil war.

            The founding fathers were suspicious of a standing military, which in their experience became an occupying force.  But particularly in the south, the militia was a constantly active paramilitary force that served as the slave patrol that tracked and captured runaway slaves, and of greater concern to the white citizens, was prepared to fight slave rebellions.  In many parts of the South, the enslaved population outnumbered the free whites, and small or large uprisings were fairly frequent.  The constitution gives the President the power to call out the militia, but the South was concerned that a northern president might not be relied upon to act against a slave rebellion.  

            And yet, though this historical link is the underpinning of the Second Amendment, none of it was discussed in Heller.  Scalia's intellectually dishonest and weakly reasoned majority opinion could easily be overturned by a future court, or more likely limited very narrowly to the specifics of the case.  The origins of the amendment as a precaution against slave revolts reveals clearly that the first and second clauses were intended to be read together, with the first limiting the second.  

            •  so, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              noway2, ancblu

              ignore the federalist papers and go with some nuts conspiracy theory.  Got it.

              the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

              by happymisanthropy on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:00:17 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The Federalists urged supporting it because they (4+ / 0-)

                were genuinely worried the Constitution would not be ratified if the Southern slave states balked. And all you have to do is read the actual quotes at the time, including anti-Federalist, anti-ratificationist Southern slave state firebrand, Patrick Henry's. The history is clear.

                "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

                by Kombema on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:17:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Patrick Henry - the Wayne LaPierre of his day. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  noway2

                  Yeah, THAT's authoritative.

                  "The bill's sponsor has a better chance of being the next Pope" ~ attributed to Rep. Eric Burlison of Missouri

                  by 43north on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:22:51 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Don't be foolish. Twice Governor of Virginia, and (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    indie17, Headlight
                    ... along with Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine, he is regarded as one of the most influential champions of Republicanism and an invested promoter of the American Revolution and its fight for independence.

                    After the Revolution, Henry was a leader of the anti-federalists in Virginia. He opposed the United States Constitution, fearing that it endangered the rights of the States as well as the freedoms of individuals; he helped gain adoption of the Bill of Rights.

                    He was not even close to being equivalent to LaPierre. Nice try.

                    "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

                    by Kombema on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:31:08 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Henry according to you was a lose cannon. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      noway2

                      A Wayne LaPierre nutjob, firebrand orator, who inflamed the passions - and did little to bring about a sane compromise.

                      One discredited academic doesn't invalidate the clear history of the actual principals at the time, whose own words indicate the central role of the slave-state militia issue in pushing for the Second Amendment in the BOR, to enable ratification.

                      Twice Governor?  Meh. The Schwarzenegger of his day, riding his notoriety to office.

                      That he, at one time enjoyed a lucid moment, in the view of some?

                      Didn't counter the fact that Henry, Paine and Sam'l Adams were rabble-rousers, who thought best about how to line their pockets, and increase their fortunes, at the expense of the lawful colonial citizens, government and commerce.
                      Oh, they were "invested heavily".
                      Accusations which haunted many of our "founding fathers". Accusations which nearly carried many of them to the gallows, if not for British arrogance, and in some instances, military incompetence.
                      Accusations which nearly got them hung by fellow Colonialists, in retribution for their actions, or appeasement to the Crown by loyalists and those dissatisfied with the course and cost of the Independence movement.

                      So which is it?  The BoR was written to serve the 1%, or the BoR was written with the ideology of serving all?

                      "The bill's sponsor has a better chance of being the next Pope" ~ attributed to Rep. Eric Burlison of Missouri

                      by 43north on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 09:03:05 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  You'd face the same problem today (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  annecros

                  An inability to ratify and amendment to repeal the 2nd.  The demographics may have changed as the nation is a large larger today but the same fundamental problem would exist.  You don't have enough support for this objective.  

              •  Written by just three white guys. Just three. (11+ / 0-)

                The Federalist papers aren't holy writ, even if you believe in holy writ, which I don't.

                Three white guys wrote them, mostly to assuage the fears of the anti-federalists.

                And you think we should be tied to the anonymous writings of three white guys in the 18th century for all eternity?

                How very authoritarian of you.

                Madison, Hamilton and Jay. Do you bow before them? Do you give up your own autonomy to them? Do you stop thinking because of their opinions more than two hundred years ago?

                No sane society would base its laws on the writings of three people who were far from representative of that society at any time during its existence.

                •  I don't know whats worse. That you would discount (3+ / 0-)

                  one of the few resources that helps to explain and elaborate on the thinking behind the founding of this countries highest legal document to fit your perverted agenda, or that the usual group would line up behind you to like the idea.

                  •  Perverted agenda? (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    a2nite, Recall, indie17

                    And that would be, what, exactly?

                    My agenda is to save lives. Yours, if you're in favor of allowing citizens to continue purchasing weapons of mass destruction, based upon a racist, monstrous amendment, is unconscionable. Yours is the "perverted agenda", obviously.

                    This is 2013. I couldn't care less what three white guys (who were trying to protect slavery) had to say more than two hundred years ago. Anyone who thinks we should lock ourselves into their 18th century worldview is a stupid goose-stepper, who can't and won't think for themselves.

                    •  If you redefine "the people" (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      annecros

                      in the bill of rights to mean ONLY "people duly authorized by goverment," you've destroyed most of the bill of rights.  OK, 50% of it anyway.

                      I would indeed call that a perverted agenda.

                      the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

                      by happymisanthropy on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 12:16:41 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Where are earth do you get that strawman? (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Recall, indie17

                        Seriously, in decades of arguing with right wingers, one major pattern is obvious:

                        They are committed to inventing strawmen and attempting to then knock those strawmen down. Right wingers constantly, predictably base their deductions on things never said, never done, never promoted. Basically, their entire hate machine is based on what hasn't and won't happen. It's really quite amazing.

                        I've never said that the Bill of Rights is talking only about people duly authorized by the government. Of course, the Second Amendment is. That amendment is about state-run militias, set up to enable the crushing of slave rebellions, and other kinds of insurrections. But it's NOT the Bill of Rights. It's merely one very small, very misguided, racist, despicable part of it. Its gravest error, much as slavery and the destruction of the Native Americans were the gravest original sins for our nation.

                        It is, in fact, the true perversion of the idea of rights to begin with. No other nation on earth, beside Yemen, felt it sane to set aside a special right for deadly pieces of metal. Perhaps the fact that we don't have special rights to safe food and water, a clean environment, a roof over our heads, a quality education for all, and medical care for all . . . should have been a big fat hint about our early priorities.

                        Apparently, some Americans, even today, are too dense to see the disgusting, grotesque nature of having special rights for deadly pieces of metal, while having zero rights to the essential necessities of life.

                •  Do you object because they were WHITE? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  annecros

                  If so...sounds like a really bigoted position.  How about articulating your disagreement based on the real merits or lack of merits of their argument?

                  •  Their whiteness is a part of their argument. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    indie17

                    Obviously.

                    All three held slaves at one time in their lives. Their white privilege allowed that. Madison held them his entire life, and what he did, what he wrote, what he thought, was informed by his status as a very privileged white person of his time who happened to own human beings.

                    The 2nd Amendment was set up to protect the institution of slavery, and to assuage the anti-federalists, most of whom were slave holders in the South. It was a twofer. By promoting the autonomy of state militias, the anti-federalists hoped that no federal standing army would be needed, or would be there to stop their slave patrols, which would help their "states rights" ambitions. And "states rights" for the South boiled down to "property rights" and "property rights" boiled down to slaves.

                    The ancestors of today's propertarians and "states rights" fanatics were slaveholders.

                    Madison, who wrote for the federalists, was, in some sense, a double-agent. Not literally, of course. But he was Jefferson's protege, who was a key anti-federalist who eventually came on board to the federalist camp. Federalists who were also southerners tended to be weak federalists with a foot in both camps. That set the table for the original sin of compromise over slavery.

                    The 2nd Amendment is a part of that original sin, totally unnecessary, unconscionable, racist and has the blood of millions on its hands.

              •  The Federalist papers never mentioned it (0+ / 0-)

                The Federalist Papers were written to encourage the adoption of the Constitution.  The Federalists believed that the Constitution itself -- UNAMENDED -- was a sufficient guarantee of individual liberty.  If the Federalists thought the second amendment was necessary they would have put it in the Constitution itself rather than passing it as an amendment after the Constitution was ratified.  

                •  and? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  annecros

                  the Federalist writers assume that individuals will always have the right to keep and bear their own weapons even in the absence of any second amendment, in the same sense that they assumed that free speech would be secure without a first amendment.

                  the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

                  by happymisanthropy on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 12:19:34 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  that's wrong (0+ / 0-)

                    The Federalist writers assumed that the Federal government did not have the authority to federalize state militias, or replace them with a standing army.  The second amendment conferred no rights vs the state government-- indeed, protecting the state government's authority over the militia was the point, largely so that the militias in the south could defend whites against slave rebellions.  It's interesting to see the contortions people like Scalia go through to read the words "well-regulated" to be a guarantee that there will be little effective regulation.  Of course, none of the founders would have thought the second amendment would affect the power of a state government to enact whatever restrictions it chose on the individual right to own firearms.  

        •  Scalia has surprised me once or twice. (8+ / 0-)

          At least in the Fourth Amendment area.  (See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012).)  But other than that, he's a straight-up right winger whose so-called "principles" of constitutional interpretation will always yield to the result he wants to reach.  

          Heller is actually an excellent example of this.  Scalia, who always decries reliance on legislative history, based his much of his opinion on legislative history. Not to mention his use of post-enactment sources to attempt to bolster his interpretation.  If you have a shred of intellectual honesty, you can't spend decades claiming to abhor legislative history and then try to use it to prove your case.

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:44:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  If by "extremist" you mean (6+ / 0-)

      someone who takes the most wacktastic, fringe-assed positions on an argument and pushes them to the mainstream then I'd say, yep, each one of the five are.

      With the exception of Scalia, though, none meets my personal definition of extremist, which involves more than a bit of insanity. The whole shoulder-harness rocket launchers vs. head axes thing pretty much nailed it for me with little Nino there.

    •  Question in regards to question 2... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laurence Lewis

      Is each justice in the minority a "would-be-gun-banner"?

      Baby, where I come from...

      by ThatSinger on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:56:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site