Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
The goodwill of officers who take their oaths seriously, millions of law abiding gun owners, and the Second Amendment.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
2nd Amendment according to my Political Science book.
- Thread starter Andy
- Start date
Exiled And Addicted
Retired Screen Name
It's total revisionist BS. Although not technically incorrect, it implies that the federal gov't, in so regulating, is not in violation of the key component to the amendment, which is omitted entirely by the book's editor, to wit: The freedom of the 2nd Am is clearly an individual freedom under Supreme Court precedent. Actually, the two words "can and" before the word "do", if omitted, would make this an accurate statement. Use of the word "can" is very misleading, because while yes, the feds "can" get away with such regulations (evidenced by the fact they have), it is very misleading (in my view, flat wrong) to say they "can" regulate, because most young students will infer that this means the gov't has the authority to do this, which they do not under the 2nd Am.
However, in a way you cannot blame the editor when a very prominent constitutional scholar (Lawrence Tribe), in his treatise on Constitutional Law, actually states that his view is that there is NO individual RKBA. Of course, that's because he is a liberal idiot; the vast majority (both in number AND in scholarly weight) of the scholarly articles on this subject have concluded there IS an individual right, and that the state-militia-only right stuff is a bunch of hogwash. A scholarly legal article entitled "The Embarrassing Second Amendmendt", written by a self-admitted card-carrying ACLU professor member (Levinson, I think, of UT Austin School of Law), reluctantly admits that the second amendment appears to have granted a strong individual right, based on history and Supreme Court precedent, which that author predicts will ultimately embarrass his liberal anti-gun colleagues who favor gun control, when the Supreme Court finally puts an end to the state's-right-only nonsense cropping up in fed appeals court decision (and now educational textbooks and contstitutional treatises).
Personally I could scream, I am so embarrassed myself of fellow lawyers like Tribe who purport to be scholars, but instead insist on injecting personal political prudential concerns into their scholarly works. He is either lower than pond scum for doing this, or he simply hasn't read the articles considering this issue, in which case he's negligent in writing his treatise. (I last checked it in 96).
[This message has been edited by Exiled And Addicted (edited February 18, 1999).]
However, in a way you cannot blame the editor when a very prominent constitutional scholar (Lawrence Tribe), in his treatise on Constitutional Law, actually states that his view is that there is NO individual RKBA. Of course, that's because he is a liberal idiot; the vast majority (both in number AND in scholarly weight) of the scholarly articles on this subject have concluded there IS an individual right, and that the state-militia-only right stuff is a bunch of hogwash. A scholarly legal article entitled "The Embarrassing Second Amendmendt", written by a self-admitted card-carrying ACLU professor member (Levinson, I think, of UT Austin School of Law), reluctantly admits that the second amendment appears to have granted a strong individual right, based on history and Supreme Court precedent, which that author predicts will ultimately embarrass his liberal anti-gun colleagues who favor gun control, when the Supreme Court finally puts an end to the state's-right-only nonsense cropping up in fed appeals court decision (and now educational textbooks and contstitutional treatises).
Personally I could scream, I am so embarrassed myself of fellow lawyers like Tribe who purport to be scholars, but instead insist on injecting personal political prudential concerns into their scholarly works. He is either lower than pond scum for doing this, or he simply hasn't read the articles considering this issue, in which case he's negligent in writing his treatise. (I last checked it in 96).
[This message has been edited by Exiled And Addicted (edited February 18, 1999).]
When I spoke of the goodwill of warriors, I meant those who consider their business a calling. Not all law enforcement officers are warriors. Some are social workers who carry badges and guns. It's just a job. In the same vein, not all warriors are cops and soldiers. Many are decent citizens who will do the right thing when the time comes because they know no other way.
Wherever they go, evil men fear them.
Wherever they go, the weak have a friend.
When they return home, their family and friends are glad to see them.
------------------
Bruce Stanton
Wherever they go, evil men fear them.
Wherever they go, the weak have a friend.
When they return home, their family and friends are glad to see them.
------------------
Bruce Stanton