Dan Rather on the 2nd

  • Thread starter Thread starter DC
  • Start date Start date
Ewok is exactly right. The report is dead wrong and terribly biased as to this issue. The Supremes have on a number of occasions addressed the second briefly (say, half-dozen or so). The "legal rule" derived from U.S. v. Miller was that any weapon useful to a military or paramilitary organization is a protected weapon to every individual. The "holding" was that Mr. Miller did not make such a showing at trial; therefore the case should be remanded for further findings. The "result" of the case was that Mr. Miller and/or his atty dropped the ball and did not pursue the case after remand (damn!). The "revisionist holding" the case enjoys is "gun control is OK; sawed-off shotgun prohibitions and other 'reasonable' regulations of firearms are not violative of the second; and maybe the right is really not individual after all". Horsehockey!
 
Truth be told, the SC case that most clearly indicates the second in an individual right is the old old case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, which is not a pretty case to be parading around as supportive of the second. Dred Scott, which was later overruled completely, held that black people were not "citizens" as used in the U.S. Constitution. In its discussion, the Court listed several examples (to them ludicrous at the time) of what the result would be if blacks were held to be citizens of the U.S. One such example was if every black born in the U.S. was a citizen, then they would obviously have the right to keep and bear firearms (which to the Court and the country AT THAT TIME, just putting the example forward was enough to indicate the ludicrousness of a holding that blacks were indeed citizens. Now, the case was directly overturned by another (can't think of the name at the moment) as to its principal holding (obviously, blacks are citizens and have been every since Lincoln's emancipation proclamation and the subsequent 13, 14, and 15th amendments). But it still stands for the principle that the Supremes clearly considered the right individual, not a "state militia" right. The latter is indeed absurb, now as much as then.
 
CBS Evening News had their "Reality Check" on the 2nd Amendment. Three major parts:

1. 46% of US citizens think it's a right, 41% disagree.

2. The Supreme Court has only once made even a reference to the 2nd, and that stated that the 2nd refers to militias. A high court denied the right to handguns, and the SC remained silent. Rather had a vague comment that somebody would have to see what the Founding Fathers had to say. Some lawyer contended that maybe the courts are wrong.

3. The thirteen original colonies had strict gun control: no guns for blacks, propertyless whites, or non-Protestants.

Let's review the CBS take on those:

1. More Americans believe gun ownership is a right than don't...so the issue must be very confusing and citizens uncertain.

2. Only militias may own guns. Unsaid was that essentially able-bodied adult is by law a militia member, and that in turn means that every adult has a right to own military arms. CBS utterly failed to quote any of the many clear statements on the subject by the Founding Fathers.

3. The fact that minorities and other oppressed groups were forbidden arms was made out as a good thing suitable for today...so CBS & Dan Rather implicitly contend that blacks should be denied the right to bear arms.

What's striking is that, strictly speaking, the segment was indeed correct! It just presented carefully selected comments in a context and manner that leads most viewers to think that common citizens have no right to arms. Yes, polls are split on the issue...but that does not give or take a right. Yes, the Supreme Court has been largely silent on the issue...which means nothing. Yes, minorities historically have been disarmed...but that's BAD and is no example to follow now.

Dan Rather learned much from Bill Clinton: thru careful selection and presentation of facts, one may make truths speak lies.
 
The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the 2nd is an individual right! The problem is that they haven't said it as part of a ruling on a 2nd amendment case where they were ruling for the defendent, so it has no force of law. -- As recently as 1990, in a case dealing with the 4th amendment, the court mentioned that the 4th refers to the individual, just as it does in the 1st, 2nd, and 5th. -- Ewok
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top