Friday, January 28, 2011


It is like clockwork.

The moment you suggest that guns might be a problem in a democratic civilized society, the Riflemen rise to the occasion and hasten to tell you that the American Constitution gives its citizens "the right to bare arms." Spelling is not a long suit for the gun people.

Nor is basic information or knowledge or history.

Jill Lepore, writing in the January 17th edition of the New Yorker, shares this with us:

Consider the Second Amendment: “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.” Historical evidence can be marshalled to support different interpretations of these words, and it certainly has been. But the Yale law professor Reva Siegel has argued that, for much of the twentieth century, legal scholars, judges, and politicians, both conservative and liberal, commonly understood the Second Amendment as protecting the right of citizens to form militias—as narrow a right as the protection provided by the Third Amendment against the government’s forcing you to quarter troops in your house. Beginning in the early nineteen-seventies, lawyers for the National Rifle Association, concerned about gun-control laws passed in the wake of the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy, argued that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms—and that this represented not a changing interpretation but a restoration of its original meaning. The N.R.A., which had never before backed a Presidential candidate, backed Ronald Reagan in 1980. As late as 1989, even Bork could argue that the Second Amendment works “to guarantee the right of states to form militias, not for individuals to bear arms.” In an interview in 1991, the former Chief Justice Warren Burger said that the N.R.A.’s interpretation of the Second Amendment was “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."


Diverdarren said...

David, your right that there can be, and there is vigorous debate over the Second Amendment and its interpretation. It's good, it's healthy for society to look at themselves and their rules. (I wish we as Canadians would debate freely our constitution.)

But, it's a simple fact that the anti-second amendment group need to accept; the people paid to interpret the Constitution (ie. US Supreme Court) have made their current decision over the 2nd.

Read; District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

The People can keep and bear arms.

Anonymous said...

I have to laugh when I think of Oak St as the OK Corral. We worry ourselves sick about gun control and gun ownership. Seems that all of the gun laws in Canada are designed to turns decent people into crimminals.

Every gang banger that has registered his/her hand gun please stand up.