WE have a had crappy month of April mass shootings seem to be the rule and cops killing civilians seem to be everywhere and everyday.
Something needs doing about this out of control problem.
I guess I had better restate my position on the 2nd.
I am not for unlimited gun control….I am a gun owner…I am against the unlimited access of civilians to assault weapons….I mean if they want to play with advanced weaponry then grow a set of balls and join the military…the key to that is “a set of balls”…..
I have written much on the 2nd amendment…..first my thought on the history of the amendment….https://lobotero.com/2013/01/30/why-the-2nd/
Then my post on the “true meaning of the 2nd”……https://gulfsouthfreepress.wordpress.com/2020/05/01/the-true-meaning-of-the-2nd/
This is a conversation with the author of a book on the 2nd amendment…….
As America grapples with a relentless tide of gun violence, pro-gun activists have come to rely on the Second Amendment as their trusty shield when faced with mass-shooting-induced criticism. In their interpretation, the amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms—a reading that was upheld by the Supreme Court in its 2008 ruling in District of Columbia. v. Heller. Yet most judges and scholars who debated the clause’s awkwardly worded and oddly punctuated 27 words in the decades before Heller almost always arrived at the opposite conclusion, finding that the amendment protects gun ownership for purposes of military duty and collective security. It was drafted, after all, in the first years of post-colonial America, an era of scrappy citizen militias where the idea of a standing army—like that of the just-expelled British—evoked deep mistrust.
The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, digs into this discrepancy. What does the Second Amendment mean today, and what has it meant over time? He traces the history of the contentious clause and the legal reasoning behind it, from the Constitutional Convention to modern courtrooms.
This historical approach is noteworthy. The Heller decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, is rooted in originalism, the concept that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the original intent of the founders. While Waldman emphasizes that we must understand what the framers thought, he argues that giving them the last word is impossible—and impractical. “We’re not going to be able to go back in a time machine and tap James Madison on the shoulder and ask him what to do,” he says. “How the country has evolved is important. What the country needs now is important. That’s certainly the case with something as important and complicated as guns in America.”
Anything to add?
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”