You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.
You know, I've been thinking about it, and Scalia and the gun-rights advocates who are proposing this pseudo-history for the second amendment are right about one thing. The second amendment is an individual right, not a collective one. But unfortunately for them, this doesn't really help to bolster the pro-gun agenda when you also considered the text of the second amendment itself. The fact that it is a conditional sentence, and the fact that the phrase "keep and bear arms" is a legal term of art referring to military service, have both been demonstrated repeatedly by me in this thread.
Thus the right in the second amendment is an individual one, but only insofar as it its the right of the individuals who make up the people to be represented by the militia, and to take part in it as citizens. But that is contingent on the militia's being necessary for the security of the free state, and it is also contingent on the constraints of a well-regulated militia. The militia may lawfully constrain the individual use of weapons and even their ownership. Though the federal government may not infringe on gun ownership rights of the individual, the state government and the militia itself certainly could, and this is how the founders envisioned it and wrote it. This is the original intent.
So why fight it? Clearly gun ownership is more important to the pro-gun advocates than actual historicity. I doubt that any historical consensus could sway the opinion of Scalia. As it should be that way. Gun rights are fundamental. But they shouldn't be placed on an insecure foundation of bad history. Because then it is opening it up to being undermined by people who might come along later and want to undermine gun ownership rights. They'll have a much easier time with it, since history will be on their side. A future justice who over rules Heller in fifty years may make an off-hand comment like, "Scalia's reasoning is sound, but considering on what we know of history now, Heller ought to be overturned based on Scalia's own logic." And he'd be right! Doesn't that worry you?
Last edited by Guy Incognito; 11-19-10 at 03:51 PM.