• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Former Chief Justice Warren Berger on the 2nd Amendment

madasheck

madasheck

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
502
Reaction score
278
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive


I don't know why but I hadn't heard about this until recently. How come Burger got it and so many others don't? It's clear from the wording of the constitution they weren't talking about letting every person because an army.
 
He was a seditious tyrant by definition. I am glad he's gone.
 
madasheck said:


I don't know why but I hadn't heard about this until recently. How come Burger got it and so many others don't? It's clear from the wording of the constitution they weren't talking about letting every person because an army.
Click to expand...


He proved he was an illiterate boob. Thanks.
 
Burger was a bigot who hated gay people.From here:

A concurring opinion by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger cited the “ancient roots” of prohibitions against homosexual sex, quoting William Blackstone’s description of homosexual sex as an “infamous crime against nature”, worse than rape, and “a crime not fit to be named”. Burger concluded: “To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.”[2]
Click to expand...

He was appointed by Nixon, and his court severely weakened the fourth and fifth amendment protections from the previous Warren court in favor of police and prosecutors. He has publicly stated on numerous occasions that the fifth amendment should not be in the bill of rights.

So no, I don't really care what he thought about the 2nd Amendment.
 
madasheck said:
I don't know why but I hadn't heard about this until recently. How come Burger got it and so many others don't? It's clear from the wording of the constitution they weren't talking about letting every person because an army.
Click to expand...




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.


Back when the Constitution was new, the states owned their own militias, it's what made our Civil War so bad, every state had a private army.

The Second Amendment isn't aimed at the states, it's aimed at the federal government. The Second Amendment is saying the fed can't take a state's militia away.

States regulate their militias, not the fed. A state could say, all militia members have to be able to run a mile in under 12 minutes. A state can issue a gun license. Not the fed, the states can.
 
swing_voter said:
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.


Back when the Constitution was new, the states owned their own militias, it's what made our Civil War so bad, every state had a private army.

The Second Amendment isn't aimed at the states, it's aimed at the federal government. The Second Amendment is saying the fed can't take a state's militia away.

States regulate their militias, not the fed. A state could say, all militia members have to be able to run a mile in under 12 minutes. A state can issue a gun license. Not the fed, the states can.
Click to expand...

Pfft...can't you read? It obviously states that anyone is permitted to hsve any weapon at all. Including nuclear missiles. I need those to protect myself.
 
rocket88 said:
Translation: I disagree, therefore he is dumb. The NRA told me so.
Click to expand...

Correct translation, the man cannot read and or comprehend what he read. He is illiterate. I will be happy to do a basic sentence structure break down of the second amendment for you.
 
madasheck said:


I don't know why but I hadn't heard about this until recently. How come Burger got it and so many others don't? It's clear from the wording of the constitution they weren't talking about letting every person because an army.
Click to expand...



“Shall not be infringed”. It also had the later effect of not allowing sheriffs and marshals from disarming freed slaves, leaving them vulnerable to attack by racist whites.

Today, its a reminder that as a citizen you have the right of self defense and are not expected to sit in your chair and die waiting for the police to show up.
 
madasheck said:


I don't know why but I hadn't heard about this until recently. How come Burger got it and so many others don't? It's clear from the wording of the constitution they weren't talking about letting every person because an army.
Click to expand...
You accept of course that as a Supreme Court Justice, he could still be wrong....correct?
 
swing_voter said:
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.


Back when the Constitution was new, the states owned their own militias, it's what made our Civil War so bad, every state had a private army.

The Second Amendment isn't aimed at the states, it's aimed at the federal government. The Second Amendment is saying the fed can't take a state's militia away.

States regulate their militias, not the fed. A state could say, all militia members have to be able to run a mile in under 12 minutes. A state can issue a gun license. Not the fed, the states can.
Click to expand...
that is you putting YOUR spin on it. Now lets hear from THEM...

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

Warren was wrong on the 2nd Amendment. So are you.
 
joko104 said:
He was a seditious tyrant by definition. I am glad he's gone.
Click to expand...

when he was in office-liberals CORRECTLY noted he was a political hack, with minor league academic and legal credentials. One of the least intellectually nimble men to ever be appointed to the court in the modern era.
 
rocket88 said:
Pfft...can't you read? It obviously states that anyone is permitted to hsve any weapon at all. Including nuclear missiles. I need those to protect myself.
Click to expand...

that's really stupid. but you knew that. You might even know that the underlying purpose of the second amendment was to prevent the federal government from interfering with the natural right of self defense-a right the founders believed man had since the dawn of humankind, and which required arms to protect. Nuclear weapons are neither useful or proper for self defense by individual citizens and are not weapons that citizens can bear.
 
madasheck said:


I don't know why but I hadn't heard about this until recently. How come Burger got it and so many others don't? It's clear from the wording of the constitution they weren't talking about letting every person because an army.
Click to expand...


He was actually a Conservative judge, appointed by Richard Nixon. Truer words have never been spoken, as when he said the following --->

"The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."
 
TurtleDude said:
that's really stupid. but you knew that. You might even know that the underlying purpose of the second amendment was to prevent the federal government from interfering with the natural right of self defense-a right the founders believed man had since the dawn of humankind, and which required arms to protect. Nuclear weapons are neither useful or proper for self defense by individual citizens and are not weapons that citizens can bear.
Click to expand...

So are you sayong there are limits on the 2nd Anendment?

Does the natural to self defense include assault weapons?
 
PirateMk1 said:
Correct translation, the man cannot read and or comprehend what he read. He is illiterate. I will be happy to do a basic sentence structure break down of the second amendment for you.
Click to expand...

I recall there was something about a well regulated militia, not an unregulated free for all. I could be wrong.
 
rocket88 said:
So are you sayong there are limits on the 2nd Anendment?

Does the natural to self defense include assault weapons?
Click to expand...

why do you use that silly term-and if it is useful for civilian police officers to use for self defense, than it is clearly useful for private citizens and thus is covered.
 
rocket88 said:
Pfft...can't you read? It obviously states that anyone is permitted to hsve any weapon at all. Including nuclear missiles. I need those to protect myself.
Click to expand...

You can't afford a nuclear weapon, dude. :lamo
 
rocket88 said:
I recall there was something about a well regulated militia, not an unregulated free for all. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

That's why murder, assault and endangerment (with a firearm) are illegal.
 
apdst said:
That's why murder, assault and endangerment (with a firearm) are illegal.
Click to expand...

So that's the "well-regulated militia?"

P.S -- in other countries where they have stricter controls, i'm fairly sure murder is illegal. I'll check.
 
rocket88 said:
I recall there was something about a well regulated militia, not an unregulated free for all. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

Amendment 2 is often misconstrued, as many Constitutional scholars have pointed out. "Is necessary for a free state" is the clause applied to the militia. Then it discusses "people" in the second part of the same sentence, which makes it part of the same discussion - the militia. The "people of the militia" have the Right to Bear Arms. "Bear Arms" was a military term used over and over during the time.

It is an individual right, in that these people were spread across 13 states, in homes throughout the United States. If needed, they would be armed and ready. They were "well regulated". Others also had the Right to Bear Arms, but it wasn't protected by the Constitution. It was important that Militiamen were set apart from other citizens so that their "Rights could not be Infringed". This was understood throughout the Colonies.

The Libertarian lawyers and the NRA are overstepping their bounds today. Why do you think the NRA dishonestly depicts the 2nd Amendment on their headquarters wall, by withholding the "Militia" portion?
 
rocket88 said:
Why do you need an assault weapon for self defense? Couldn't you just as easily defend yourself with a handgun or a shotgun?
Click to expand...

To insure that I can outgun the bad guy.

Couldn't you just as easily defend yourself with a handgun or a shotgun?
Click to expand...

But, wait...y'all want to outlaw these, too...
 

Attachments

  • m4-tactical-shotgun-12-gauge.jpg
    m4-tactical-shotgun-12-gauge.jpg
    8.1 KB · Views: 45
  • SP01Phantom.jpg
    SP01Phantom.jpg
    19.4 KB · Views: 45
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom