For those of you who've stated that Gun Guys.com is an "idiotic" website...

[zanne]

What do you think of this website? Are they idiots, too?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sanford-levinson/dc-v-heller-a-dismaying-p_b_109472.html


Sanford Levinson: DC v. Heller: A Dismaying Performance By The Supreme Court
If Scalia and Stevens were competent historians, then it might be worth reading what they write. But they are not. Both offer selective readings of history to support what seem to be pre-determined positions.

No? How about these guys?

Enough Keith v. Glenn - Scalia Just Ruined the Country

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/27/114446/503/215/542865

Then how about these guys?

Repeal the Second Amendment
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/vox_pop/2008/06/repeal-the-2nd.html

[AmyCamus]

1. You forgot one:

www.smallpenis.com

[SteveM]

4. First thing that -- "popped" -- in your mind? (nt)

[Tejas]

7. probably so.....they never

can answer why women like guns too. I've yet to see a gun-grabber say that all women that like firearms wish they had a penis. Don't think that would go over very well.

[SteveM]

11. Second Wave feminism don't 'low no smokin' in dis house (nt)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

2. The only guy you link to, who has a clue (the Law Professor) agrees it's an individual right.

The other links are to an anthropologist and to a newspaper editorial. Who cares what they have to say? They are no more informed than many of the posts here.

David

[jody]

3. Fact is SCOTUS says the 2nd protects an individual RKBA. You can plead all you want but,

"The Fat Lady Has Sung"!

Even the four dissenting justices, STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER acknowledge that RKBA is an individual inalienable right by citing PA and VT declarations of rights.

IMO the differences among the justices is that SCALIA, ROBERTS, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO said that the individual RKBA is an enumerated right protected by the Second Amendment while STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER implied that the individual RKBA they recognized was an un-enumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment.

In that sense, SCOTUS was 9-0 for recognizing individual RKBA is protected by our Constitution.

[varkam]

5. HuffPo is an idiotic website, albeit for entirely different reasons eom

[zanne]

6. What do you dislike about HuffPo? nt

[varkam]

8. I mainly dislike the pseudoscientific hotbed that it has become.

Other than that, it's fine.

[gorfle]

9. Some are fine web sites.

I enjoy the Huffington Post and Daily Kos. I had not been to the other site as I recall.

All of the articles are basically hand-wringing over issues that the SCOTUS has finally settled as a matter of law. The fact of the matter is, as of the Heller decision, all these people's opinions are at odds with the Supreme Court of the United States. As a matter of law, they are now factually incorrect in their opinions.

We could hash all their usual arguments, that have been going on for decades, over again, but what's the point?

The Huffington Post article does not condemn the ruling outright, but rather is displeased with the research of the justices, and seems mostly pleased that the ruling did not become a political card to play in the upcoming election. I'm also glad of this.

The Daily Kos article is a re-hash of the much worn-out argument over which right is more "American" - the right to free speech or the right to bear arms. Kos, predictably, makes the assertion that it is the right to free speech that is most important, ignoring the fact, of course, that a man with a gun can make you say what he wants, while a man with a speech can't make a man with a gun do much of anything.

They say:

"In that argument are the seeds of a fundamental change in what it means to be an American citizen--what it means to be a free person. On the one hand, we have a vision of the world where one is free by virtue of the right to express oneself. On the other hand, we have a vision of the world where one is free by virtue of the right to shoot a potential attacker."

Of course what the last sentence should says is that, "On the other hand, we have a vision of the world where one is free by virtue of the right to resist tyranny.

This, also, is an ancient relic of an argument used by anti-gun folks since forever - the idea that armed revolution in modern civilized society is obsolete. Again from the article:

"Scalia is arguing much more than the definition of 'right to bear arms' as put down in the 2nd Amendment. He is arguing that fundamental meaning of citizenship in The Constitution is a reaction against the oppression of Protestants by 17c English monarchy! If we accept this definition, we are left with the flawed and violent idea of a American citizenship--with an idea of citizenship grounded in the idea that a tyranny begins with government taking away the guns of citizens. In essence, Scalia is replacing the idea of a fundamental right on which American citizenship is based--booting freedom of expression to second or even fifth place, and pushing to the head of the line a supposed right to bear arms in cases of confrontation."

The passage is flawed in that while the fundamental meaning of citizenship in The Constitution is a reaction against the oppression of Protestants by 17c English Monarchy, the reason for this fundamental meaning of citizenship is because our founding fathers anticipated that such oppression could happen again! Whether tyranny may or may not begin with government taking away the guns of citizens is beside the point - the point is that the fundamental right on which American citizenship is based is a right - not a supposed right - but the right to bear arms in cases of confrontation - against oppression, both individual and state-sponsored.

I haven't the time to go through the final article, but I'm sure it's more of the same, tired arguments that have now, hopefully, been put to bed as a matter of law.

Finally, finally, finally, we no longer need debate things like:

1) Are guns only for people in a militia? The answer, by law, is now "no".

2) What was the ideal behind an armed citizenry? The answer, by law, is now "In case of rightful confrontation, either against the state or individual"

3) Is there an individual right to bear arms? The answer, by law, is now "yes".

If websites like the above continue to hand-wring about these points it may not make them idiots, but, in fact of law, it does make them wrong.

And I am very happy about that.

[SteveM]

10. I agree that the law professor has a better take...

I would have been happy if the case had been remanded. I don't think it would have changed much as D.C. will probably try to keep its law in effect by subterfuge and the case would then be right back in the courts.

And Levinson remains an advocate of an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Frankly, if you want to repeal the Second Amendment, go ahead and try. You have the right under Article V.

[hansberrym]

12. Yes, they are idiots, especially this one...

This author clearly did not read the opinion. The dissent relies on the supposed ambiguity of the main clause.


Repeal the second amendment:

If the founders had limited themselves to the final 14 words, the amendment would have been an unambiguous declaration of the right to possess firearms. But they didn’t and it isn’t. The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias

The author actually agrees with one of the majority's key arguments -the wording of main clause is unambiguos.

From the decision:
3 As Sutherland explains, the key 18th-century English case on the
effect of preambles, Cope man v. Gallant, 1 P. Wms. 314, 24 Eng. Rep.
404 (1716), stated that “the preamble could not be used to restrict the
effect of the words of the purview.” J. Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory
Construction, 47.04 (N. Singer ed. 5th ed. 1992). This rule was
modified in England in an 1826 case to give more importance to the
preamble, but in America “the settled principle of law is that the
preamble cannot control the enacting part of the statute in cases where
the enacting part is expressed in clear, unambiguous terms.” Ibid.
JUSTICE STEVENS says that we violate the general rule that every
clause in a statute must have effect. Post, at 8. But where the text of a
clause itself indicates that it does not have operative effect, such as
“whereas” clauses in federal legislation or the Constitution’s preamble,
a court has no license to make it do what it was not designed to do. Or
to put the point differently, operative provisions should be given effect
as operative provisions, and prologues as prologues.

[jody]

13. "Repeal the Second Amendment"? That's not easy because nine state constitutions prohibit their

legislatures from voting to repeal a right enumerated in their state constitutions.

The Constitution says "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government".

Those state constitutions have been accepted without question.

It's entirely possible that SCOTUS might rule that the 14th protects the other 41 states re inalienable rights just as it does the nine states discussed in the links below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=226x6363

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=176528&mesg_id=176528

[SlipperySlope]

14. Yes - all idiots, or possibly liars.

Anybody who can study the history of the Second Amendment and come to the conclusion that it protects anything other than an individual right is either an idiot or a liar.

Sanford Levinson (your first link) is of course neither. He personally believes the Second Amendment supports an individual right, and he personally expected the DC statutes to be struck down. The article you link to is primarily a criticism of the reliance on history by both the majority opinion and the Steven's dissent. Levinson would prefer the Constitution be more open to interpretation and less grounded in original intent.

Jeffrey Feldman (your second link) is clearly either an idiot or a liar. He has a bogus theory that somehow the numbering of the amendments in the Bill of Rights sets a precedence to them, a theory which has never found traction in any court and ignores the fact that the first article to the Bill of Rights (which he would have seen as being the MOST important) never even passed and became an amendment. Then he moves on to some odd misunderstanding on the nature of US citizenship, which didn't even exist prior to the 1860s. (Before that, US citizenship only came about through State citizenship). The logic of this article is so grotesque that my curiosity got the best of me and I had to google Feldman. What I found made it clear he is unqualified to speak on either the Constitution or the Second Amendment, so let's move on.

As for the editors of the Chicago Tribune, it is clear they have spent NO time studying this issue and are merely having a knee-jerk reaction to the rightful determination that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Without study, this places them in the camp of being idiots, and thankfully not liars. At least they have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that if they don't like the individual right to bear arms, then the Second should be repealed and dishonestly redefined into nothingness.

Speaking of Chicago; I have good news for the citizens of this city - you are next. The attorneys behind the Heller case have just filed a complaint in McDonald v. Chicago. Chicago will be the model to extend 14th Amendment Incorporation to the Second Amendment.

[aikoaiko]

15. gunguys are anonymous progandaists supported by an antigun foundation with no attempt to dialogue

Huffpost, in general, and the levinson, in particular, use their names, are not generally funded by antigun foundations and are accountable to the readership through comments and emails.


Big differences between the two.