Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   1 comment
OpEdNews Op Eds

Gun Violence in America

By       Message Stephen Lendman     Permalink
      (Page 4 of 8 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Well Said 1   Interesting 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Author 194
Become a Fan
  (191 fans)
"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."

Journalist/historian Garry Wills calls supportive Second Amendment  views muddled and tendentious. Their arguments replicate insurrectionist ones.

"Only madmen, one would think, can suppose that militias have a constitutional right to levy war against the United States, which is treason by constitutional definition."

"Yet the body of writers who proclaim themselves at the scholarly center of the Second Amendment's interpretation say that a well-regulated body authorized by the government is intended to train itself for action against the government."

He added that "Perhaps it is the quality of their arguments that makes them hard to take seriously."

In 2008, a District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court amicus curiae submitted by 15 prominent academics and writers concluded as follows:

"Historians are often asked what the Founders would think about various aspects of contemporary life. Such questions can be tricky to answer." 

"But as historians of the Revolutionary era we are confident at least of this: that the authors of the Second Amendment would be flabbergasted to learn that in endorsing the republican principle of a well-regulated militia, they were also precluding restrictions on such potentially dangerous property as firearms, which governments had always regulated when there was 'real danger of public injury from individuals.' "

Law Professor David C. Williams says Second Amendment interpretation reflects myths about America. The framers believed in unity, he said.

Modern interpreters endorse distrust and disunity, he believes. The Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms only as part of a united and consensual people, he stresses.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8

 

- Advertisement -

Well Said 1   Interesting 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

I was born in 1934, am a retired, progressive small businessman concerned about all the major national and world issues, committed to speak out and write about them.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon



Go To Commenting
/* The Petition Site */
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The McCain-Lieberman Police State Act

Daniel Estulin's "True Story of the Bilderberg Group" and What They May Be Planning Now

Continuity of Government: Coup d'Etat Authority in America

America Facing Depression and Bankruptcy

Lies, Damn Lies and the Murdoch Empire

Mandatory Swine Flu Vaccine Alert