I'm guessing that some of the inmates will not find this amusing.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/take-it-from-mike-royko-machineguns-dont-kill/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
I guess now I'm not just a deplorable, I'm must also be an inmate ... I don't find it amusing.
I guess now I'm not just a deplorable, I'm must also be an inmate ... I don't find it amusing.
"They say it is their constitutional right to bear arms. (Actually, it isn’t. They always leave off the part that says the right to bear arms is so this country will have a strong “militia”). But if somebody can claim it is his constitutional right to keep a .38 in his dresser drawer, I don’t see why we can’t buy machineguns. After all, anything a pistol can do, a machinegun can do better."
I actually agree with all of this except the "Actually, it isn't" part. All you have to do is read a little of what the authors of the constitution have to say about what a militia is to understand why they made this "the right of the people". That exact phrase is also used in the 1st and 4th amendments. So yes it is my constitutional right to have a .38 or a Block 21 and better still a full auto AR. Making them illegal is certainly an infringement.
That Royko article was written more than 20 years ago. If I'm not mistaken it was only after the 2008 Heller decision with Justice Scalia at the helm did the Supremes rule that the militia aspect was not relevant and that all citizens had the right to bear arms.
Joe, if it's any consolation we are all inmates in this loony bin. Cannot comment on your deplorability.
Which is why the often overlooked 9th amendment may in fact be the most important one IMO.
That Royko article was written more than 20 years ago. If I'm not mistaken it was only after the 2008 Heller decision with Justice Scalia at the helm did the Supremes rule that the militia aspect was not relevant and that all citizens had the right to bear arms.You are correct that the Heller case was the first time that the U.S. Supreme Court specifically addressed that issue, but it was always a canard: the ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights are all about protecting the individual rights of the people, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment says the "right of the people . . . shall not be infringed" and nowhere else in the Bill of Rights or Constitution do we interpret "the people" to mean "state militia or national guard". For full analysis, the Heller opinion is a better resource than me (I'm past the point of getting pulled into long internet debates).
Fact of the matter is, the constitution does not grant us any rights. The right to speak my mind, the right to privacy, the right to defend myself with arms, among others, are inalienable rights and the Bill of Rights is a prohibition to the government not to violate those rights. Which is why the often overlooked 9th amendment may in fact be the most important one IMO.
We are the militia. Not the army.
Read what the Framers meant when they write the BoR.
.....(I'm past the point of getting pulled into long internet debates).
You are correct that the Heller case was the first time that the U.S. Supreme Court specifically addressed that issue, but it was always a canard: the ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights are all about protecting the individual rights of the people, the main clause of the 2nd Amendment says the "right of the people . . . shall not be infringed" and nowhere else in the Bill of Rights or Constitution do we interpret "the people" to mean "state militia or national guard".
Agreed, but what makes us a well-regulated militia?
This thread was started as an appreciation of Royko's timeless sardonic humor, not to revive the quarantined "gun control" thread.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all in favor of more rights than fewer rights. But these inalienable rights that you claim, are absolute rights or conditional rights?
It doesn't matter. The force and operational statement of the 2nd couldn't be more clear and direct:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed