Time's Alex Altman wrote a story online titled "The Future of Gun Control," which declares the text of the Second Amendment to be quite "puzzling" and "convoluted," but its liberal tilt clearly came through by how it described the justices:
The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Justice Antonin Scalia, the court's arch-conservative, wrote in the majority opinion....
In one of two dissenting opinions, Justice John Paul Stevens called Scalia's argument "strained and unpersuasive." He also blistered the majority for its expansive reading of the Amendment's "ambiguous" text.
Time illustrates my maxim that to the media, the epic battles of our time are fought between the arch-conservatives and the non-partisans.
Wouldn't your average American who wants to land in a reasonable, less ideological position lean left as they read this piece? Or maybe they're too busy laughing at the notion of a liberal scolding a conservative for an "expansive" reading of the Constitution. Altman also displayed a labeling imbalance at article's end:
Instead of rendering the Second Amendment a dormant law, the Court's ruling has given it life. "It is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct," Scalia wrote. That view aligns the Court's conservative wing with most current scholarly interpretations, says [Randy] Barnett, the Georgetown professor. But despite finally affixing its imprimatur on a reading of the convoluted Amendment, the Court's ruling raises nearly as many questions as it settles. As Justice Stevens wrote, it "leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope" of its impact.
Time's writer deserves credit for balancing the experts by using Randy Barnett, who's written and blogged a bit for National Review. I have his book Restoring the Lost Constitution.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I still remember reading,
June 28, 2008 - 08:32 ET by ELCoreI still remember reading, about 15-20 years ago, a news article in the Communist... er... I mean, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that described the make-up of SCOTUS then as 4 conservatives and 5 moderates.
Has Ted Kennedy ever been
June 28, 2008 - 08:48 ET by motherbeltHas Ted Kennedy ever been called an "arch liberal"?
Yeah, right. They don't even call Obama "liberal." They are feverishly revamping him as a "centrist."
Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson
Convoluted liberal logic
June 28, 2008 - 09:29 ET by nkviking75"But despite finally affixing its imprimatur on a reading of the convoluted Amendment..."
I seriously doubt that the framers left a convoluted sentence in the Bill of Rights. Here's the first paragraph of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
Does this sound like a group of men who'd overlook a "convoluted" amendment? No. The libs are just trying to confuse the issue to take away a right they don't like. The Second Amendment clearly secures the people's right to bear arms.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
I'm betting that the same
June 28, 2008 - 10:10 ET by motherbeltI'm betting that the same people who find the second amendment "convoluted" don't have any problem seeing into that "penumbra" around the fourth, where resides a right to abortion on demand.
Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson
When confronted with words
June 28, 2008 - 10:59 ET by sublight68When confronted with words that mean exactly what they appear to mean, Liberals immediately begin flailing and grasping for hidden nuance -- the better to reinterpret a statement into what they want it to mean.
In the Liberal world, "Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200" is open to Supreme Court review. How else to really get at what Parker Brothers meant?
Exactly
June 30, 2008 - 02:40 ET by GrannyGrump42It depends on what your definition of "is" is.
Remember, these are the people who wet their pants over the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act because it's far too difficult to ascertain for certain if an infant was actually born alive during an abortion. They want clearer definitions of "born" and "alive" and "infant". Look, you cretins: A live baby! A TODDLER could identify a live baby correctly with at least 99% accuracy, though they'd just leave out the "live" and say "Baby!"
It takes years of university training to lose this ability, and the Left is proud of this.
Simplicity
June 30, 2008 - 08:54 ET by KC MulvilleAsk a liberal if he's for or against abortion, and it'll usually start with "well, you have to take the whole picture into account ..." followed by several minutes on why we shouldn't focus on any one issue, including possible diversions into why such issues divide us, or the history of progressive thought, and the whole evolution of women's rights, all culminating in a vigorous defense of raising the minimum wage.
Ask a conservative, and he'll answer: "Against."
Justice Stevens is Strained and Unpersausive
June 28, 2008 - 09:39 ET by allanfTime wrote:
Funny that is exactly how I felt about Steven's opinion. He harkened back to a Massachusetts town's colonial era law that prohibited guns inside buildings. No doubt that one was dug up by some Harvard researcher pouring through archives. Now that is strained.
The argument that the Second Amendment protects the right of the states to form militia's or the right of people in militia's to carry guns is also strained. For that really protects nothing. Article I already stated, that Congress shall have the power
The Fifth Amendment also mentions the Militia. It was understood to be a function of the States and incorporated into the main body of the Constitution.
Sorry Justice Stevens, the only conclusion one can come to is that the Second Amendment protect the right of citizens to keep and bear arms so that milita's could be formed quickly and called forth. The right was not limited to citizens in militias. An armed citizenry was viewed as a hedge against tyranny.
Stevens inadvertently affirmed guns rights
June 28, 2008 - 11:56 ET by wdhorningI just wanted to add, that if Stevens pointed out a restriction that inside certain buildings in the 1700s, guns were not allowed, it implicitly means guns *were* allowed in the streets, obviously carried by individuals, (since guns do not walk around by themselves and since such a restriction would not have existed if no citizens ever carried guns, implying they *did* carry guns). So Stevens has inadverdently confirmed that individuals carried guns for self-defense. And all this was re-affirmed by the Bill of Rights.
To check guns at the front door of certain buildings is not an infringment, but rather a contractual agreement that an individual temporarily suspends his/her right to carry arms in exchange for entrance to the building (also known as "house rules" on private property). Even today, police, who are authorized to carry guns, have to check their guns at the door of say prisons, mental hospitals, etc. So Stevens' statement proves nothing other than "house rules" existed then, as they do now.
Further evidence that Stevens' statement proves nothing is that the government cannot search our persons without probable cause or a search warrant, for example, but this right is not violated when we voluntarily give up that right at the airport in exchange for the right to fly on a private airplane, that is, "house rules" do apply to private property, without infringing on rights, since we voluntarily give up these rights, that is, no one takes those rights away from us by "force."
Thus Stevens actually affirms that the streets are public and that in the streets is where citizens can carry weapons (and of course in their own private homes), just not unto private property, unless the owner of that private property grants permission, based on "house rules" for private property.
Another right in the Bill of Rights is free speech, but on private property you must conform to some rules of order, or the owner has the perfect right to reject you for disorderly conduct, if the owner does not like what you are saying.
So Stevens' argument is meaningless, and even proves citizens rights to carry guns on public streets. (I have to ask how this man was ever affirmed by the Senate to be a judge on the Supreme Court, since his reasoning is so flawed, IHMO.)
Somewhere along the way, "house rules" got extended to include public streets and even on one's own private property, thus infringing on the right to carry arms, which has now finally been corrected by the Supreme Court.
Agreed, allanf
June 28, 2008 - 12:04 ET by KC MulvilleThe story, as I understand it, is that the Framers didn't want a large, federal, standing army. John Adams worried that if some future tyrant emerged, he'd use a permanent army to subdue the citizens, and not just for external defense. It was a valid worry, because that's how George III used Britain's army against the colonials. Obviously, if a permanent federal army did exist, their first move against internal opposition would be to disarm the state militias. So, to assure the states that the federal government wouldn't trample each state's militia, the Framers handcuffed themselves from infringing on the right of people to keep weapons.
But the right they refused to infringe was an already existing individual right. The right to keep weapons wasn't created by the need for a militia; it was merely enhanced by it.
Remember, this was written at the time when America had a frontier. People who lived on the frontier were subject to attack at any time, and neighbors didn't have much time to assemble at some central place. They had to be ready to start shooting immediately. And having weapons wasn't a personal option that only gun-lovers should indulge. Your neighbors were depending on you to help fight off any attacks - it was considered your social responsibility to be ready to help them.
The more I consider this,
June 28, 2008 - 10:24 ET by lotrThe more I consider this, the more disturbed I am by it. Are we to take it that there are "far left" judges on the court who believe that one of the Bill of Rights is now defunct? Huh? And here I thought it took another Amendment to negate a previous one. One vote, folks. Chew on that.
Give credit to the MSM for
June 28, 2008 - 10:54 ET by lotrGive credit to the MSM for outdoing itself here. But so it is with sensationalism. I don't know about anybody else, but for some reason the prefix "Arch" seems to conjur up images of superheros versus arch-rivals and arch-enemies.
There is no ambiguity
June 28, 2008 - 11:12 ET by wdhorningWithout the phrase, "being necessary to the security of a free State," the second Admendment would read: "A well regulated Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Such a reading shows that there is a "list" with two items in it, namely, "Militia" and individuals keeping and bearing arms. What cannot be infringed on is these two things in this list. Furthermore, for those who say this only reflects a collective right in a militia, if the government has any actual control of a militia or armed citizens, it is a de facto infringement by the government. And "well-regulated" does not necessarily mean government regulated, but as it was in the 1700's, self-regulated, which still qualifies as "well-regulated." So even the national guard is not a true militia, since it is run by state governors, rather than by self-appointed "regulators."
The Bill of Rights was intended to give the people (individuals) their rights and to limit the power of government somewhat. Those who say the government has to regulate militias and guns for individuals have missed the true intent of the Bill of Rights, to limit government intrusion and overbearing power and to truly give citizens freedom and power and control over their own lives. Anybody who would want government to be overbearing is just stupid, especially when such personal freedoms and rights have been "purchased" and preserved with so many lives on the battlefield.
In short, Americans have been given great "gifts" that many others do not have, so why squander or toss them away? Giving up these rights is just plain stupid. Not having the means for self-defense or the right to form private militias is "suicide" and tosses away a great gift given to us by our forefathers and the lives of soldiers on battlefields from the Revolutionary war and up to and including modern day wars.
Collective Right
June 28, 2008 - 11:33 ET by allanfArticle I of the Constitution provided for State Militia's and stated, that Congress shall have the power
The 2nd Amendment was not designed to protect something which was already provided for in the Constitution. The ability of citizens to form Militia's was viewed as a defense against tryanny.
An armed citizenry was necessary for the formation of militias. The right is an individual right for citizens to arm themselves.
"Such a reading shows that
June 28, 2008 - 16:04 ET by lotr"Such a reading shows that there is a "list" with two items in it, namely, "Militia" and individuals keeping and bearing arms. What cannot be infringed on is these two things in this list."
Correct. Glad to know there are folks out there who were still taught how to read a sentence in plain English. Evidentally the far left SCOTUS idiots got stupid during all their elite education.
Arch-anything versus "moderate"
June 28, 2008 - 13:32 ET by Edward CropperLiberalism is a brain disease. It destroys the area of the brain that allows a human being to think rationally, to be fair, honest, balanced and cordial.
Liberals fall into two Muslim categories.
They would Sunni be wrong than give forth truth, wisdom and light or they have Shiite for brains.
I like that----
June 28, 2008 - 13:37 ET by misterbill"They would Sunni be wrong than give forth truth, wisdom and light or they have Shiite for brains."
That's MY name!
June 28, 2008 - 16:59 ET by ArchConservativeI cannot believe that they would use the copyrighted term of "arch-conservative" without my permission. Makes me want to sue.
You support the troops by supporting the mission! If you don't support the mission, have the guts to say you don't support the troops.
Those bastards. I guess
June 28, 2008 - 17:58 ET by lotrThose bastards. I guess both you and Justice Scalia should take it as a compliment!