When someone banged on CJ Burger's door late at night, he answered it with a pistol in hand.  combined with his public stance on the 2A, that tells you everything you need to know about the man.

Kharn

That stupid fuck wrote that one.

We accept a system that provide a peaceful application of the law. It is far from perfect but as all things involving humans, it is better than anything else. We could become a society bent on violence on every whim but then we would be another 3d world shit hole run by anarchists and tyrants. Would you prefer a society where social credits established by the party in power decide who the social winners and losers are?

There is a way to remove a sitting Justice but if used would creat havoc of the worst kind. No Justice would last long enough to change the name on the door. Stevens is a failed political appointment and demonstrates the need for a better vetting process.

Citation to Miller's murder?
Never read that before.

Read your history... The US Supreme Court is only good at doing one thing, that is to kick the can a little further down the road... at least until the next civil war. We almost had another one 100 years after the first.

Oops, I was partly off, he was murdered 7 days after the case was "argued" (without Miller or his attorney) and a month before the decision.

US V. Miller Argued March 30, 1939, Decided May 15, 1939
http://rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html
"Alas, Jack Miller's end was an unhappy one. The Southwest American reported on April 6, 1939, that Miller's body had been found in the "nearly dry" bed of Little Spencer creek, nine miles southwest of Chelesa, Oklahoma. He had been shot four times with a .38. Miller's ".45 calibre pistol," from which he had fired three shots in his defense, was found near his body. He was forty years old."

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2337
https://supremecourtstudy2013.wordpress.com/united-states-vs-miller-gun-control/
https://guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html

Even through your lens of libertinism I would hope you have the reasoning to acknowledge that (1) gay marriage has not existed anywhere at any time in the millennia of recorded history and (2) a court deciding that it was the new law of the land overnight, imposing it without thought or concern or caution, perhaps is a bit of judicial overreach?

But do not let me interrupt you from your moral superiority complex, so non-chalantly displayed in the guise of amoralism.

I love when somebody uses “facts” to defend their position on something when they are actually using “half-truths”.  Using a half-truth typically leaves enough information for the uninformed to see the conclusion as being reasonable.

For starters, it was not “the country” that was concerned with the federal governments ability to control state militias. It was a disagreement between the federalists and anti-federalists. The prefatory clause does refer to this concern over the power of the federal government to control state militia and Madison did place it there to connect this issue to the second amendment. Still, anybody that read the federalist papers (and in the old English writing style you would have to read it several times to understand it in modern terms), the wording of the 2A becomes unmistakably clear and unambiguous.

Madison himself stated (in so many words) that the power of the federal government over state militias should not a be concern because it was the PEOPLE who held the power in their individual right to bear arms anyway.

This satisfied the anti-federalists on the issue at hand regarding Article 1, section 8, and  allowed it to stay intact. By enshrining the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms in the 2A, the disagreement over article 1, section 8, was now moot. Both sides were then satisfied.

If it had meant anything else whatsoever, it would not have resolved the problem at hand. It is only when interpreted in this way that the 2A resolves the problem for both sides.

His conclusion is wrong. Period.

if only there was a mechanism to arbitrate these moral conflicts and disagreements that didn't consist solely of a robed oligarchy of elitists

Yep. They are ignorant morons, disingenuous vermin, or both.

When the founders meant people, they say people.  When the founders meant States, they said States.

Given how the whole document was written, I'm gonna go out on a limb and postulate that the authors were not illiterate fucks (i.e. not typical public school liberals).

Therefore, they probably, you know, meant what they said.  Had the 2nd said "States" instead of people, they they could argue that the founders meant "The National Guard" (which didn't exist at the time, but they never let facts get in the way of their bullshit).

2nd: "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."

10th:  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If anything, the use of both terms in the 10th serves to make the distinction and further support the fact that where the 2nd says people, it means people.

Finally, anyone even vaguely familiar with the Federalist Papers and the literary style at the time knows exactly what they meant, and that "well regulated" didn't mean "well contained and restrained by the government", but instead meant "well practiced and equipped."

The lying left would have us believe that in one fucking sentence, the founders meant something akin to this:

"A government controlled and restricted-by-law militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the individual states to keep police forces to better oppress the people shall not be infringed."

Yes, that must be it.  In a section of the document, called the Bill of Rights, there's this wildcard inserted to focus on restriction of rights because guns were scary and uncommon back then, and there were soy latte drinking soccer moms bitching about "drum magazines" and shoulder things that go up.....in 1791.

Or hell, even:

"A government controlled and restricted-by-law militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You know, because the first clause and the last four words aren't contradictory at all.

The fact that this bullshit argument is given credence by anyone with a third grade education or higher just illustrates just how fucked this country is.

I should start a propaganda campaign claiming that anyone insisting that 4+4 does not in fact equal ten is somehow racist, and they'll be burning their math books and calculators.  The number line will be a modern symbol of hate and subrogation of the downtrodden to the racial bias inherent in the number 4.

And this motherfucker, well, he'll be drawn and quartered.  (Quartered meaning 5 pieces of course)

LOL

Preach!

1) Don't care.
2) Yes, that is a judicial overreach.

But hey, I am just a morally bankrupt libertine who cheers on the inevitable collapse of western civilization due to the awesome inescapable forces exhibited by the existential threat of gays getting married.

100%

Burger never wrote a legal opinion about the Second Amendment. He wrote about the 'fraud' in an article for Parade magazine after he retired.

http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/crburger.htm

There is comrade.  Do you not realize your insistence that behavior must be effectively regulated by legal compulsion is doomed to failure?  Fear not, though Tovarisch.

All that remains is the destruction of the class structure.  Join me in the inevitable victory of the proletariat.

I guess he missed the whole point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the citizens from government.

John Podesta said so in his email...

fucktardery.

Hold on this is printed in ''The Atlantic''

The original draft of the Bill of Rights written by James Madison says otherwise:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Does this mean that when one hits 46, you can't bear arms any more?

Militia is an ad hoc force, meaning that each iteration of militia is raised from a pool of available people in response to some contingency. Some iterations of militia might be consequentially linked to official acts of the government, but just as A -> B does not yield B -> A, the fact that the government provides organization, training, and support to particular instances of militia, does not yield the inference that only that officially organized and sanctioned instance of militia is the only militia that might legitimately be raised, or operate, in the name of the sovereign people.

Again, no, militias are not inherently ad hoc forces.  Some organized militias have existed since medieval times.  The idea that the militia is inherently ad hoc and "in the name of a sovereign people" seems to be pretty novel and one largely put forth by members or advocates of the various private militia groups found in the U.S.  In Anglo-American history, ad hoc was the exception, not the norm.  Same pretty much everywhere else in the West where the militia was (or is) a significant institution.

Oh, he understands it. He just dismisses it, that's all.

Because agenda.

That is correct. It wasn't a shopping center, though. It was slated to be a research center and condos. The economy tanked a year after the ruling and nothing was ever built.

Militias are bottom up organizations that are situational in nature. Therefore they are ad hoc. Whatever organization or structure is laid out ahead of time does not change this fundamental nature.

But they aren't, despite your claim to the contrary, if we go by the history of the militia dating back over a millennium.  They can be, but aren't necessarily so.  To the extent they can be bottom-up, it tends to be because it is local governments that found them, but they still are maintained and serve that community or polity.

Ad hoc militias are inherently ineffective, despite the militia movement wanting to believe otherwise.

The fuck? "the dubious proposition that the Second Amendment was intended to limit the federal power to regulate the civilian use of handguns."  What the hell is wrong with him?  What a beyond ignorant, purposely false statement.  It's not ambiguous, and it certainly isn't "dubious."  He probably thinks his own gender is dubious.  I would identify him biologically as a TWAT.

I wonder if he actually believes that nonsense.  The 2nd Amendment is just too clearly worded to anyone who understand English, and the context makes the meaning all the more obvious.

I wonder how he'd answer if asked what part of the Constitution, absent the 2nd Amendment, permits the Feds to regulate, restrict, controul, or prohibit handgun use by the populace.

afghanistan proves that.

Enemy of the constitution doing enemy shit.

I hope he's alive for the reckoning

Yeah... You know these guys are ready to get some:



There won't be any reckoning.

Because that's the contract.

If you don't, you are welcome to declare your independence with that entails (life, fortune, sacred honor and all that). See how well that works for you.

Heller was one of the best.

The worst of his time was Citizens United.

You have to go back to Korematsu v US to encounter a worse decision.

True.  It's also true that there are no mechanisms in place to deal with judicial activism & legislation from the bench, which the framers assumed wouldn't occur, just because they "shouldn't".

Commies and other tyrants have a stranglehold.

Until they don't.

There won't be a reckoning.

When we balkanize because of the damn near religious grasp people hold onto politics, no one in New York or California is going to fight to keep Texas in the union.  Nor will anyone from Texas want to fight to make sure New Yorkers and Californians move to the newfound country.  2 Americas, with the only fighting being the negotiations between how many nukes the new country gets to keep.  Anyone who would want to fight the ground war would leave whatever the fuck the left wants to do to the country.  Let them have their socialist experiment.

All the right is is a bunch of irredeemable deplorable.  Who the fuck wants to keep them in the country?