before 1939, it is legally accepted that the Second Amendment relates to Article I, Section 8, Clause 16--
See quotations in the post
"Why I hate the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment and so should you."
Yes, WM, you shout try to understand the post before making comments. Try moving your lips when you read.And I ask you the same question I asked Cowman here:
show that Patrick Henry's "The great object is, that every man be armed" speech from 3 Elliot's Debates 384-7 (June 14, 1788) found here and this speech from Elliot 3:51--52 found here have nothing to do with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16, which states:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
and deals with a personal right to arms outside the militia context.
1939 S.C. says that:
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces (The Article I, Section 8, clause 15 & 16 Militias), the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. See US v. Miller
1939 > 2008 Courts follow the Holding in US v Miller which the court in Sandidge v. United States, 520 A.2d 1057 (D.C. 1987) says
We agree with numerous other courts that "the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right...The purpose of the second amendment is "to preserve the effectiveness and assure the continuation of the state militia."
The fact that I can provide documented proof that you are incorrect in our assertion that "Almost everyone knows it is an individual right"--only ignorant people like yourself believed this.
2008 Scalia misinterprets the Second Amendment much to the Joy of most people. A few scholars are disgusted by this decision. The Heller decision changes settled law to unsettled law with 5 Justices following Scalia's new interpretation and 4 the Civic right intepretation.
see:
Posner, Richard A. (2008-08-27). "In Defense of Looseness". The New Republic.
Wilkinson, J. Harvie (2009). "Of Guns, Abortions, and the Unraveling Rule of Law". Virginia Law Review 95 (2): 253.
Shaman, Jeffrey M.,The Wages of Originalist Sin: District of Columbia v. Heller (July 17, 2008).
2010. Alito totally comes up with one of the most ridiculous opinions in McDonald v. Chicago by saying that the Second Amendment, which was intended to address the Federal powers applies to the State. Even more ridiculous was the fact that Justice Stevens failed to address this absurdity in his dissent and played along with the incorporation silliness.
The fact that no one is screaming over Alitos baseless and silly opinion proves that the Second Amendment is a historic relic, the meaning of which has been lost over the passing of time.
FWM, I provide cites, you provide ignorant bullshit.
