Washington Post 2A article

[hdatontodo]

mobile link

http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/n...d71e22-829a-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[platoonDaddy]

“It was a settled question, and the overwhelming consensus, bordering on unanimity, was that the Second Amendment granted a collective right” enjoyed by the states, not individuals, Bogus said. Under this interpretation, the Constitution provides no right for an individual to possess a firearm.

Currently the comments are 2-1 for the ban. Of course it is the post readers whom are overwhelming progressives.

 

[tomgreco]

Some great comments disputing the gun grabbers' flawed interpretation.

 

[Justin B.C.]

The tone of the article is odd. It has this weird schizophrenic pro/anti vibe to me.

 

[EL1227]

Commented ... and already the WaPo's KoolAid drinkers are taking shots ...

The Post's headline statement is true ... NRA money has helped reshape gun law; guns laws that had been so twisted and misshapened by progressive politicians and compliant media over decades of assault. The fact of the matter is that the money the NRA uses to protect our God-given civil right that is guaranteed by The Bill of Rights, comes from their membership, whether it's yearly members like myself or lifetime endowment members and the firearms industry.

Imagine if you will what the Washington Post would do if laws were suddenly put in place to curtail your 1st Amendment right to a free press. Would your advertisers and readers come to your rescue; the equivalent of the NRA's manufacturers and members ? Wouldn't the Washington Post be declaring their Civil Rights to anyone who would care to listen ? I'm sure they would.

Bottom line, if the citizens of the United States want to change the 2nd Amendment, there is a process documented in Article V of the Constitution, which spells out the processes by which amendments can be proposed and ratified by a 3/4 majority of the states. It doesn't require that the President either sign or veto it because the ratification process, like The Bill of Rights, belongs to The People, not the Poser-in-Chief who occupies the White House now.

Good luck with that ...

 

[Kashmir1008]

Commented ... and already the WaPo's KoolAid drinkers are taking shots ...

Was reading through some of your posts Ed, well done. I jumped in as well. For the most part those Internet comments pages are a waste of time but I don't like to let there viewpoint go unopposed, especially when our side can present facts and coherent discussion points.

Occasionally you meet someone who can actually understand our side of the discussion and incorporate the logic we present.

Rare but it does happen.

 

[Vic]

I find it amazing that this is being brought up now. For one thing, it was a 5/4 decision that D.C. couldn't stop individuals from having guns. However, the entire 9 Justices agreed that it was an individual right. The 5/4 split was based on how can the government control the access to guns and can they ban certain types of guns. Again, all 9 agreed it is an individual right, period.

Good to see some lawyers and law professors can't read plain English. What a putz!

Vic

 

[HICAPMAG]

I thought the article was reasonably balanced, and that says a lot coming from the Washington Post (most mornings that paper makes me ill). The underlying theme, however, is that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is malleable, and that the NRA has altered the heretofore common understanding of the Amendment (only a State right to have a militia) simply through aggressive support of pro-2nd Amendment legal scholars. What the article fails to acknowledge is that the NRA sponsored research moved the needle because of the overwhelming historical validation of the Amendment's true meaning and purpose. That is the truth that the Post will never acknowledge.

 

[pilotguy]

Did anyone else notice the last name of one of their quoted experts:

...said Carl T. Bogus, a professor at Roger Williams University School of Law in Rhode Island and the editor of “The Second Amendment in Law and History,”

 

[K31]

Did anyone else notice the last name of one of their quoted experts:

Hey, Mia Buttreeks happens to agree with Professor Bogus's interpretation.

I don't see how this is balanced at all. He is basically saying the NRA bought the opinion that the 2nd is an individual right. He also believes the Constitution bestows rights rather than enumerates some of them.

 

[pilotguy]

I guess Mr. Bogus forgot that the collective right mentality came about in the 20th century, so we are really changing back.

 

[Hopalong]

I'm seeing some references to NAACP changing racial segregation law and Planned Parenthood changing abortion law pop up now. I wonder how those will go over....