- Messages
- 17,471
- Reactions
- 36,484
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
British common law is actually the basis for a lot of us law and is considered in decisions today.Reading the article I have a question for the old judge. What the hell do British laws put in place prior to even our declaration of independence have to do with the 2nd Amendment that wasn't law in the USA until 1791 or for that matter even a law passed by Americans prior to Dec 15 1791 when the Bill of rights was ratified.
If he wants to believe that only weapons suitable for a militia should be allowed, I am all for it. That should take the air out of anti-black gun groups. By the way we are the militia (the people) IMHO.
Reading the article I have a question for the old judge. What the hell do British laws put in place prior to even our declaration of independence have to do with the 2nd Amendment that wasn't law in the USA until 1791 or for that matter even a law passed by Americans prior to Dec 15 1791 when the Bill of rights was ratified.
In recent years it has been suggested that the second amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, but not the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period in which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known surviving writing of the 1787-1791 period states that thesis. Instead, "the people" in the second amendment meant the same as it did in the first, fourth, ninth and tenth amendments, i.e., each and every free person.
"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."
Obviously this does not mean that only well-educated voters have the right to read or write books. Nor does it mean that the right to read books of one's choosing can be restricted to only those subjects which lead to a well-educated electorate.
The purpose of this provision is: although not everyone may end up being well-educated, enough people will become well-educated to preserve a free society.
Nor can it be construed to deny one's pre-existing right to read books if there are not enough well-educated people to be found. The right to read books of one's choosing is not granted by the above statement. The rationale given is only one reason for not abridging that right, there are others as well.
British common law is actually the basis for a lot of us law and is considered in decisions today.
Forget Stevens -- read Heller: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER. Much of the British history relating to abuses of power by the ruling class against the citizenry was translated into prohibitions against the same here in the Bill of Rights. Heller is as much a history lesson as 2A case.
The leftists like Stevens are a disgrace to this nation.
repair the damage done by Stevens' article.