Miriam:
I sincerely do wish to advise you that I am aware of the content of
Amendment II as it is written.
I would opine that the 'defenders of open carry and etc' and their
opponents are both speaking from positions that are not favorable to
the average citizen of the country.
As Joe points out it is essential to view the Amendment and its
subsequent legal history before rendering an opinion.
Richard
On 6/24/2016 6:05 AM, joe harcz Comcast wrote:
Actually the history and context for the Heller decision is more profound and deeper than the reading of the Second Amendment. It also goes in to historical decisions and the right to be secure in our homes under the Fourth Amendment.
This said, even the Supremes said certain limitations are totally kosher and they've upheld most state and local regulations since Heller.
The right by the way to self defense in this case applied to handguns for example and not to assault style weapons.. Moreover, there are exclusions for carrying in public, not in the home that can be restricted.
I know this is not popular to some, but I agree with the principle of self defense and that that is in the Heller decision.
But, again I also agree with the right to limit types of weapons, sizes of clips, background checks, closing the gun show loopholes, and a plethora of other reforms that are simple and logical and that protect the Second Amendment rights as well as limit, but nottototally end gun violence for sure.
Let us remember by the way that in the late sixties some gun control measures were established by Reagan in response to the Black Panthers who openly carried shotguns in Oakland to prevent or deter police violence against blacks in that city.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 10:08 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Antonin Scalia and the Clear and Present Danger of Second Amendment Fundamentalism
Yes, I heard Alan Grayson do it again on Democracy Now. Actually, even if
he's supposed to be a Progressive, I don't like Grayson. I haven't agreed
with him each time I've heard him talk plus, I think he has a snotty
attitude. But anyway, he talked as if the second amendmant gives every
individual a right to protect himself with a gun. Tom hartman wrote about
the second amendment several years ago and pointed out that, that's an
interpretation, and is not what the words say. But when the Supreme Court
rules on something, everyone acts like the ruling is the last word. The law
is manipulatable.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Martian.Lady
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 7:05 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Antonin Scalia and the Clear and Present
Danger of Second Amendment Fundamentalism
HI
I really can't imagine how the Supreme court jumped from the second
amendment's actual reading to saying that anyone should be able to have a
gun. That isn't what it says. When Steven Colbert tried to read the actual
Second Amendment, his guest said "whatever" to the reading.
Marsha
