In her sit-down with Oprah Winfrey, Kamala Harris echoed Barack Obama in proclaiming, “I believe in the Second Amendment,” by which they both meant that the Constitution protects the right of private citizens to own weapons. Such a declaration might be obligatory politically, but one hopes that each of them, one a former prosecutor and the other an ex-Constitutional Law professor, privately realize the truth…which is that the Second Amendment does not nor was ever intended to allow any American to arm him or herself in any manner they pleased.
Hi Lawrence - I agree with you completely, but never knew of the full phrasing that pre-dated the final version. I've never understood the absurd modern interpretation of the second amendment. It's just money and profit over common sense - and what about the assault weapons ban? Doesn't anyone notice that almost all the mass shootings and assassination attempts are with these?
I wrote Imperfect Union because few Americans realize how many holes were left in the Constitution to make it palatable enough for the states to ratify. That created vulnerabilities that ideologues, especially on the right, could exploit to enact an agenda that the Founders did not intend and would not have approved of. The gun issue is just one. Voting rights is another, as is not limiting the power of the Supreme Court. That one is particularly ironic because the Founders wanted a very weak judiciary but instead we got a ridiculously powerful one.
So you just argued FOR their beliefs. I am no prosecutor, attorney general, VP or presidential candidate; nor am I a loquacious constitutional lawyer and former two-term President, but I too believe in the 2A, for whatever that means, and it means nothing. Judicial review has ruined this country.
Two points. First, all I am saying is that one cannot apply the 2nd Amendment to create a Constitutional guarantee that has nothing to do with common defense, which was the clear understanding until Heller. If we, as a people, believe that gun ownership should be allowed, as most Americans do, Congress and the states are not subject to any Constitutional prohibitions against creating controls, such as, say, not allowing open carry or requiring training, the same as for getting a driver's license.
As to judicial review, I could not agree more and wrote an entire book, The Activist, on why judicial review is not and was not meant to be in the Constitution. Both subjects get chapters in my latest book, Imperfect Union.
I am putting both books on my Xmas list! I agree wholeheartedly. As far as I am aware there is nothing absolute in the Constitution other than its first three words of the Preamble.
And the preamble was changed by Gouverneur Morris. The original listed the states after "We the People." He changed it to "the United States," which altered the meaning as well.
Hi Lawrence - I agree with you completely, but never knew of the full phrasing that pre-dated the final version. I've never understood the absurd modern interpretation of the second amendment. It's just money and profit over common sense - and what about the assault weapons ban? Doesn't anyone notice that almost all the mass shootings and assassination attempts are with these?
I wrote Imperfect Union because few Americans realize how many holes were left in the Constitution to make it palatable enough for the states to ratify. That created vulnerabilities that ideologues, especially on the right, could exploit to enact an agenda that the Founders did not intend and would not have approved of. The gun issue is just one. Voting rights is another, as is not limiting the power of the Supreme Court. That one is particularly ironic because the Founders wanted a very weak judiciary but instead we got a ridiculously powerful one.
So you just argued FOR their beliefs. I am no prosecutor, attorney general, VP or presidential candidate; nor am I a loquacious constitutional lawyer and former two-term President, but I too believe in the 2A, for whatever that means, and it means nothing. Judicial review has ruined this country.
Two points. First, all I am saying is that one cannot apply the 2nd Amendment to create a Constitutional guarantee that has nothing to do with common defense, which was the clear understanding until Heller. If we, as a people, believe that gun ownership should be allowed, as most Americans do, Congress and the states are not subject to any Constitutional prohibitions against creating controls, such as, say, not allowing open carry or requiring training, the same as for getting a driver's license.
As to judicial review, I could not agree more and wrote an entire book, The Activist, on why judicial review is not and was not meant to be in the Constitution. Both subjects get chapters in my latest book, Imperfect Union.
I am putting both books on my Xmas list! I agree wholeheartedly. As far as I am aware there is nothing absolute in the Constitution other than its first three words of the Preamble.
And the preamble was changed by Gouverneur Morris. The original listed the states after "We the People." He changed it to "the United States," which altered the meaning as well.