Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In 1991, five years after he’d left the bench, former chief justice of the Supreme Court Warren E. Burger was asked whether he believed the Constitution afforded private American citizens the right to bear arms. Burger, a conservative Republican, replied that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud -- I repeat the word ‘fraud’ -- on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” The special interest group Burger primarily had in mind was the National Rifle Association, and in a speech one year later the former jurist proclaimed flatly that “the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all.”
In other words, in the opinion of one of America's most respected conservative constitutional-originalist judges, the madman Wayne LaPierre and his co-conspirators are fraudsters. We can only imagine what he might have made of the majority opinion in Heller v. DC, but it seems highly likely he would have regarded that decision and its author very much in the same light, and perhaps have used the same terminology to describe it.
In other words, in the opinion of one of America's most respected conservative constitutional-originalist judges, the madman Wayne LaPierre and his co-conspirators are fraudsters. We can only imagine what he might have made of the majority opinion in Heller v. DC, but it seems highly likely he would have regarded that decision and its author very much in the same light, and perhaps have used the same terminology to describe it.
Let me see if I have this right. ONE judge has an opinion and we should dismiss the opinions of 5 judges.
With that premise we can over rule Row vs. wade because SOME of the judges ruled against it.
"In other words", what he THINKS doesn't mean a damn thing because he is no longer judge ruling on anything.
In other words, in the opinion of one of America's most respected conservative constitutional-originalist judges, the madman Wayne LaPierre and his co-conspirators are fraudsters. We can only imagine what he might have made of the majority opinion in Heller v. DC, but it seems highly likely he would have regarded that decision and its author very much in the same light, and perhaps have used the same terminology to describe it.
if you look at the Bill of Rights for what they are, none of them are for the citizens at all. in fact the Bill of Rights is there to tell the government what they can and cannot do at all. hence on the 2nd Amendment, the government has the ability to regulate the militia, and no ability at all to make any kind of law against the private ownership of firearms.
if you look at the rest of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights you will see that the federal government cannot do alot of what they are currently doing on the limitations of rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Because a judge's learned opinions in matters of jurisprudence instantly become invalid once he's no longer practicing law from the bench.
If he interprets the Second Amendment that way, his opinion was never valid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
