Naturally, King Brown does not wish to get into the Original Intent or the adoption of the 2nd Amendment, because he is still in denial about it, and he continues to lie and say that the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a relatively recent invention of the NRA.
It bears repeating once again because King is frequently in denial of his own words:
The Court in 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller changed the 200-year-old narrowly interpreted Second from serving in the militia to an individual right. Do you favour democratic processes over justice of stacked courts?
The Court departed from the original understanding of the Second. The NRA and other groups rejected the original interpretation. Even as late as 1991, the jurist Burger appointed by Nixon said "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." In 2008, in the District of Columbia v. Heller, what Burger said was fraud was accepted by the court. Interesting stuff.
Ed, historically the individual "right" to bear arms is relatively new. I believe John Ashcroft in 2002 became the first federal attorney-general to proclaim that individuals should be able to own guns. The Supreme Court in 2008 overturned all mainstream legal and historical scholarship by ruling that there is an individual right to own firearms although with some limits. Obama said it again last week.
I believe that during the previous 218 years the Second meant what it said: firearms shall be held by "the People"---a collective and not individual right---insofar they are in the service of "a well-regulated militia." Was an individual right even mentioned at the Constitutional Convention or in the House when it ratified the Amendment or when debated in state legislatures? I don't think so.
Even when King Brown has been repeatedly shown proof of the Framers Original Intent of the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms from their writings, correspondence, The Federalist Papers, etc., King has always rejected the truth and has advanced the silly Liberal Left idea of an ever evolving "living document" that has as much meaning and permanence as a piece of toilet paper. As for the rest of King's idiotic blather, the Constitution was debated and discussed for quite some time before ratification and signing. There were a multitude of opinions that did not make the final cut, as much as King would like us to think otherwise.
And so much... once again... for the King of Dishonesty and his vow to refrain from political discussion here.
What a Poster Child for the meaning of complete fraud! Dishonesty is not civility. And lies about the 2nd Amendment on a Firearms forum are not mannerly. But you won't hear any complaints from his pen pal from Topeka.
