In point of fact, I am an attorney who has studied Constitutional law, and I read the Federalist Papers, and I have read United States v. Miller (307 U.S. 174) and I have read United States v. Emerson (46 F.Supp.2d 598), which contains (in this lawyer's opinion) the clearest legal findings on the issue. (see http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/5th/9910331cr0.html).
While I am not an expert, I am well read enough to state that I am not stating an opinion or an argument, but a fact: since the Militia in America would consist of 'Americans', it is not a matter open to reasonable difference of opinion. Americans have a right to bear arms.
Whether they should have this right, or whether its exercise should be curtailed, or how, is open to debate, or whether it is collective or individual.
That the right itself exists is not open to debate. No legal scholar says the right itself is merely a supposition. No founding document supports that position. It is wrong. We are not talking about something like the supposed Right to Privacy, which comes from an emanation of a penumbra of interpretive jurisprudence.
Whether this right was responsible for the assassinations of American Presidents is also matter of debate, and open to question. The cause and effect here is what lawyers call 'but for' ("But for the Second Amendment, the assassinations would not have occurred, and therefore the Amendment bears at least some of the responsibility.")
To speak of the right as 'supposed' is an error of fact, as much as if we said Armstrong set foot on the 'supposed' moon. We might think the moon is airless or hostile or causes lunacy, but we cannot say it does not exist.
Mr. Barbieri is a brilliant commentator on American politics, and I say he shows more insight than most professional political commentators, and let us not jam up his comments boxes with a debate about a single wrong word in an otherwise majestic writing.
Mr. Barbieri simply needs a different word than 'supposed'-- he means the right is dangerous or foolish or monstrous. Indeed, if he merely said 'the supposed right of the individual Americans to bear arms' the sentence would be defensible as a matter of solid legal opinion. Perhaps that is what he meant: if so, I misunderstood him and I apologize, but he can avoid the appearance of error by adding a single word to the sentence.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Militiamen are also Americans
Date: 2006-12-05 10:24 pm (UTC)While I am not an expert, I am well read enough to state that I am not stating an opinion or an argument, but a fact: since the Militia in America would consist of 'Americans', it is not a matter open to reasonable difference of opinion. Americans have a right to bear arms.
Whether they should have this right, or whether its exercise should be curtailed, or how, is open to debate, or whether it is collective or individual.
That the right itself exists is not open to debate. No legal scholar says the right itself is merely a supposition. No founding document supports that position. It is wrong. We are not talking about something like the supposed Right to Privacy, which comes from an emanation of a penumbra of interpretive jurisprudence.
Whether this right was responsible for the assassinations of American Presidents is also matter of debate, and open to question. The cause and effect here is what lawyers call 'but for' ("But for the Second Amendment, the assassinations would not have occurred, and therefore the Amendment bears at least some of the responsibility.")
To speak of the right as 'supposed' is an error of fact, as much as if we said Armstrong set foot on the 'supposed' moon. We might think the moon is airless or hostile or causes lunacy, but we cannot say it does not exist.
Mr. Barbieri is a brilliant commentator on American politics, and I say he shows more insight than most professional political commentators, and let us not jam up his comments boxes with a debate about a single wrong word in an otherwise majestic writing.
Mr. Barbieri simply needs a different word than 'supposed'-- he means the right is dangerous or foolish or monstrous. Indeed, if he merely said 'the supposed right of the individual Americans to bear arms' the sentence would be defensible as a matter of solid legal opinion. Perhaps that is what he meant: if so, I misunderstood him and I apologize, but he can avoid the appearance of error by adding a single word to the sentence.