REMINDER: Most Tea Partiers and Gun Cultists Misread 2nd Amendment

[OODA_Loop]

The individual's right to guns outside the context of the militia is an unenumerated right, like the right to an abortion.

Yep. Why they are both State matters, incorporation of McDonald V Chicago nothwithstanding of course.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

REMINDER: Most Tea Partiers and Gun Cultists Misread 2nd Amendment

The only misreading of the Second Amendment is being done by your historically ignorant pea brain.

KOS

You really think anyone will take you seriously posting from KOS? That's as bad as one of the Republicans linking to World Nut Daily.

This^^^^^^^^
OH by the way are you going to make it too the gun show tomorrow in Concord?

No, I didn't know there was one, but I don't really have the cash right now to get anything anyway. I'm moving in less than a month so money is tight right now.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The 2nd amendment protects the right of States to form maintain and arm militias.

The individual's right to guns outside the context of the militia is an unenumerated right, like the right to an abortion.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute

Glad we cleared that up for you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The 2nd amendment protects the right of States to form maintain and arm militias.

The individual's right to guns outside the context of the militia is an unenumerated right, like the right to an abortion.

No Dear, that's not what the Amendment says and SCOTUS agrees that it's an individual right

 

[WillowTree]

REMINDER: Most Tea Partiers and Gun Cultists Misread 2nd Amendment

LINK TO MUST READ ARTICLE EXPOSING HOW RUBES MISREAD LAW

Misreading the Right to Bear Arms

The Second Amendment reads in full: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The popular phrasing, "the right to bear arms," is a clear signal of how political fundamentalism replaces the nuance of principles.

First, the context of gun ownership is clearly established in the right—the need for a "well regulated militia." In the eighteenth century, in the wake of the Revolution, the American mind recognized the essential, and not just symbolic, role of guns in the lives and freedom of people.

Guns were essential for food, in many circumstances, but guns were the mechanism for some degree of equality between the ruler and the ruled. During the late 1700s, then, guns and human autonomy and liberation were literally equal. The thing and the principle were blurred, and the founding documents show that fact in the carefully detailed language of the Second Amendment.

Historically, however, the U.S. has codified and embraced in the popular psyche that gun ownership itself (independent of the principles that ownership represents—"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state") is the right we must defend—and by making this transition, and ignoring the principle for the thing, twenty-first century America is a society trapped in political fundamentalism.

I happen to harbor no fear of the U.S. collapsing into a military state or police state; thus, I find the idea that each American needs to own a gun in order to form a militia if either a military or police action comes to fruition to take away our liberties to be baseless.

good luck with that hyper inflated hyper liberal anti American bullshit.

 

[Yurt]

notice hazlenuts only contribution to the thread, other than the OP, is not about the subject, but a

"nudge bump"

apparently he needs left wing talking points in order to think

 

[Harry Dresden]

REMINDER: Most Tea Partiers and Gun Cultists Misread 2nd Amendment

LINK TO MUST READ ARTICLE EXPOSING HOW RUBES MISREAD LAW

Misreading the Right to Bear Arms

The Second Amendment reads in full: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The popular phrasing, "the right to bear arms," is a clear signal of how political fundamentalism replaces the nuance of principles.

First, the context of gun ownership is clearly established in the right—the need for a "well regulated militia." In the eighteenth century, in the wake of the Revolution, the American mind recognized the essential, and not just symbolic, role of guns in the lives and freedom of people.

Guns were essential for food, in many circumstances, but guns were the mechanism for some degree of equality between the ruler and the ruled. During the late 1700s, then, guns and human autonomy and liberation were literally equal. The thing and the principle were blurred, and the founding documents show that fact in the carefully detailed language of the Second Amendment.

Historically, however, the U.S. has codified and embraced in the popular psyche that gun ownership itself (independent of the principles that ownership represents—"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state") is the right we must defend—and by making this transition, and ignoring the principle for the thing, twenty-first century America is a society trapped in political fundamentalism.

I happen to harbor no fear of the U.S. collapsing into a military state or police state; thus, I find the idea that each American needs to own a gun in order to form a militia if either a military or police action comes to fruition to take away our liberties to be baseless.

One wingnut quoting another wingnut.

Do you ever have a thought of your own?

shit this fucker wont even answer questions on some of shit he throws out here.....kinda like that other ass LaKota....

 

[Harry Dresden]

A conservative judge agrees. "In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered 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." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state." Cass R. Sunstein, “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review http://72.52.208.92/~gbpprorg/obama/Cass_Sunstein_Quotes.pdf

See "A proposal for rational gun control." A Case for Gun Control
2nd Amendment Bearing Arms - U.S. Constitution - Findlaw
Death by the Barrel | Harvard Magazine Sep-Oct 2004
GunCite-Gun Control-International Homicide and Suicide Rates
http://www.newsminer.com/news/2009/feb/28/offering-single-shot-sentiment/?opinion

_

here is another guy that tells us what someone else thinks......like everyone cares what Burger says.....

 

[Yurt]

A conservative judge agrees. "In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered 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." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state." Cass R. Sunstein, “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review http://72.52.208.92/~gbpprorg/obama/Cass_Sunstein_Quotes.pdf

See "A proposal for rational gun control." A Case for Gun Control
2nd Amendment Bearing Arms - U.S. Constitution - Findlaw
Death by the Barrel | Harvard Magazine Sep-Oct 2004
GunCite-Gun Control-International Homicide and Suicide Rates
http://www.newsminer.com/news/2009/feb/28/offering-single-shot-sentiment/?opinion

_

here is another guy that tells us what someone else thinks......like everyone cares what Burger says.....

nudge bump

 

[Flopper]

REMINDER: Most Tea Partiers and Gun Cultists Misread 2nd Amendment

LINK TO MUST READ ARTICLE EXPOSING HOW RUBES MISREAD LAW

Misreading the Right to Bear Arms

The Second Amendment reads in full: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The popular phrasing, "the right to bear arms," is a clear signal of how political fundamentalism replaces the nuance of principles.

First, the context of gun ownership is clearly established in the right—the need for a "well regulated militia." In the eighteenth century, in the wake of the Revolution, the American mind recognized the essential, and not just symbolic, role of guns in the lives and freedom of people.

Guns were essential for food, in many circumstances, but guns were the mechanism for some degree of equality between the ruler and the ruled. During the late 1700s, then, guns and human autonomy and liberation were literally equal. The thing and the principle were blurred, and the founding documents show that fact in the carefully detailed language of the Second Amendment.

Historically, however, the U.S. has codified and embraced in the popular psyche that gun ownership itself (independent of the principles that ownership represents—"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state") is the right we must defend—and by making this transition, and ignoring the principle for the thing, twenty-first century America is a society trapped in political fundamentalism.

I happen to harbor no fear of the U.S. collapsing into a military state or police state; thus, I find the idea that each American needs to own a gun in order to form a militia if either a military or police action comes to fruition to take away our liberties to be baseless.

So people buy guns so they can form or join a militia to overthrow or oppose a government they no longer support. I don't think so. I have purchased two guns in my life, one for hunting and one for self-protection. I had no intention then and none now to join a militia and I think the vast number of people in this country feel the same way.

The real reason people buy guns is for sport and protection. If we are going to allow firearms, we should delete the crap in the 2nd amendment about forming a militia and replace it with the real reason people need to own guns. The militia clause although justified in the minds of the founders in the 1700's, is today just a ruse to justify gun ownership.

The very idea that the founding fathers would put an amendment in the constitution that offered violence as an alternative to political process to solve disputes with the government indicates that they had doubts as to whether the republic would actually work. I think those doubts today only exist in the minds of extremist.

 

[PaulS1950]

You left out a comma in your quote of the second amendment.
2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.

The militia is all male persons between the ages of 18 and 47. It still exists in spite of the fact that congress has denied us training or even recognition. If the Germans had invaded the eastern seaboard during the second world war who would have defended the country? All the fighting men of the armed forces were either in Europe, Africa or the Pacific. It would have been the lawfulowners of guns - the citizens of the USA who would have fought. The Japanese commander was quoted as saying the reason Japan decided not to invade the western seaboard was that every family had guns in their homes. It would have been a lost cause for them to invade the mainland. Who fought when in 1947 a small town was taken over by corrupt government and the boxes containing the election results were illegally moved to the jail to be counted by the man who was in charge of the town? The citzens gathered their guns and took the ballot boxes back and had the votes counted in public. Not one of those involved in the retaking of the ballot boxes was ever charged or prosecuted. The Mayor and sheriff, along with all the deputies were charged and prosecuted and put in jail.
There have been other events where ordinary citizens used the force of guns against the unlawful acts of their own government - in the USA.
That is what the right to bear arms is about - defense of self, others, the state and the constitution.
The second amendment doesn't provide the right - the right is not a "constitutional" right, it is the same right that every plant and animal on earth has - to defends it own life and the lives of others in the group. Corals do it with toxic chemicals, spiders and snakes with venom, plants with neuro-toxins, thorns and poisons. It doesn't matter what you use as long as it is equal to or exceeds what your enemy has. The second amendment was placed in the constitution as a reminder that the government had no power to restrict private, individual ownership of firearms that were of the type that the current military was using. It is too bad that congress didn't take on the responsibility called out in the constitution to form and train the militia. The reason they didn't? I don't know for sure but I would be willing to bet that after the civil war they didn't want states to have the ability to fight for their rights ever again. It's too bad that they couldn't just do away with armed civilians all together but you see they can't. It is our birthright to be able to protect ourselves and those we love. The second, ninth and fourteenth amendments just back it up. No law can be passed that restrict any guns that can be used as weapons against tyrany or criminals to defend the US Constitution.
From a historical view, we need those guns now more than ever. Punishing the lawful ownership of guns for the actions of a few criminal and mentally unstable individuals is not the American way. It is not justice, it is not lawful and it is not going to happen. Not now, not in ten years , not in fifty years, not as long as the flag flies in the air that flows over the land of the FREE and the home of the BRAVE.

 

[Papageorgio]

REMINDER: Most Tea Partiers and Gun Cultists Misread 2nd Amendment

LINK TO MUST READ ARTICLE EXPOSING HOW RUBES MISREAD LAW

Misreading the Right to Bear Arms

The Second Amendment reads in full: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The popular phrasing, "the right to bear arms," is a clear signal of how political fundamentalism replaces the nuance of principles.

First, the context of gun ownership is clearly established in the right—the need for a "well regulated militia." In the eighteenth century, in the wake of the Revolution, the American mind recognized the essential, and not just symbolic, role of guns in the lives and freedom of people.

Guns were essential for food, in many circumstances, but guns were the mechanism for some degree of equality between the ruler and the ruled. During the late 1700s, then, guns and human autonomy and liberation were literally equal. The thing and the principle were blurred, and the founding documents show that fact in the carefully detailed language of the Second Amendment.

Historically, however, the U.S. has codified and embraced in the popular psyche that gun ownership itself (independent of the principles that ownership represents—"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state") is the right we must defend—and by making this transition, and ignoring the principle for the thing, twenty-first century America is a society trapped in political fundamentalism.

I happen to harbor no fear of the U.S. collapsing into a military state or police state; thus, I find the idea that each American needs to own a gun in order to form a militia if either a military or police action comes to fruition to take away our liberties to be baseless.

One wingnut quoting another wingnut.

Do you ever have a thought of your own?

I don't think they are allowed to.

 

[Papageorgio]

notice hazlenuts only contribution to the thread, other than the OP, is not about the subject, but a

"nudge bump"

apparently he needs left wing talking points in order to think

That's because he can only vomit and can't defend his position.

 

[Darkwind]

10th Amendement reservation to the States to provide for their own defense against the over reach of Federal authority.

The State well regulates our militia by guaranteeing the right of the individual to bear arms in the State Constitution.

I would answer the call of my State.

There is no militia requirement, state or federal.

 

[Darkwind]

REMINDER: Most Tea Partiers and Gun Cultists Misread 2nd Amendment

LINK TO MUST READ ARTICLE EXPOSING HOW RUBES MISREAD LAW

Misreading the Right to Bear Arms

The Second Amendment reads in full: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The popular phrasing, "the right to bear arms," is a clear signal of how political fundamentalism replaces the nuance of principles.

First, the context of gun ownership is clearly established in the right—the need for a "well regulated militia." In the eighteenth century, in the wake of the Revolution, the American mind recognized the essential, and not just symbolic, role of guns in the lives and freedom of people.

Guns were essential for food, in many circumstances, but guns were the mechanism for some degree of equality between the ruler and the ruled. During the late 1700s, then, guns and human autonomy and liberation were literally equal. The thing and the principle were blurred, and the founding documents show that fact in the carefully detailed language of the Second Amendment.

Historically, however, the U.S. has codified and embraced in the popular psyche that gun ownership itself (independent of the principles that ownership represents—"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state") is the right we must defend—and by making this transition, and ignoring the principle for the thing, twenty-first century America is a society trapped in political fundamentalism.

I happen to harbor no fear of the U.S. collapsing into a military state or police state; thus, I find the idea that each American needs to own a gun in order to form a militia if either a military or police action comes to fruition to take away our liberties to be baseless.

So people buy guns so they can form or join a militia to overthrow or oppose a government they no longer support. I don't think so. I have purchased two guns in my life, one for hunting and one for self-protection. I had no intention then and none now to join a militia and I think the vast number of people in this country feel the same way.

The real reason people buy guns is for sport and protection. If we are going to allow firearms, we should delete the crap in the 2nd amendment about forming a militia and replace it with the real reason people need to own guns. The militia clause although justified in the minds of the founders in the 1700's, is today just a ruse to justify gun ownership.

The very idea that the founding fathers would put an amendment in the constitution that offered violence as an alternative to political process to solve disputes with the government indicates that they had doubts as to whether the republic would actually work. I think those doubts today only exist in the minds of extremist.

People who know how to read the Second Amendment do not worry over the militia clause. It is not a requirement to the right.

 

[Flopper]

REMINDER: Most Tea Partiers and Gun Cultists Misread 2nd Amendment

LINK TO MUST READ ARTICLE EXPOSING HOW RUBES MISREAD LAW

So people buy guns so they can form or join a militia to overthrow or oppose a government they no longer support. I don't think so. I have purchased two guns in my life, one for hunting and one for self-protection. I had no intention then and none now to join a militia and I think the vast number of people in this country feel the same way.

The real reason people buy guns is for sport and protection. If we are going to allow firearms, we should delete the crap in the 2nd amendment about forming a militia and replace it with the real reason people need to own guns. The militia clause although justified in the minds of the founders in the 1700's, is today just a ruse to justify gun ownership.

The very idea that the founding fathers would put an amendment in the constitution that offered violence as an alternative to political process to solve disputes with the government indicates that they had doubts as to whether the republic would actually work. I think those doubts today only exist in the minds of extremist.

People who know how to read the Second Amendment do not worry over the militia clause. It is not a requirement to the right.

The writers of the amendment must have or they wouldn't included.

 

[Darkwind]

So people buy guns so they can form or join a militia to overthrow or oppose a government they no longer support. I don't think so. I have purchased two guns in my life, one for hunting and one for self-protection. I had no intention then and none now to join a militia and I think the vast number of people in this country feel the same way.

The real reason people buy guns is for sport and protection. If we are going to allow firearms, we should delete the crap in the 2nd amendment about forming a militia and replace it with the real reason people need to own guns. The militia clause although justified in the minds of the founders in the 1700's, is today just a ruse to justify gun ownership.

The very idea that the founding fathers would put an amendment in the constitution that offered violence as an alternative to political process to solve disputes with the government indicates that they had doubts as to whether the republic would actually work. I think those doubts today only exist in the minds of extremist.

People who know how to read the Second Amendment do not worry over the militia clause. It is not a requirement to the right.

The writers of the amendment must have or they wouldn't included.

They did not include it for the reasons you think.

It should come as no surprise that there are so many obvious problems with reading the operative clause of the Second Amendment to protect any sort of right belonging to state governments. If the Constitution had simply provided that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," nobody could maintain with a straight face that the provision could mean anything other than that individuals have that right. Doubts about the plain and obvious meaning of that clause have been raised only because of the prefatory phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . . "
Before looking at these words more closely, we should pause to focus on a few things that the Second Amendment does not say:

1. It emphatically does not say that it protects the right of the militia to keep and bear arms.
2. Nor does the Second Amendment say that the people's right to arms is sufficient to establish a well regulated militia, or that a well regulated militia is sufficient for the security of a free state.
3. Nor does the Second Amendment say that the right of the people to keep and bears arms is protected only to the extent that such a right fosters a well regulated militia or the security of a free state.

As these observations suggest, the grammar of the Second Amendment emphasizes the indefiniteness of the relation between the introductory participial phrase and the main clause. If you parse the Amendment, it quickly becomes obvious that the first half of the sentence is an absolute phrase (or ablative absolute) that does not modify or limit any word in the main clause. The usual function of absolute phrases is to convey information about the circumstances surrounding the statement in the main clause, such as its cause. For example: "The teacher being ill, class was cancelled."

The importance of this can be illustrated with a simple example. Suppose the Constitution provided: A well educated Electorate, being necessary to self-governance in a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.13
​

This provision, which is grammatically identical to the Second Amendment, obviously means the following: because a well educated electorate is necessary to the health of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed. The sentence does not say, imply, or even suggest that only registered voters have a right to books. Nor does the sentence say, imply, or even suggest that the right to books may be exercised only by state employees. Nor does the lack of identity between the electorate and the people create some kind of grammatical or linguistic tension within the sentence. It is perfectly reasonable for a constitution to give everyone a right to books as a means of fostering a well educated electorate. The goal might or might not be reached, and it could have been pursued by numerous other means. The creation of a general individual right, moreover, would certainly have other effects besides its impact on the electorate's educational level. And lots of legitimate questions could be raised about the scope of the right to books. But none of this offers the slightest reason to be mystified by the basic meaning of the sentence.
The Second Amendment is no different. Modern readers may have difficulty in seeing how a general right of individuals to keep and bear arms could contribute to a well regulated militia and to the security of a free state, and we shall explore that question in more detail below. But the text of the Second Amendment offers not the slightest warrant for presupposing that the answer to the question is that its framers were semi-literate fools who meant to say something like "The states shall have the right to maintain independent military forces for use against the federal government."

Taken from: A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

 

[mudwhistle]

REMINDER: Most Tea Partiers and Gun Cultists Misread 2nd Amendment

LINK TO MUST READ ARTICLE EXPOSING HOW RUBES MISREAD LAW

Misreading the Right to Bear Arms

The Second Amendment reads in full: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The popular phrasing, "the right to bear arms," is a clear signal of how political fundamentalism replaces the nuance of principles.

First, the context of gun ownership is clearly established in the right—the need for a "well regulated militia." In the eighteenth century, in the wake of the Revolution, the American mind recognized the essential, and not just symbolic, role of guns in the lives and freedom of people.

Guns were essential for food, in many circumstances, but guns were the mechanism for some degree of equality between the ruler and the ruled. During the late 1700s, then, guns and human autonomy and liberation were literally equal. The thing and the principle were blurred, and the founding documents show that fact in the carefully detailed language of the Second Amendment.

Historically, however, the U.S. has codified and embraced in the popular psyche that gun ownership itself (independent of the principles that ownership represents—"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state") is the right we must defend—and by making this transition, and ignoring the principle for the thing, twenty-first century America is a society trapped in political fundamentalism.

I happen to harbor no fear of the U.S. collapsing into a military state or police state; thus, I find the idea that each American needs to own a gun in order to form a militia if either a military or police action comes to fruition to take away our liberties to be baseless.

more proof that you are one stupid son of a bitch.

Why he felt he had to lump Tea Party folks with Gun-lovers one can only imagine.

Effective criticism is devastating. Ineffective criticism merely points out the incompetence of the critic.

 

[Political Junky]

A conservative judge agrees. "In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered 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." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state." Cass R. Sunstein, “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review http://72.52.208.92/~gbpprorg/obama/Cass_Sunstein_Quotes.pdf

See "A proposal for rational gun control." A Case for Gun Control
2nd Amendment Bearing Arms - U.S. Constitution - Findlaw
Death by the Barrel | Harvard Magazine Sep-Oct 2004
GunCite-Gun Control-International Homicide and Suicide Rates
http://www.newsminer.com/news/2009/feb/28/offering-single-shot-sentiment/?opinion

_

An opinion from a dead Judge does not trump an actual ruling by the Supreme Court. But then you already know that don't you?

Burger was a Conservative.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A conservative judge agrees. "In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered 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." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state." Cass R. Sunstein, “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review http://72.52.208.92/~gbpprorg/obama/Cass_Sunstein_Quotes.pdf

See "A proposal for rational gun control." A Case for Gun Control
2nd Amendment Bearing Arms - U.S. Constitution - Findlaw
Death by the Barrel | Harvard Magazine Sep-Oct 2004
GunCite-Gun Control-International Homicide and Suicide Rates
http://www.newsminer.com/news/2009/feb/28/offering-single-shot-sentiment/?opinion

_

An opinion from a dead Judge does not trump an actual ruling by the Supreme Court. But then you already know that don't you?

Burger was a Conservative.

Although Burger had conservative leanings[1] and was considered an originalist, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a variety of transformative decisions on abortion, capital punishment, religious establishment, and school desegregation during his tenure.

Warren E. Burger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To be a "conservative" he sounds just as stupid as any other gun grabbing nutter I know of. The second amendment was not about hunting and the national guard is not the militia

In the two centuries since then -- with two world wars and some lesser ones -- it has become clear, sadly, that we have no choice but to maintain a standing national army while still maintaining a "militia" by way of the National Guard, which can be swiftly integrated into the national defense forces.

Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing -- or to own automobiles. To "keep and bear arms" for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; "Saturday night specials" and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles.

Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger in Parade Magazine