Monkeyleg
Member.
Trip20, you just got "edited."
The JS deleted an entire paragraph, and changed some other words around. Standard practice for the Milwaukee Journal for decades.
Here's the letter that Trip20 submitted:
****To the editors:
Judging from the Journal Sentinel’s March 16th editorial, “A deadly wrong ruling,” the paper’s editorial board needs to do its homework when it comes to the Constitution.
The editorial repeats the mistaken notion perpetuated by anti-gun groups that the Second Amendment confers the right to keep and bear arms on the states, and not on individuals.
Not only does this notion fly in the face of the writings of the authors of the Bill of Rights prior to the drafting of the Constitution, but it also ignores prior academic research and legal precedent regarding the Second Amendment.
Constitutional scholars--including self-admitted liberal constitutional scholars such as Lawrence Tribe and Alan Dershowitz--have pored over the amendment, and have concluded that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not a collective (state’s) right.
Further, the DC Court of Appeals is not the first to interpret the Second Amendment as conferring an individual right. In US vs. Emerson, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals examined prior Second Amendment cases--US vs. Miller in particular--and came to the same individual rights conclusion.
Even if such precedents did not exist, logic would dictate that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. The First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments all reference the words “the people.” Can anyone say with a straight face that “the people” in four of those amendments means citizens, but in the Second Amendment “the people” means states?
There is no ambiguity in the language of the Second Amendment. Any ambiguity that exists is in the minds of those who would like it to go away.
*****
And here's what the Journal Sentinel printed:
*********
Judging from the March 16 editorial "A deadly wrong ruling," the Journal Sentinel's Editorial Board needs to do its homework when it comes to the Constitution.
Advertisement
Buy a link here
The editorial repeated the mistaken notion perpetuated by anti-gun groups that the Second Amendment confers the right to keep and bear arms on states and not on individuals. This notion flies in the face of the writings of the authors of the Bill of Rights prior to the drafting of the Constitution and ignores academic research and legal precedent regarding the amendment.
The D.C. Court of Appeals is not the first to interpret the Second Amendment as conferring an individual right. In U.S. vs. Emerson, the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals examined prior Second Amendment cases - U.S. vs. Miller in particular - and came to the same individual rights conclusion.
Even if such precedents did not exist, logic would dictate that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. The First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and 10th Amendments all reference "the people." Can anyone say with a straight face that "the people" in four of those amendments means citizens, but in the Second "the people" means states?
There is no ambiguity in the language of the Second Amendment. Any ambiguity that exists is in the minds of those who would like it to go away.
******
(I guess the young graduate from Jurnalizm skool didn't know how to spell "tenth," wasn't sure if Trip20 was right, so just stuck "10th" in the sentence.
And why would the Journal be afraid to look at what scholars like Tribe and Dershowitz have written? Or are the editors at the JS too lazy to simply Google "Lawrence Tribe Second Amendment" to verify?
The JS deleted an entire paragraph, and changed some other words around. Standard practice for the Milwaukee Journal for decades.
Here's the letter that Trip20 submitted:
****To the editors:
Judging from the Journal Sentinel’s March 16th editorial, “A deadly wrong ruling,” the paper’s editorial board needs to do its homework when it comes to the Constitution.
The editorial repeats the mistaken notion perpetuated by anti-gun groups that the Second Amendment confers the right to keep and bear arms on the states, and not on individuals.
Not only does this notion fly in the face of the writings of the authors of the Bill of Rights prior to the drafting of the Constitution, but it also ignores prior academic research and legal precedent regarding the Second Amendment.
Constitutional scholars--including self-admitted liberal constitutional scholars such as Lawrence Tribe and Alan Dershowitz--have pored over the amendment, and have concluded that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not a collective (state’s) right.
Further, the DC Court of Appeals is not the first to interpret the Second Amendment as conferring an individual right. In US vs. Emerson, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals examined prior Second Amendment cases--US vs. Miller in particular--and came to the same individual rights conclusion.
Even if such precedents did not exist, logic would dictate that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. The First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments all reference the words “the people.” Can anyone say with a straight face that “the people” in four of those amendments means citizens, but in the Second Amendment “the people” means states?
There is no ambiguity in the language of the Second Amendment. Any ambiguity that exists is in the minds of those who would like it to go away.
*****
And here's what the Journal Sentinel printed:
*********
Judging from the March 16 editorial "A deadly wrong ruling," the Journal Sentinel's Editorial Board needs to do its homework when it comes to the Constitution.
Advertisement
Buy a link here
The editorial repeated the mistaken notion perpetuated by anti-gun groups that the Second Amendment confers the right to keep and bear arms on states and not on individuals. This notion flies in the face of the writings of the authors of the Bill of Rights prior to the drafting of the Constitution and ignores academic research and legal precedent regarding the amendment.
The D.C. Court of Appeals is not the first to interpret the Second Amendment as conferring an individual right. In U.S. vs. Emerson, the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals examined prior Second Amendment cases - U.S. vs. Miller in particular - and came to the same individual rights conclusion.
Even if such precedents did not exist, logic would dictate that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. The First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and 10th Amendments all reference "the people." Can anyone say with a straight face that "the people" in four of those amendments means citizens, but in the Second "the people" means states?
There is no ambiguity in the language of the Second Amendment. Any ambiguity that exists is in the minds of those who would like it to go away.
******
(I guess the young graduate from Jurnalizm skool didn't know how to spell "tenth," wasn't sure if Trip20 was right, so just stuck "10th" in the sentence.
And why would the Journal be afraid to look at what scholars like Tribe and Dershowitz have written? Or are the editors at the JS too lazy to simply Google "Lawrence Tribe Second Amendment" to verify?