General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Should America work towards becoming a gun-free Country? [View all]beevul
(12,194 posts)The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. Ones right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
Justice Robert H. Jackson of the Supreme Court 1943
"The only convenient fiction here is that what's perpetrated by that judge one hundred and fifty years after the U.S. Constitution was written and ratified and became the law of the land, and those who are so incredibly desperate that they'd believe anything, even that justice's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, just so that they can hug their all-holy weapons of mass destruction a little tighter no matter how many tens of thousands of innocent Americans and American children are gunned down in cold blood by psychopaths who can get their hands on said weapons of mass destruction easier than a black person can vote in most States in this country."
So much sound and fury signifying...nothing.
No refutation of what I, or the esteemed justice said...not even a smidgen. Oh, sure, the writer of the "piece" you cite says that something is so...but that doesn't make it so.
"I'd believe Toobin LONG before I'd take anything an anonymous poster on this site tries to tell me with cherry-picked "opinions" of some bought and paid for Justice any day."
Oh yeah. Clearly the nra got to him clear back in 1943...
Oh, so its "cherry-picked opinions of some bought and paid for Justice" that you have an issue with...except you haven't shown that there are any of those hereabouts.You've only asserted that there are, with no evidence to support it.
How about taking the words of the framers themselves, saying essentially the EXACT same thing as the Judge did in his quote:
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
http://www.billofrights.org/
Is that authoritative enough for you?
I'd believe the framers LONG before I'd take anything an anonymous poster with an axe to grind on this site tries to tell me with cherry-picked "opinions" of some journalist with an axe to grind, any day.