I think it's important and educational to know that there are anti-2nd Amendment and anti-NRA Trolls who are always working to undermine our Constitutional Rights. So I'm bringing some of King Brown's anti-gun dogma back to the top, since he danced away from this discussion in the hope that everyone soon forgets it... as he has done so many times in the past. King posted this article in support of his repeated and insane notion that our NRA actually rewrote history and was able to change the words of the Framers, and able to change the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. This is one of the exact same anti-gun propaganda methods used by Liberal Left anti-gun politicians and anti-gun organizations:
Jack or John M, whichever suits, on your resurrected Second, from The New Yorker, first paras:
So You Think You Know the Second Amendment?
By Jeffrey Toobin
December 17, 2012
"Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? The question, which is suddenly pressing, in light of the reaction to the school massacre in Newtown, is rooted in politics as much as law.
For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “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 courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.
Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”
But the N.R.A. kept pushing—and there’s a lesson here. Conservatives often embrace “originalism,” the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a “living” constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century. (Reva Siegel, of Yale Law School, elaborates on this point in a brilliant article.)"
Several days ago, before King Brown slipped away from this discussion, he once again actually said that he has never seen any anti-gun sentiment posted here in this forum:
I'll say again that I don't recall anti-gun sentiments on this board. Disagreements plenty of regulations pros and cons but no outright anti-gun. Tens of thousands of Second interpretations by myriad US jurisdictions are expressions of how communities want to live, "constitutionally" or otherwise. It's America's enduring debate. It's not one side can only be right.
I've tried to help him by repeatedly posting many of his own anti-gun quotes, along with those of his pal Ed Good. With great generosity of spirit, here's a small sample of what King denies ever seeing:
guess no body here has the balls to answer my question:
disarm...seems to work for the rest of the civilized world...
why not us?
I ask, is it even possible for a person to be more dishonest???
Sincerely,
Selby Lowndes... a.k.a. Jack or John M.
