Lawmaker wants military patrols after child's murder

[DanTex]

97. What is it with you guys and being wrong!

The 4 justices who are not right-wingers agreed that 2A does not extend to non-military uses of firearms. Here's a tip. Try reading the Stevens defense before commenting on it (rather than just trusting the NRA press releases and gun blogs).

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

As for the opinion polls, I hope you are aware that comfortable majorities of Americans support things like closing the gun show loophole, registration of handguns, banning hi-cap mags, etc. Of course, as I mentioned, majorities also favor the teaching of creationism in schools, and waterboarding terror suspects, etc. That's why I don't base my constitutional or political views on opinion polls.

The reason y'all keep bringing up the polls is very obvious. You can't actually defend the Scalia opinion on its own terms. You can't give any fundamental reason whatsoever as to why the intent of the framers should be disregarded, and 2A should be read to protect gun rights outside of militia use, to such an extreme extent that it forces us to endure by far the highest rates of gun violence in the developed world.