I have to stop blogging or I’ll never read this whole thing.
Best part so far:
In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that nocommentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.
I actually LOL’ed.
I wouldn’t get too worked up over all this.
The courts didn’t really affirm anything. I say keep practicing what ya’ll are doing. Heller ain’t gonna change a thing.
Oh, trust me, I’m still keeping my powder dry.
I do think this is a step forward. Perhaps a small step. Perhaps two steps followed by one step back. But, it’s progress.
There is much drudgery left ahead of us.
The free, law-abiding citizenry of this country is the first-line militia being necessary to the security of this free State. We are the People who have a creator-given right to protect our liberty via keeping and bearing arms. This government shall not infringe on this freedom.
The concept of a universal militia, consisting of all free people bearing their own arms, originated in England many generations ago. Madison did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment – the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions. But the Founders of this country saw this concept as so important that they put it down in writing, no less important that the rights of free speech and free worship.
Still and all, I am well-pleased with this decision from the nation’s highest court. Now maybe the local tin-horn dictators (commonly known as mayors and councilpersons) will back off and allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from the plague of crime that they have helped empower.
oh wow; that’s great! Thanks for posting!
oh hell(er) yes…
First off, I would like to state that all of the hoplophobes, anti-rights activists, and anti-self-defense folk out there can respectfully get bent. As you can probably guess at this point, the decision concerning District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290…
[...] Heller post so far is Laurel’s. She found an interesting excerpt: In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not [...]