Quote:
Originally Posted by ChamberedRound
I agree. I listened earlier today, and I must also sadly admit that Gura got PWNED. I kept finding myself wishing he would just shut up as he conceded point after point. It got so bad that it seemed as if Justice Scalia, our staunchest ally on this issue, had to jump in at times to bail the guy out. With that said, I believe that Dellinger got owned worse by the Justices than Gura did. Solicitor General Clement had a decent argument, although I wasn't exactly pleased with his position on machine guns and the like. But as I said in previous posts, baby steps. I need to hear this court affirm an individual rights view before anyone goes up against Miller, as Miller has unfortunately held up for a long time.
Again, agreed. This was peripherally touched upon in a few of the arguments posed, but it was never concretely stated that an individual's right to keep and bear arms as expressed in the 2A is for the purpose of a militia being prepared to oppose tyranny from any force, be it a foreign entity or our own government.
|
Agreed, I think Gura should have grown a set and argued the point that a big reason "the" right to bear arms should not be infringed is for the reasons Headcase pointed out. Justice Scalia even hinted in the direction as far as what I understand what she was saying, and he could have capitalized this and really made a strong argument. However I feel he was to busy trying to appease what he thought was going to be acceptable to the court. And I think that is what really got me the most.
JUSTICE SCALIA: "I don't see how there's any, any, any contradiction between reading the second clause as a -- as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia, not necessarily a State-managed militia because the militia that resisted the British was not State- managed. But why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."