NPR radio explains the 2nd amendment

[JohnKos]

Real meaning of the 2nd amendment? And we wonder why there is so much disinformation out there. The liberal spin always amazes me. How do you get it thru their heads that the gun lobby is made up of regular people and not some sinister back room group.

http://www.onthemedia.org/flashpop.h...eam/xspf/95878

[tmg19103]

"NPR radio explains the 2nd amendment".

That's like saying "rapist explains how to make affectionate love to a woman".

[lildobe]

Well, one, that wasn't NPR - that was WNYC's production. It's just syndicated through NPR.

2nd, they were only talking about what the SCOTUS decided the last time this issue came up - that last time, they decided that it was not an individual right.

Granted, it could have used two other interviewees (one pro, one anti), however in the time alloted they did a fairly good job.

[Yellowfin]

They need to stop inviting the antis to the table. Do you invite people to speak at funerals who think the deceased was worthless and it's a good thing they died? Do steak houses and butcher shops get reviewed by vegans?

[lildobe]

They need to stop inviting the antis to the table.

Actually, for true "Fair and Balanced" reporting, you do.

You need a voice - or angle - from each side in every article or segment.

[nijwnfi]

When did the Supreme Court decide 2A was not an individual right? Please enlighten me, preferably with an impartial source. If this were true, why are they hearing Heller vs DC? Wouldn't their original decision stand?

[reels18]

Never Preach Responsibly doesn't know it's ass from it's elbow.

[lildobe]

When did the Supreme Court decide 2A was not an individual right? Please enlighten me, preferably with an impartial source. If this were true, why are they hearing Heller vs DC? Wouldn't their original decision stand?

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html

U.S. v. Miller (1939): "The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with a view to its purpose of rendering effective the Militia."

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

[nijwnfi]

Thanks for the link. Within that link I read on and found this. US vs Miller is as clear as mud. Sorry this is so long winded, here's a link to the whole thing http://www.guncite.com/journals/dencite.html

Although the opinion assumes some connection between the right to keep and bear arms and a militia, it is clear from the opinion that the Court did not buy wholesale the government's "collective rights" argument. Had the Court accepted the government's interpretation of the Second Amendment, the case would have likely been disposed of on the issue of standing. This is because the defendants were not members of militias, and under the government's interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court could have found that Jack Miller had no standing to invoke the Second Amendment in the district court. For the government, Miller was less than a clear victory.

More significantly, the actual holding of Miller is a far cry from the proposition for which it is cited by many groups: that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual, enforceable right. On the contrary, the Court's opinion acknowledges that historical sources "show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense .... And further, ... these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."Unfortunately, the Court fails to explore the logical consequences of its conclusion. Thus Miller is perhaps most notable for the questions it left unanswered. What would have happened, for example, if Miller and Layton had retained an attorney to represent them at oral argument and put on evidence about the militia and weapons that militia members generally possessed? Or what if they had argued that the introductory phrase of the Second Amendment merely expressed a widespread sentiment against standing armies and was not meant to qualify or to limit the "right of the people to keep and bear arms?" Given the incomplete record before the Miller court, as well as the very narrow holding of the case, questions regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment and its outer limits should be regarded as far from settled. Nor should the alleged "unanimity" of Miller's application in the lower courts be evidence of its persuasiveness, for, as I shall show, this "unanimity" is largely a function of the lower courts' less-than-honest treatment of Miller's holding.

[Yellowfin]

Actually, for true "Fair and Balanced" reporting, you do.

You need a voice - or angle - from each side in every article or segment.

"Fair and balanced" is a crock of crap. The responsibility is to accuracy and truth. "Fair and balanced" would have an interstate off ramp going half towards the road, half off the side into the ocean. There is no usefulness to it.