What does the SecÂond AmendÂment mean? It’s someÂthing that the Supreme Court has nevÂer realÂly said. In this hour long video, Cass SunÂstein, a very well known law proÂfesÂsor from the UniÂverÂsiÂty of ChicaÂgo, takes a crack at interÂpretÂing this amendÂment and seeÂing whether its origÂiÂnal meanÂing actuÂalÂly conÂfers the right to bear arms. Originalists/conservatives probÂaÂbly won’t like his conÂcluÂsions, and they may be inclined to disÂmiss this as a talk givÂen by anothÂer libÂerÂal elitÂist. But they should keep in mind that SunÂstein actuÂalÂly saw the Bush adminÂisÂtraÂtion’s wireÂtapÂping as havÂing a plauÂsiÂble legal basis, and he’s had anyÂthing but a harsh assessÂment of John Roberts’ track record as a judge.
This talk was recordÂed on OctoÂber 23, 2007.
reeeeealÂly good talk. my friend and I sat down to watch it, and before we startÂed, we laid out our posiÂtions, basiÂcalÂly one on each side of the debate. SunÂstein proÂceeds to explain how we’re both wrong. AweÂsome.
The SecÂond AmendÂment clearÂly asserts that each state is “free” and able to mainÂtain a miliÂtia to remain free. This is unlike many othÂer counÂtries, where local miliÂtias are nonexÂisÂtent. This is one of the unique qualÂiÂties of the UnitÂed States. If a forÂeign powÂer were to invade AmerÂiÂca, they would have to overÂrun the miliÂtia of each state and each state would in turn have to surÂrenÂder before the cenÂtral govÂernÂment is forced to capitÂuÂlate to such an invadÂing powÂer. The AmerÂiÂcan CivÂil War is a clear examÂple of how this works as each state of the forÂmer ConÂfedÂerÂaÂcy was required to pledge alleÂgiance to the fedÂerÂal govÂernÂment priÂor to being readÂmitÂted to the Union. It goes withÂout sayÂing that for a miliÂtia to be effecÂtive, it would necÂesÂsarÂiÂly need to posÂsess arms. So why would the amendÂment go on to say that the peoÂple have the right to bear arms? That would be mereÂly statÂing an obviÂous redunÂdanÂcy, since a miliÂtia is in the busiÂness of carÂryÂing out milÂiÂtary funcÂtions, which includes the use of arms. The key to the secÂond part of the amendÂment is that the “peoÂple” have the right to bear arms. By using the word “peoÂple,” the amendÂment is statÂing that it is a right to be enjoyed by all AmerÂiÂcans in an incluÂsive sense.
Am I corÂrect that PeoÂple who have served time and have felonies, but have been trouÂble free for over 25 — 30 years, and are now upstandÂing, hard workÂing, and honÂest citÂiÂzens, still have the right to bare arms and proÂtect their home, even though they have a few nonÂviÂoÂlent felonies on their record?