Second Amendment Guarantees The “Reasonable” Right To Bear Arms

“Gun control laws serve the overwhelmingly important government interest in public safety.”

What an idiot, gun control laws only serve to protect the government’s interest in itself. Throughout history disarmament has only been followed by subsequent abuse of power, most notably in the cases of Stalin and Hitler, as well as Asia and South America.

The author has failed to understand that the language of the second amendment strictly forbids infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, that is what “shall not be infringed” means.

But I will allow the founding fathers to make my case for me:

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — (Thomas Jefferson)

I could go on, but I don’t want to make this comment too long.

Dang I posted the same thing over there too.

Adam Winkler is a professor at UCLA, not a student.

“Shall not be infringed” seems pretty reasonable to me.