Home | About | Donate

Antonin Scalia and the Clear and Present Danger of Second Amendment Fundamentalism

Antonin Scalia and the Clear and Present Danger of Second Amendment Fundamentalism

Bill Blum

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. —Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

1 Like

If Congress hasn’t named a deadly disease after Scalia yet, they are dragging their feet.

1 Like

This country was originally designed and intended to be a patchwork of States. The article States that the Second Amendment was a compromise which intended to leave the responsibility for regulating firearms to local police jurisdictions. So it seems to be a real stretch to go from there to the position that continuing, incremental erosion of these rights for everyone, nationwide. Furthermore, why is the writing of more and more Federal law termed “Progressive?” You know, it seems to me that firearms have not changed so much in the last 49 years, nor have people and our personalities, faults and goodness. What has changed which requires more and more law to be written? Remember the Whiskey Rebellion. Remember President Thomas Jefferson admonishing or exhorting us to not be overly harsh when dealing with rebellions and uprisings, which he knew would happen frown time to time. And, the Whiskey Rebellion as well as President Jefferson date back two centuries. Many more died in that old uprising than any of our recent incidents like San Bernardino.