She appears to indifferent to the cause of Liberty, she doesn't want to do the research to study the real truth about the meaning of "shall not be infringed." She did not do any original work that I could see but rather borrowed from everyone else's language and interpretations. She had no "strength" and/or no balls to venture out to a reasoning process like imagining whether the founders would mean anything like "just to exercise the right in the home." The Founders, by any objective form of reasoning process, would not have held that type of meaning. She would be able to find no evidence of this type of meaning anywhere in the contemporary literature of founding era.
SCOTUS, in Heller, responded to the narrow question before the court with regard to use of a gun in the home. They chose not to expand their answer to beyond the questions brought before the court, which were in essence: Does a person have the right to keep and bear an arm and if so is can the right be exercised in the home for defense of self, family, friends and property? Alan Gura stated to those of us who were in Chicago for the GRPC that they preferred to keep the case very narrowly defined. They may deal with the back yard next, then the street etc... It made the perfect narrow case for the court.
Most judges, and I will pick on most attorneys as well, have no clue of the first duty of government, according to the Founders. Ask any judges or attorneys or most of your friends what the first duty of the Federal Government is; and while we are at it the first duty of the Illinois government. Most answers will be to protect Public Safety or provide for common defense or control the People to preserve civilization.
My proof comes from two areas:
- Declaration of Independence 2nd paragraph: ". . .men are. . . endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among men . . ."
- Illinois Constitution, Article 1, Section 1: "All men . . . have certain inherent and inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights . . . governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
[Edited for brevity]
I like this comment Justice George Sutherland who wrote a dissent and made this observation:
"Whether the legislation under review is wise or unwise is a matter with which we have noting to do. Whether it is likely to work well or work ill presents a question entirely irrelevant to the issue. The only legitimate inquiry we can make is whether it is constitutional. If it is not, its virtues, if it have any, cannot save it; if it is, its faults cannot be invoked to accomplish its destruction. If the provisions of the Constitution be not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be abandoned."
Edited by dmefford, 07 February 2012 - 01:09 PM.