



I'll get to the pair's pathetic attempt to prove their point shortly (HT Twitchy), but first I have to let readers know what these distinguished gentlemen think of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion the court's Heller ruling, which established that gun ownership is an individual right (bolds are mine throughout this post):




For the record, the Second Amendment does not guarantee "the unfettered right to ... eventually shoot someone with a gun." By that logic, anyone shooting up a store in the process of robbing it would be exercising his or her constitutional rights. As Scalia noted in the Heller ruling:


Scalia didn't "discard as irrelevant" the reference to state militias. As seen in the opinion, he declared that "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part."

Understanding that clear interpretation of the Founders' plain English is important, because, as we'll see, what Asner and Weinberger failed to realize is that their attempt at an argument backfired (pun intended):

Here is Madison’s first draft of the Second Amendment:





Uh, no, guys. Asner and Weinberger are right that "Madison’s intent could not be more obvious," but they obviously got that intent wrong.

The fact that the "shall not infringe" clause appears first in Madison's draft communicates his clear intent that the people had a right to bear arms, whether or not they were members of militias. The exemption for the "religiously scrupulous," the equivalent of today's conscientious objectors, would only be relevant to citizens who were in the age group, generally 18 to 45, required to join militias. It's clear that Madison, in originally opening with the "shall not infringe" clause, intended that all adults who wished to arm themselves should be able to do so.

If Madison's and the Founders' intentions weren't as I have just described, we would expect American history to be littered with examples of mandatory confiscations of thousands upon thousands of personal firearms once citizens became too old to remain in militias, and strict laws against anyone under 18 owning or being allowed to possess guns. Of course, there is no record of either.


Give Asner and Weinberger credit for passing on a form of holiday-season cheer, as I suspect many readers here will laugh uproariously at the pair's arguments.

Speaking of laughs, Salon's editors should have laughed very hard at the pair's incredibly ridiculous attempt at revisionist history, and kept it from appearing on its site.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Guns Liberals & Democrats Salon Ed Asner Antonin Scalia

Sponsored Links