• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Conservative/Republican Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger's "2nd Amendment Fraud" comments (from 1991)

CaughtInThe

CaughtInThe

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2017
Messages
108,576
Reaction score
108,363
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Don't believe me. Listen to him say it himself.








And this is from 2 or 3 of his comments over time...


Image
 
CaughtInThe said:
which, of course, doesn't mean he's wrong. it simply means other people interpreted it differently.

and our kids then paid the ultimate price for.
Click to expand...

Bullshit.

No one interprets it differently. The court committed a fraud and the nutter echo that crime.
 
The concept that some guy in 1700 wanted everyone in 2022 to be walking around with a gun, and also gave blanket permission for that to happen, as well as blanket permission for firearm manufacturers to see Mass Murder Machines to whomever they want...well that whole concept is sort of laughably brainless when you think about it for a second. the concept that a guy living in colonial America and being necessary to fight a war, and that equates to every mouth breathing idiot being permitted to carry guns around in modern times.....LOL. A person would have to have rocks in their head to make that quantum leap.
But I dont look for any real improvement anytime soon, we are well into what I call our "Bread & Circus Days" here in the US.
 
Bullseye said:
His "opinion' has been superseded and overridden.
Click to expand...
Yes it has. Interestingly by those claiming to want to apply the constitution according to its plain terms and ordinary meaning when written. An approach that is entirely in line with the comments of Justice Burger.
 
CaughtInThe said:
Don't believe me. Listen to him say it himself.
Click to expand...

Well, I don’t believe him, because he had no understanding of the word “regulated” in the context of what it meant as it related to a citizen militia in 18th Century America:

The Second Amendment’s prefatory language, which refers to the “necess[ity]” of a “well regulated Militia,” does not negate the Amendment’s operative guarantee. It was common in constitutional and statutory provisions at the time of the Framing for prefatory language to identify a goal or principle of wise governance narrower than the operative language used to achieve it. The logical connection between militia operations and a general right of private gun ownership was particularly clear when the Second Amendment was adopted, since the Framing-era “Militia” was not a select body like today’s National Guard, but instead comprised the free white male citizenry of fighting age, whose members were expected to bring their own weapons when called to service.
Click to expand...

Burger conflated his modern understanding of “regulated” as it relates to laws or “regulations” with the amendment’s explanatory justification of the necessity of an organized and well-trained (“regulated”) citizen militia.

Good thing he turned up his toes years ago. That just meant there was one less idiot in the world.
 
Ahlevah said:
Well, I don’t believe him, because he had no understanding of the word “regulated” in the context of what it meant as it related to a citizen militia in 18th Century America:



Burger conflated his modern understanding of “regulated” as it relates to laws or “regulations” with the amendment’s explanatory justification of the necessity of an organized and well-trained (“regulated”) citizen militia.

Good thing he turned up his toes years ago. That just meant there was one less idiot in the world.
Click to expand...
Imagine a Chief Justice not having the special knowledge you have.
 
Berger deliberately left out the last four words in the amendment - " . . . shall not be infringed."

This omission was deliberate in order to support his misinterpretation of the intent of the amendment.

The Founders wrote the 2nd amendment as means of limiting the power of the government - NOT as means of giving government additional powers.

Also, Berger doesn't understand what the term "well regulated" means with regards to a civilian Militia. In 1789, Well-regulated meant in good working order - NOT government meddling and oversight. If the Founders had wanted government to be the regulating body, they would have stated that in the Amendment.

Jefferson made it crystal clear that they wanted citizens to keep and bear arms so they could squash a tyrannical government:

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

"The great object is that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry
 
Last edited:
Linc said:
You believe in the completely bastardized interpretation of the 2A. Your ilk on this forum is like termite-infested wood.
Click to expand...

The “completely bastardized version” is the one that says everywhere the Bill of Rights refers to “the People” refers to an individual right, EXCEPT that one. They could take the time to actually read what the Founders wrote on the topic, as well as the debates in Congress concerning the post-Civil War Amendments, but that would rain on their parade.
 
SkyChief said:
Berger deliberately left out the last four words in the amendment - " . . . shall not be infringed."

This omission was deliberate in order to support his misinterpretation of the intent of the amendment.

The Founders wrote the 2nd amendment as means of limiting the power of the government - NOT as means of giving government additional powers.

Also, Berger doesn't understand what the term "well regulated" means with regards to a militia. Well-regulated meant in good working order - NOT government meddling.
Click to expand...

I think Berger understood it just fine, it really isnt complicated at all, and its our fabulous Gun Nuts that are once again having difficulty with these somewhat rudimentary and basic concepts. Personally I probably give a little greater weight to Bergers opinion the I do to Guy On The Internets opinion.
 
Ahlevah said:
Well, I don’t believe him, because he had no understanding of the word “regulated” in the context of what it meant as it related to a citizen militia in 18th Century America
Click to expand...
yeah, i'd rather listen to a dude on the internet like you instead of a conservative republican chief justice of the SC.
 
SkyChief said:
Also, Berger doesn't understand what the term "well regulated" means with regards to a civilian Militia. Well-regulated meant in good working order - NOT government meddling and oversight. If the Founders had wanted government to be the regulating body, they would have stated that in the Amendment.
Click to expand...

Obviously, Chief Justice Grandpa wasn’t quite old enough before he croaked to see the term used in any context other than the one his limited worldly experience provided;

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”
Click to expand...

The Meaning of “Well Regulated” in the 2nd Amendment

Those opposed to gun rights often argue that the phrase well regulated means that the drafters of the 2nd Amendment intended to allow the government to
www.learnaboutguns.com
 
PeacefulWarrior said:
Doubtless Chief Justice Berger didn't have nearly the education or background in law that Guy On The Internet has.
Click to expand...
Berger turned on the religious reich gun cucks as Eisenhower and Goldwater did.

Our Founding Fathers believed that weapons of war were more important than children being slaughtered at school.
 
CaughtInThe said:
yeah, i'd rather listen to a dude on the internet like you instead of a conservative republican chief justice of the SC.
Click to expand...

I didn’t expect anyone to take my word for the fact that Burger was a moron. That’s why I quoted sources and provided links to them.
 
Linc said:
Berger turned on the religious reich gun cucks as Eisenhower and Goldwater did.
Click to expand...

Is that supposed to be an argument? Looks like you fired a blank.

Linc said:
Our Founding Fathers believed that weapons of war were more important than children being slaughtered at school.
Click to expand...

If you want safe schools move to the Bolivarian socialist utopia known as Venezuela. I’ve heard there are no guns there. They’ve been outlawed.
 
SkyChief said:
Berger deliberately left out the last four words in the amendment - " . . . shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...

The right shall not be infringed. That has nothing to do with the firearms themselves. If you can own weapons, even if only specific ones, you still have an uninfringed right to do so.

SkyChief said:
This omission was deliberate in order to support his misinterpretation of the intent of the amendment.

The Founders wrote the 2nd amendment as means of limiting the power of the government - NOT as means of giving government additional powers.

Also, Berger doesn't understand what the term "well regulated" means with regards to a civilian Militia. In 1789, Well-regulated meant in good working order - NOT government meddling and oversight. If the Founders had wanted government to be the regulating body, they would have stated that in the Amendment.
Click to expand...

If being part of a militia wasn't supposed to be part of the intent of the amendment, they WOULDN'T have stated THAT in the amendment.

SkyChief said:
Jefferson made it crystal clear that they wanted citizens to keep and bear arms so they could squash a tyrannical government:

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

"The great object is that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry
Click to expand...

Then they went and wrote the most ambiguous amendment they possibly could have.
 
SkyChief said:
Berger deliberately left out the last four words in the amendment - " . . . shall not be infringed."

This omission was deliberate in order to support his misinterpretation of the intent of the amendment.

The Founders wrote the 2nd amendment as means of limiting the power of the government - NOT as means of giving government additional powers.

Also, Berger doesn't understand what the term "well regulated" means with regards to a civilian Militia. In 1789, Well-regulated meant in good working order - NOT government meddling and oversight. If the Founders had wanted government to be the regulating body, they would have stated that in the Amendment.

Jefferson made it crystal clear that they wanted citizens to keep and bear arms so they could squash a tyrannical government:

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

"The great object is that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry
Click to expand...


So?

I suspect any of the so called 'fathers' were to see how it is interpreted today would be horrified.

The United States is the only jurisdiction with such a law, and has the highest death rate by guns.

What a ****ing surprise!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom