Letters to the Editor
Xanthro
Published Letters: 522 Editor's Choice: 47
-
Can't stop the truth
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]“OK, I checked in after seeing 'Fast Food Nation' -- a pretty good movie about the harm being done to America by greed in another industry (not firearms) -- and I cannot resist pointing out that the two modern cases belatedly cited by Xanthro ARE NOT 2A CASES.”
------------------------------
Why would they be 2A cases when the Second Amendment case was already cited.
You wrote. “That is why I kept asking Xanthro for even one example of a gun law being struck down (since 1939), and he is simply unable to provide any.”
Since Emerson was already discussed, and it’s the only case in the 20th century that speaks directly to the issue, it seemed you were unaware that cases have been stuck down as unconstitutional.
==================================
“In a normal conversation, when a person in Xanthro's position is informed that the cases he or she cited (for the proposition that the 2A prohibits at least SOME gun control laws) in fact have nothing to do with the 2A, that person either apologizes and moves on, or asks you to explain what you mean, and then apologizes and moves on.”
-------------------------------
Since you know there is only one case, which was cited, then specifically ask for others without stating 2A issues, admit to your poor wording.
================================
“Not our Xanthro. He just keeps slinging it, because he doesn't know what it means that a case was not decided on 2A grounds. Listening to him talk about the law is as painful as listening to Bush-Cheney talk about the Iraq Occupation (or pretty much anything else).”
---------------------------------
Once again, maybe you should simply just read what you write instead of what you perhaps assumed you wrote or meant. You’d get better grades in school.
==================================
I did however enjoy the exchange where our buddy Xan explains that the Constitution protects unpopular minorities from the tyranny of the majority; was confronted by the fact that Japanese-American citizens were interned during WWII; and explained it away by saying it was unconstitutional but the Supreme Court found it constitutional. Nice.
--------------------------------------
Have you never heard of the court rescinding a previous position?
Such as Plessy v. Ferguson 1896 being rescinded by Brown v.
Board of Education of Topeka 1954.
Both Hirabayashi v. United States (1943) and Korematsu v. United States (1944) were upheld by the US Supreme Court, but both were bad law in the same manner as Plessy v. Ferguson and both were vacated by Congress in 1988.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court sometimes rules in ways contrary to the Constitution, otherwise we would never have George W. Bush as President.
==========================
“The truth is that solid majorities of Americans have wanted real gun control for decades. Only the political will of our "leaders" is keeping that from happening, not the 2A.”
---------------------------
If such solid majorities as you suggest wanted specific gun control and there were no legal issues, then it would have come to pass. The problem with Gun Control is many people say they are for more generic gun control, but oppose specific legislation. Generic can’t be passed.
I think the belligerence in your posting is because you understand that this issue is slipping away.