The 2nd Amednment Discussed on the The Diane Rehm Show (Wed)

[Durandal]

Its available in pod cast, WMV, and RA...

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/06/08/02.php#10675

A fairly well balanced discussion though some of Susan Pages' questions were fairly biased...

Discuss....

[WarriorMonk]

National Public Radio...NPR...National Pinhead Radio...or at least that's what some people think of it.

[Geezah]

From what I've heard so far, I'm not that impressed. He's only focused on the American side of the Bill of Rights and ignored its root which come from the British Bill of Rights.
freedom from a peace-time standing army, without agreement by Parliament
freedom [for Protestants] to have arms for defence, as allowed by law

[Durandal]

National Public Radio...NPR...National Pinhead Radio...or at least that's what some people think of it.

I wasn't asking you about NPR smart guy...

[Durandal]

From what I've heard so far, I'm not that impressed. He's only focused on the American side of the Bill of Rights and ignored its root which come from the British Bill of Rights.

Yeah, but I think he's try to tell his story from the point of the preamble and the bill of rights, not so much as the origins prior to say...1740....maybe a bit later.

[Geezah]

Yeah, but I think he's try to tell his story from the point of the preamble and the bill of rights, not so much as the origins prior to say...1740....maybe a bit later.

Isn't he also ignoring allot of what the Founding Fathers wrote in regards the 2nd Am?

The Ohio Constitution written in 1851.
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

While he covered Federal and State, at a State level it's plain as day that it refers to "The People have a right to bear arms for defense and security".

[Durandal]

Personally, I think the dude is wacked and I am glad I heard this so I did not buy his book.

That said, he does mention the difference between State and Federal and then goes on to say that the Civil War settled that.

*snort*

Edit: I also think that he is completely out of touch with the anti-gun movement. He mentions several times how the two groups NEED to find a middle ground.

The problem is, that while I can find middle ground, the anti-gun loons cannot.

I mean, fire arm purchases, with the exception of private sales, ARE regulated at almost every level. We are already at a middle ground.

[Geezah]

Makes me think of the oh so Pro Hunting websites and organisations that were started by the anti gun loons, give the impression you support the 2nd only to say you support it only if it's under my rules.

Interesting take on the 2nd by the former Attorney General (http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm)