Journalists shot, killed in Virginia during live shot

Where does it say that at the founding, people had to be in a militia to own a gun?

 

Yep, I regret it.

 

And, so they were somehow prevented from owning weapons when the Constitution was originally ratified?

 

Y'all better listen to Toobin ... he's been a writer at The New Yorker for more than 20 years!

 

Even the "well regulated Militia" line is misunderstood.

By regulated, they meant trained, not regulated in the sense we commonly think of today. And, because there was no standing army, the militias were made up of citizen soldiers. They needed to be available, and have weapons if called upon.

Now, some may say that our standing army makes this moot, but you'd have to amend the Constitution to remove the right that was recognized when originally ratified.

 

I'm sure Devil was quoting him on a regular basis during the Clinton impeachment proceedings.

 

Toobin doesn't even have to be wrong here.

OK, the courts later said that the right only applied to well-regulated militias. Let's take him at his word.

First: Those decisions came at a later date than the relevant date here, "day 1."

Second: Just because citizens didn't have the right to own guns unless they were in a well-regulated militia doesn't mean that it was illegal for citizens to own guns unless they were in a well-regulated militia. It would have been and was up to state and municipal legislatures.

 

Oh, I know. I'm just lampooning 93Devil's proffering of this guy -- this fucking guy -- as an authority.

 

Stop the clock ... 63 pages before first Clinton reference. New record, YF! Congratulations!

 

I don't think Toobin's terrible. He can even be good.

But:

A) He's one guy
2) His being a writer for the New Yorker isn't why we should value his opinion
C) He didn't say what Devil thinks he said

 

I think that folks often overlook the probability that, if you could somehow transport the Founding Fathers through time from the era of muzzle-loaded flintlocks and letter presses to today, they would be so overwhelmed by seeing things such as automobiles, light bulbs, microwave ovens and the Internet (and with the whole concept of twerking) that they would likely be reduced to such a catatonic state that they would have trouble engaging in any sort of coherent conversation.

 

Hey, I just think if you want to say, "look at what this super smart guy who is always right about issues like this said," you might want to consider some of his other opinions, and think about whether or not you agree with them before you tell us we should agree with him on this one topic.