The Second Amendment Is So Eighteenth Century

courtesy Makers

“The Second Amendment has a preamble about the need for a militia. Historically, the new government had no money to pay for an army, so they relied on the state militias. The states required men to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their home so that when they were called to do service as militiamen, they would have them. That was the entire purpose of the Second Amendment.

“I view the Second Amendment as rooted in the time totally allied to the need to support a militia. So…the Second Amendment is outdated in the sense that its function has become obsolete.” – Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a 2013 interview with The Takeaway

comments

  1. avatar No one of consequence says:

    And it is necessary and highly relevant today because some of our highest officials are trying to tell us it’s obsolete.

    Ironic, isn’t it?

    1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

      Pretty much. National defense is an aspect of it but people like her are equally if not more so the reason for it.

      1. avatar DDay says:

        So she thinks a militia set up by the government or at least authorized by the gov’t is the check against a tyrannical gov’t? That is illogical and moronic.

        And she ignores the 2nd part, the right of the people which certainly means individuals.

        She’s so incredibly stupid. At least when she falls a sleep at SCOTUS hearings, she stops making a fool of herself. sotomayor is slightly worse than ginsburg but she’s absolutely terrible. I’d rather she just resign but she’s definitely not going to do that for trump to pick her replacement, so I hope she expires soon and we get another person who actually respects the constitution.

        1. avatar Ardent says:

          She studied law at Harvard, transferred to and holds a Juris Doctorate from Columbia and has been on the federal bench since the Carter administration. She’s not stupid at all. It’s an easy mistake to make, thinking these people, like Ginsburg, Obama and their ilk are stupid, but it’s a dangerous miscalculation. What they are is deluded: believing without, or even in spite of, evidence, that somehow they can alter reality through intent and will. They can’t, obviously, do that, but it doesn’t stop them trying. It’s part of what makes them so dangerous; They are intelligent, well educated and powerful, but deeply deluded, arrogant and narcissistic nearly to the point of sociopathology. They will gladly sacrifice any number of ‘us’ to experimentation with the very substance of civilization, society, economics and human nature. So convinced are they that they, and only they, know what is good and right, that however many of us must suffer or be sacrificed, for even the barest chance of their vision becoming reality, or even just to learn, via failed attempt, how better they might bend the world to their wills, that all of ‘us’ are worth the price. To people such as these we are not only expendable, but actually deserving of suffering and sacrifice, because we do not embrace their vision. From their point of view our concern for ourselves, our families and our republic are selfish and depraved. To them, our unwillingness to sacrifice all that we have and all that we are, even our liberty and our lives, to move the world even one scintilla closer to what they consider utopia makes us not only small minded, but actively evil.

          It is a function of their arrogance and narcisim that our complaints of the enormous costs, reckless risks and extreme improbability of their designs proving useful or even possible, that cause them to hold us in such utter disdain. If only we would surrender to their whims, perhaps then reality itself would bend to their will as well. As it is, we the people are preventing them from attempting to make real the grandiose designs they have, which they believe will result in utopia, and which we know as either impossible dreams, or, more often and more darkly, to be the realm of tyranny, of economic failure, of starvation, of war and of genocide and democide on a scale the world has never before seen, except in preview in Stalinist Russia, Maoist China and the Cambodia of Pol Pot.

          Nevermind that scarcity of resources, natural law, human nature and the fabric of reality would in time demonstrate the fallacy of their ideals. It matters not at all that what they propose has not worked, and cannot work. It is of no consequence that their ultimate enemy is reality itself, the final limiting factor of their goals being the impossibility of what they seek. Forget that what they perceive as utopia sounds dangerously like hell on earth. Dismiss the fact that the nature of highly complex systems dooms their meddling to destruction rather than perfection. They cannot punish reality. They cannot influence human nature. They are powerless in the face of complexity. They cannot make bounty out of scarcity. What they can do is usurp our liberties, imprison our bodies, confiscate and squander our fortunes and destroy our lives. They can kill us. They can kill us incidentally, as we suffer from shortage of food, power and medicine as a result of their misgovernace and doomed economic strategies. They can kill us intentionally, in civil war and unrest, or in mass starvation as in Ukraine, or mass forced migrations, as in China. They will kill us, willfully and entirely, to the degree they are capable, in pursuit of their impossible, delusional dreams.

          What we face is not a difference in policy, nor of ideology, but rather the stark, bright difference between reality and delusion. Life is order and order is life. Delusion cannot but increase disorder, and thus death. When we oppose these people, we oppose delusion in favor of reality, we oppose nhilsim in favor of creation, disorder in favor of order, tyranny in favor of liberty and we oppose death in favor of life, however unjust and imperfect it may.

        2. avatar neiowa says:

          A Harvard (or Yale) sheepskin is hardly a positive recommendation. Have you been paying attention to the last century?

        3. avatar Mike says:

          Ardent, there was no reply button on your brilliant reply to DDAY so I copied it and posted it to my FB page, with full credit to you.

        4. avatar Clark Kent says:

          I’ll stick with her stupid label. And you just can’t fix stupid, just like you can’t shine sh*t.

    2. avatar Danny Mann says:

      I guess she would know. She was THERE when it was adopted.

      1. avatar Gunner2000 says:

        A Founding Father’s Grandmother perhaps?

        1. avatar woodchuckwacket says:

          … Disgruntled concubine is probably a better description for the oldbat…???

    3. The fact that government would repeal the 2nd Amendment, is the very reason for which we have it,- “William DeBurgh”.

    4. avatar American Patriot says:

      ….And the ones telling us it’s obsolete look as though they are pertrified & obsolete. Theres a time to get out of office, not when your carried out in a pine box like McCain!

  2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    So pass an amendment to repeal it. Until then it’s the highest law of the land.

    1. avatar Bloving says:

      Therein lay the problem: her job is to interpret a law she personally disagrees with.
      So can we expect her to recuse herself from any Second Amendment case that comes before the court since she personally disapproves of the Amendment’s place in the Constitution today?
      🤠

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        RBG can recuse herself on any issue IMHO. In fact it’s far past time for her to recuse from the court altogether.

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        The old she bat CAN recuse but hell would freeze over.

    2. avatar Drake_Burrwood says:

      The ninth amendment is quite clear to rights exist EVEN when unenumerated. You get the Right to support your State in service to.the militia.
      Even if it becomes unenumerated, just as your Right to keep and bear exists, just as it pre-existed the amendment that protects that right from the Union, and from the States via 14th.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        So they can repeal the 9th and 14th as well. See how that works out for them.

      2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        Sadly, Kavanaugh is very weak on the 9th Amendment, saying Americans have too many unenumerated rights.

        1. avatar ThisEnd^ says:

          Also it’s NOT either Gorsuch’s and/or Kavanaugh’s Court! It Chief Justice Roberts Court. It’s HIS Bailiwick, NOT Gorsuch’s and/or Kavanaugh’s bailiwick. Robert’s can decide what IS and/or ISN’T heard and Ruled On within the US Supreme Court…

        2. avatar CarlosT says:

          That’s not how it works. Roberts, like any Chief Justice, has one vote towards deciding whether a case is heard by the court. Four are required for a case to be added to the docket.

          The Chief Justice has some influence, but he isn’t like the Speaker of the House, or some head of an executive agency.

        3. avatar neiowa says:

          And Pres Trump needs to demote the turncoat SOB to peon justice of SC

  3. avatar bryan1980 says:

    No, you are the one that is obsolete, not the 2A.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      RBG is so eighteenth century!

      1. I think RBG was born in the eighteenth century.

  4. avatar 300BlackoutFan says:

    That may very well be. However, it’s still part of the Constitution, and therefore, the law. The fact that a law may or may not have any useful function anymore has NEVER stopped a prosecutor or judge, and someone on trial CANNOT use that as an argument for dismissal.

    So, until a Constitutional Amendment is passed which nullifies the 2nd Amendment, your statement, and your belief, means nothing.

    Of course, self defense (of self, of state, and of country) being a natural right, your premise is wrong to begin with.

  5. avatar Free Texas says:

    Yes Ruth, tyranny always renders freedom “obsolete.”

    Granted, the leviathan federal government, with its standing armies the founders rejected, have made our liberties, like that of securing our own safety, almost entirely obsolete.

    Shall we keep it that way, Ruth? Or make it worse? Or roll it back? I tell you what. Forego armed security in your life and we’ll talk.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      A FEW of the minor players “rejected a standing army”. Washington did no do so. When in doubt defer to Washington.

      1. avatar ThisEnd^ says:

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but President George Washington sent in the Massachusetts Militia to Subdue the “Shays’ Rebellion” in June 1787…

  6. avatar James Madison says:

    Um… Federalist papers #46 sheds some light on this issue. The whole thing is relevant, but here’s a critical excerpt

    … “Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops” …

    -James Madison (you know, that guy who wrote the second amendment)

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      This !

      Marxist regressives have such a difficult time with truth and facts.

    2. avatar zerofoo says:

      Our founders were wise men. Far wiser than those who currently govern.

      Madison states here, quite eloquently, that the federal military should be smaller and less powerful than the civilian militia.

      So not only do the people have the right to keep and bear arms, they also have the right to be armed as well as or better than the federal military.

      Now I just need enough money to buy some military hardware.

      1. avatar former water walker says:

        Wise enough not to have leftard Jewish women in SCOTUS…

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        Every male citizens is a member o f the militia so the Active force + Reserve forces will obviously ALWAYS be smaller.

    3. avatar Wiregrass says:

      And that document right there shoots holes in all their revisionist history.

    4. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Those thoughts *could* be incorrect! For example, if fossilized lawmakers can rationalize that militia weapons can only be muskets from 18th century, while the standing army has tanks and machineguns, not to mention bombers, then the smaller force might prevail, at least until such time as the militia begins collecting the weapons of those who attack them and learning to use them.

    5. avatar ThisEnd^ says:

      Exactly how is that!/? The “Federalist Papers” were written in 1787, and the “Bill of Rights” in 1791! How does an “Older” document explain the meaning of a “Newer” document, when both “Documents” were written in a version of English that isn’t spoken today in 2018…

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        Relatively simple to explain…
        The Constitution was passed with the expectation that certain rights that weren’t included in the original would be included as soon as possible as amendments. This is history.
        What is quoted above is part of the reasoning that went into formulating the Bill of Rights.
        Sort of how so many legislators today will go on the stump to tell us why we need a certain law, before they actually propose the law they say we need.

        1. avatar ThisEnd^ says:

          One problem! 18th Century English is “New Modern English” (i.e. Shakespearean English) and 21st Century English is “Late Modern English”! Late Modern English “didn’t” exist before 1813. If the English spoken and written in the 18th Century and the English spoken and written in the 21st Century were the Same. There would be no need to have to Interpret the meaning of the Second Amendment, and the NRA could go living in Harmony with the rest of the world that speaks and writes in English. And this Website probably wouldn’t exist. Unfortunately we don’t Speak the same English as spoken in the 18th Century, and that’s why the NRA is having a hard time in the Interpretation in it’s meaning…

        2. avatar Ing says:

          This End, as someone who has an advanced degree in English language and literature, and who has read and studied in old English, middle English, ancient Greek, and modern English, I can officially assure you that you have your head up *that* end.

          If regular people can read and interpret Shakespeare’s 16th century English — something routinely done in high-school English class — then we can easily see the plain meaning of the 18th century writings of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al.

          It takes tremendous effort (or true ignorance) *not* to understand it.

        3. avatar ThisEnd^ says:

          Whose the last person you talked to using Shakespearean English!/?

          “Here my lass, fetch my ass while I get my cock and pullet”

          What was just said? You translate the Shakespearean phrase written…

        4. avatar Mark N. says:

          Shakespeare was so 16th Century, not 18th. He died in 1616, in the early years of the 17th Century. Although it is true that the writers and orators of the late 18th Century were far more eloquent than today, they did not speak as did Elizabethan Englishmen who live nearly two centuries earlier, just as we do not speak as our forefathers did two centuries ago.

        5. avatar ThisEnd^ says:

          Early Modern English is from between 1500 to 1800…

        6. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Big Bill, don’t you think people such as that end should have learned all that in high school? I sure did, but I think silliness like the Constitution is no longer taught.

        7. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Someone pretending to be some manner of English expert should not be using “whose” in place of “who’s”. I smell a troll.

        8. avatar pg2 says:

          Real possibility thisend is an auto-bot troll.

      2. avatar FedUp says:

        The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers were written by those working out the details of the Constitution, and explain the thinking that went into the Constitution.

        1. avatar ThisEnd^ says:

          Again 18th century English (Early Modern English) vs. 21st century English (Late Modern English) subtle differences in the Spoken Words…

      3. avatar CWT says:

        Funny that here in the 21st century I can still read and understand clearly those words written by the Founding Fathers. Common misconception is that Shakespeare’s plays were written in common English.

        1. avatar ThisEnd^ says:

          Then there should be any reason why you couldn’t just march into the US Supreme Court state your case for owning a Machine Gun or ICBM. And walk out of the said same court with the US Governments blessing to buy all the Military Weaponry that your Heart’s Desire. GO FOR IT! Let us know how it turns out…

        2. avatar CWT says:

          I CAN legally own a machine gun and leave to you and your ilk to use the nuclear option when you’re losing the argument.

        3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          ThisEnd,

          Stop being a fool. Language is not the barrier that we face in reclaiming our rights. Rather, the barrier that we face is evil agendas.

          The Ruling Class directs the police and military to carry out the Ruling Class’ agenda — which includes using, exploiting, and abusing the Working Class. Of course the Working Class takes exception and desires the means to resist effectively. And, of course yet again, the Ruling Class does NOT want the Working Class to have the means to resist effectively. THAT is why most/all levels of government, including the United States Supreme Court, keep infringing on our right to keep and bear arms.

        4. avatar neiowa says:

          Fools can’t stop. Nature or nuture? Just get out of their way and let them yap.

    6. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      “To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties. . .”

      The good justice seems to have conveniently forgot this part . . .

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        The good justice seems to have forgotten that a lot of us understand her lies.
        She seems to think that Madison, and all those who left records of their deliberations, had the perfect opportunity to use the phrase “the militia” instead of “the people” if that were what they meant.
        According to her, all of these people were simple country bumpkins who didn’t understand the language they spoke. She knows better.
        She lies.

  7. avatar anarchyst says:

    This is the same Ruth Bader Ginsburg who stated that the Constitution of the United States was outdated and flawed, preferring that the Constitution of South Africa replace our Constitution.
    THAT one statement should have been grounds for impeachment and removal from office.
    This jewess does not realize that our rights are self-endowed and are not “permissions” from government and are inherent in us merely being human.

    1. avatar rt66paul says:

      I am NOT anti Jew, but I do have trouble with anyone in a government position having dual citizenship – this just shows that their loyalty is not only to the US and that they should, at the least, recuse themselves from voting/ruling on matters that may conflict.

      I don’t know if RBG has dual citizenship, but many in congress do, difi among them.

      1. avatar anarchyst says:

        You are correct. I have no animosity towards jews BUT do draw the line at “dual citizenship” which should not only be a disqualifier for public offices, but should result in permanent loss of United States citizenship and mandatory, immediate deportation.
        As there are forty or so congresscritters and thousands of policy wonks infecting our government agencies who hold dual citizenship with Israel, one must ask the question–whose interests do they have in mind- -Israel or the United States?
        It is interesting to note that the Israeli citizenship is one of the few exceptions to the prohibition on dual citizenship.
        WHY??

        1. avatar SuperJew says:

          You are a fucking idiot. The US allows lots of dual citizens in government positions, not just for Israel. Besides being a bigoted fuck, you should have your firearms confiscated for the protection of the people you claim not to hate. Eat shit and die.

        2. avatar Big Bill says:

          Super Jew:
          I am of the belief that for any elected office above state level, dual citizenship should be a disqualifier, for the simple reason that said person’s loyalty will always be under question.
          How can such a person be expected to honor any oath to our constitution when that person holds allegiance to another country?

        3. avatar AverageGoy(pg2) says:

          Sounds like he hit too close to home superjew?

        4. avatar neiowa says:

          Citizenship oath
          ““I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potetate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;”
          Yet we allow the fiction of multiple (illegal) citizenship to continue. AND pretend that the Constitution pertains to noncitizens. In fact that it pertains to any SOB that gets across the border.

          Any you two morons – Jewish is a religion not a race or nationality. Same as Catholic and Baptist. Moron likely might get you citizenship in Russia if you just get your asses over their.

        5. avatar Clark Kent says:

          Jews are a religion and a race. Nice try; no cigar, you putz.

  8. avatar Ian in Transit says:

    “That was the entire purpose of the Second Amendment.”
    Your intellectually dishonest quote of the day.

  9. avatar jug says:

    Just think, IF she had been armed, way back there in 1863, Abe Lincoln wouldn’t have grabbed her ass!

  10. avatar ollie says:

    Remember to vote GOP in November so that Trump can appoint a conservative justice to replace Ginsberg. Even the tainted ones are better than ANY democrat. Your firearms are at risk if the democrats get control.

    California conservatives should vote for DeLeon over Feinstein…..just for spite…..get rid of that old hag.

    1. avatar BehindEnemyLines says:

      I’m going to write in “No suitable candidate” for senate. Luckily, I have a good republican choice for house representative.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I think if election laws allowed it, most elections would result in a final conflict, possibly a runoff, between “none of the above” and “anybody else”.

    2. avatar Scoutino says:

      I would rather write in Mickey mouse than ‘ghost gun’ DeLeon.

  11. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    I find it ironic that so called progressives are trying to sell regressiveism.,next petty tyrant.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      Whatever it takes to move marxism forward

  12. avatar zerofoo says:

    It is not the Supreme Court’s job to amend the constitution. That job falls to Congress or the States themselves.

    The Supreme Court’s job is to decide whether or not laws abide by the restrictions set forth in the constitution. It does not matter whether or not someone feels that those restrictions are “obsolete”.

    Luckily, I think RBG will become obsolete faster than the second amendment.

  13. avatar W says:

    Well, RBG is attempting to parrot the myth of her day that, for some reason which no one can name, the Bill of Rights needed to spell out the right of the government to form a militia. As though that right would be challenged.

    One can only imagine the vast reservoirs of patience that Scalia used to exhibit.

  14. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Looks like an archive photo from around 1986.

  15. avatar Felixd says:

    This is from five years ago.

  16. avatar TommyG says:

    BS. The anti federalists demanded the second amendment so that Americans could always do what they had just done – Resist and defeat and professional army that was being used by abusive government to oppress them. The Federalists argued that the new country needed a standing professional army in order to be secure. The Anti Federalists were strongly opposed to a professional army as they had just spent 8 years fighting against one. As such the Anti Federalists wanted to make sure private citizens always had the capability to resist the professional army proposed by the Federalists.
    What people like Ginsberg grab on to is that many Federalists where in favor of the 2nd because they saw it as a way of supplementing a standing army (realizing that standing armies were expensive). They just drop the fact that the motivation behind the 2nd was to make sure private citizens would be able to resist the army/government if it became oppressive.

  17. avatar pg2 says:

    Due process is so 20th century.

  18. avatar 2aguy says:

    With what they are doing to Judge Kavanaugh, does anyone at this point have any doubts that they are going to do whatever they have to to ban guns? Remember in November….any vote for a democrat is a vote against the 2nd Amendment. This includes democrats at any level since any democrat in political power gives power to the national party leaders. Trump could appoint 2-3 more justices to the Supreme Court, not to mention the lower courts…..and he can only do that with a Republican Senate….and if the democrats take the house, they will impeach him, they will impeach Kavanaugh…and the senate democrats will get Never Trump republicans and squish Republicans like Collins and Murkowski to refuse to confirm any more of his nominees…since he will be under impeachment…..vote out every single democrat…

    1. avatar pg2 says:

      Next democrat in will bring Soviet style communism.

      1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

        That’s if we are lucky. It will be a full-on Bolshevik revolt first, and we all know how peaceful *THAT* went.

        1. avatar pg2 says:

          As lucky as Lucky Larry Silverstein and the billions he made on the 3 collapsing WTC buildings? Lol, we must have different perceptions of luck…the Bolsheviks murdered some 20 million Christian women, children and men.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I have adequate ammo.

  19. avatar BLAMMO says:

    … and my deathwatch continues …

  20. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Wasnt that old biddy born in the 18th century??

  21. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    If the Second Amendment were actually about conscription of men into the militia for national defense in the absense of a federal military (as opposed to defense of the states, as expressly mentioned in the amendment), then why is it listed–and so prominently–among the Bill of Rights? Why isn’t it listed among the enumerated powers of Congress?

    Second, since we do have a national military and a vast network of military bases to house them, then I suppose Justice RBG would be fine with ignoring the anachronistic Third Amendment, too? With just about every jurisdiction out there snatching up cars, boats, planes, cash, jewelry and more under civil asset forfeiture laws, how long do you think it would take for these same officials to start crashing your house and housing whomever they chose to there indefinitely and for free?

    RBG is an immoral, traitorous, and discredited hack, in my opinion. She has no business sitting in judgment of anyone or anything.

  22. avatar rt66paul says:

    We also have to be aware of Republicans/Libertarians/Independents who will support the NWO movement. They are in position to control many huge multinational corporations(they want sovereign power for these corporations), they control many industrialized nations, and seem to have influence at the top of the U.N.

    Trust no one, Republicans support gun rights just like they do/did support evangelical Christians under Nixon and Reagan. Some politicians seem to support our views, but will flip in a crucial vote.

  23. avatar DaveL says:

    It’s certainly true that, at the time, the government was dependent upon militia. It’s also true that they required broad swaths of the civilian population to keep arms suitable for combat, by law.

    But if the point of the exercise was really the government’s need for such men with such arms, why would they need to prohibit the government from disarming them? Clearly the Framers foresaw a day when the government would rather do away with the militia and disarm the people, and sought to foreclose that possibility.

  24. avatar RA-15 says:

    I think Old Ruth. B. G. Needs a history lesson. The 2nd is now & allways will be the Absolute right of all American citizens , mentally unbalanced domocRATS not included as they support a different America than I do. Vote every Democrat out , or we will suffer the consequences.

  25. avatar Pro2A says:

    Our Founders didn’t envision the internet and social media so…the 1st Amendment is also outdated and should be revised. I feel so much better. (Bunch if freedom hating ‘tards)

  26. avatar SuperJew says:

    The anti Semitic comments here are reason enough to take your guns away. Bigots shouldn’t be allowed to own weapons to murder those they hate. You people are fucking pathetic.

    1. avatar Pg2 says:

      Why stop there? Should any goy, shiksa, or schvartze be able to own a gun?

      1. avatar SuperJew says:

        You are an ignorant fuck. I said bigots, like you. Capice?

        1. avatar Pg2 says:

          You would love to disarm the goyim, you’ve made that clear. And you’ll cry victim as you attack the goyim, crystal clear. Same old playbook.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Come and get ’em!

      1. avatar pg2 says:

        superjew is a blatant troll….maybe showing the real agenda…disarm the non-jewish population……

        1. avatar SuperJew says:

          Fuck you asshole.

        2. avatar Pg2 says:

          No thanks. Sounds like someone doesn’t like called out for posting bullshit.

  27. avatar 10x25mm says:

    Justice Ginsberg would be the one to know about the XVIII Century. Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., is under fire for joking:

    “Did y’all hear this latest late-breaking news from the Kavanaugh hearings?” Ruth Bader Ginsburg came out that she was groped by Abraham Lincoln.”

  28. avatar Icabod says:

    At the time of the Constitution’s ratification, militias had cannons. Artillery comparable to any army of the time. These weapons were privately purchased by individuals. The Second Amendment isn’t just about pistols and rifles.

    There is the question, “Who regulates the militia?”
    “Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say “A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State” — because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the “security of a free State.”
    Further,
    “In every other instance where the term “regulate” is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being “regulated.” However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term “well regulated” to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.”
    https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

  29. avatar Ronald says:

    Her logic predicates on the belief that we should have a large standing army in times of peace. Funny how most gun grabbers would say they are against having said army in another context.

    1. avatar BLAMMO says:

      We had a professional standing army at the time: The Redcoats. They tried to take our guns. We shot them.

  30. avatar barnbwt says:

    Well too damn bad, you old bat; the law states you are to enforce it as written. You aren’t a god or an emperor (though you wouldn’t know it by the mode of dress) you don’t get to make up the rules based on what you think is ‘right’ at the moment. Statements like these should have seen you impeached decades ago, or prevented your confirmation in the first place.

    Retire or die already, so someone with a professional mindset, who isn’t just a political hack, can begin to set your mess to right.

  31. avatar GS650G says:

    Her replacement is going to have different views on guns.for sure.

    1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      That *entirely* depends on who is president at that time.

      The heavy lift to get that is on us voters…

  32. avatar Nanashi says:

    “It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776 — that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance of the people of that day and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But, that reasoning cannot be applied to the great charter… No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward a time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction cannot lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more “modern,” but more ancient than those of our Revolutionary ancestors.”

    1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

      Who said or wrote that?

  33. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    RBG is right. We need to gut the current standing army and replace it with 50+ citizen’s militias forbidden from every being sent overseas.

    That isn’t what she is saying? Impeach her then.

  34. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    To be fair, RBG was there when it was written.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      The Magna Carta?

  35. avatar TexTed says:

    Her reasoning is insane. If there’s anything unconstitutional here, it_s THE ARMY. Read the Constitution, and the versions of the 2nd in State Constitutions of the day. A standing army was considered”a threat to liberty” and “ought not be kept.”. Our US Constitution provides that an Army can be raised, but not for a duration of more than two years. Our congressmen get around that by having the hold a “reauthorization vote” every two years. But the intention of the Framers was that there wasn’t supposed to be a standing army at all. WE were supposed to be the national defense.

    Taking our arms away and saying”you don’t need them, we have an army” is the diametrical opposite of what the founders intended.

  36. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Historically, the new government had no money to pay for an army, so they relied on the state militias. — Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    And that could never, ever, possibly happen again because … ???

    States fail and quite often they fail because of financial implosion. Nothing, I repeat, NOTHING guarantees that the United States is immune to failure and/or financial implosion. In fact, I would argue that the United States is, indeed, on a collision course with financial implosion.

  37. avatar Mmmtacos says:

    I cannot understand the reasoning behind calling the second amendment outdated. The founding fathers just waged a war against an army of a tyrannical country that did not represent them. That country tried taking their firearms away from them. They saw first hand how out of control a government could get and they fought against it.

    The second amendment was written to make sure the people had the ability to do that again if need be and to make sure the government could not deprive the citizenry of their arms.

    Another person points out Federalist Paper no. 46 wherein James Madison argues very much for an armed citizenry and that it should greatly outnumber any standing army. There are several more examples from other founding fathers that join in with Madison’s sentiments by the likes of George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and others.

    But let me address her point directly: that the second amendment was only created as a temporary measure until they could actually have a standing army. Consider that the second amendment was ratified on December 15th, 1791. The Naval Act of 1794 was passed that year on March 27th. RGB argues that just over two years after they enshrined the right to keep and bear arms as the highest law of the land that they changed their mind in that time? That they ratified an amendment but effectively negated it with a law? Is that what she is saying? If that’s even remotely true, and it isn’t, then why didn’t they have a clause within the second amendment that allowed it to expire? They didn’t, because they never intended the second amendment to expire or otherwise be undermined. It’s easy to tell, especially if you compare the first and second amendments: the first says:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

    Specifically mentions congress shall not make restrictions of various rights allowing freedom of expression, but says nothing of state legislatures or any other body. It’s hard language, but not impenetrable. Now let’s look at the second:

    “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    That last part, “shall not be infringed” is universal: nobody, not congress or anyone else of any level of government or citizenry shall infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms as it is necessary to the security of a free state, justifying the sole reason for it’s true purpose and existence. Hell, I believe it was Jefferson that wanted the second amendment to be even stronger, but it was argued that the language was clear enough as is.

    Ruth is either daft, senile, subversive or a combination thereof.

    1. avatar ThisEnd^ says:

      Universal to what English Spoken? Eighteenth Century English or 21st Century English. The Bill of Rights was written in the 18th Century, NOT the 21st Century…

      1. avatar CWT says:

        Is it just the second amendment you have a problem with or the entire BOR? They are written in same language. Mayhap the problem lies not in the words but your education.

        1. avatar ThisEnd^ says:

          Then WHY is the NRA having such a hard time stating IT’S and You’re(s) case’s to the US Supreme Court if Said Same and the NRA are reading from the Same Page and the Same Script…

        2. avatar CWT says:

          Clearly your education but you didn’t answer the question, is it just the second amendment or all of the BOR?

        3. avatar pg2 says:

          CWT, you’re arguing with an auto-bot profile.

  38. avatar RedRed says:

    Stupidest comment ever. A militia is not a militia without weapons. The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. These are INDIVIDUAL rights, not COLLECTIVE rights. One would think a Jew would think twice about disarmament schemes, but sometimes you simply can’t fix stupid.

    I personally believe they know EXACTLY what it means, but they simply don’t care and lie through their teeth.

  39. avatar FedUp says:

    The Supreme Court is an 18th century anachronism.
    Down with the Supreme Court.

    See what happens when we play the game by your rules, Justice Ginsberg?

  40. avatar Mad Max says:

    Sorry RBG, the militia (organized and unorganized) did much more than provide for the national defense.

    Citizens and their neighbors provided for their own defense from criminals and the police today cannot provide that level of security unless we accept a police state.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Even a modern police state cannot come anywhere close to matching the security level that my family can provide for itself when my family is armed.

      1. avatar pg2 says:

        That’s the whole idea…disarm the family, and destabilize the family…the proxy state wins.

  41. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    We don’t need unrestricted birthright citizenship any more either…very few developed nations have it.
    We don’t need selective service registration either, but we still do it…only for men, by the way…how inclusive and equal is THAT?
    SCOTUS service for life? Back when it was written, average life span was about 35-40…so she has long exceeded her expiration date.
    As for common sense gun laws…photo ID is common sense for voting.Right?

  42. avatar EWTHeckman says:

    What an ironically absurd claim, especially since the best evidence for the need for a The People to be armed occurred during the 20th century. (Or are those millions dead at the hands of their own governments just a “meaningless” statistic?)

  43. avatar Cletus says:

    She is fine for her age. I would have no problem doing her.

    1. avatar Gralnok says:

      Um… Eww?

      1. avatar pg2 says:

        Global warming has altered his mind….

  44. avatar Gralnok says:

    Well, as much as I wanted to print out pictures of her face for target practice then send them to her anonymously, I have to bow to logic. To do so, would require printer ink. I currently am out of ink and money. Maybe next week, Ruth.

    That said, I have to notice that the interview is old. This may not be her opinion in 2018, so I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt.

    Also, technically, the government still can’t afford it’s army.

  45. avatar joefoam says:

    Hmmm… the Selective Service Act defined every able bodied man ages 18-45 as part of the standing militia and eligible for the draft. I guess the militia still exists after all.

    1. avatar ThisEnd^ says:

      What Selective Service System!/? The Last Selective Service System Government Facility was closed in July 1919…

  46. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    “The states required men to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their home”

    She only partly correct. The current weapons of the day included hand grenades, rocket launchers, grenade launchers, cannons, large amounts of personal ammunition, rapid fire guns, flame weapons. All of this was personally owned and maintained in the home or on private land.

    Personal owned boats with guns and cannon mounted and armed submarines. Yes the Second Amendment cover A LOT of ground. Don’t believe me? Get educated. Look it up.
    All of this in the 18th century.

  47. avatar dpk54 says:

    What a moron this woman truly is!! The 2nd Amendment is actually in place to keep us from losing all of our other rights!! Without this amendment everyone is at the mercy of a vile, corrupt government (which is what we have now), and I’ll see this woman in Hell before I surrender my 2nd Amendment rights!!

  48. avatar H says:

    …….if it’s about the Militia why is the 2nd in 44 States’ Constitutions? Let’s see. To protect the Militia from the Militia?

    Don’t like guns don’t have one. Leave people alone. Fix our water, infrastructure and education. Okay, don’t. Deduct the repairs from our taxes and we’ll subcontract it out.
    Make yourself useful.

  49. avatar Eli2016 says:

    Meh… with all due respect RBG your days are numbered. And when that final number is up, the court will be 6-3.

  50. avatar el Possum Guapo Herr Standartenfuher" they think we're making pizza's" Oberst von Burn says:

    2013 ? …If my dog had a face like that, I’d shave itz a$$ and teach it to walk backwards. Between her and that Alice Cooper woman it’s a toss up for the ugly stick contest….. The United States of America’s RTKABA 1700—-2040. We had a good run

  51. avatar raptor jesus says:

    When is this old bag gonna keel over and give The Golden Haired Manatee another shot at a Supreme nomination?

  52. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    Hmmmm…. You know there are several other amendments that are just as old. Is she suggesting they are outdated too? If not, why not?

  53. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    RBG — This is what happens when a state-uber-alles party chooses their “justices” for the policies they favor, not for their jurisprudence.

    The idiot press, but I repeat myself, forever conflates *policy* preferences with *process*. I kinda wish we’d loosen up two things about judges.

    1 – Let them express a policy preference. “I’d personally like to say *this*, but the law as written compels *that.* Short of that, I’d like for a judge or three to say more vigorously, exactly that: “My job is applying the law and legal reasoning. My policy preferences aren’t part of it.”

    2 – Say what the law could be. I’d love an opinion that went: “For Whiney McSillyPosition to get their way, the law would have to say something other than what it does. We decline to legislate from the bench. We will, hoever, take the unusual step of advising: Write a law that says something like *this here*, and cases like this one will come out the other way.”

    Way easier than doing rhetorical head-stands to pretend the law says something other than what it says. RBGs job is not whether a law suits the 18th century or the 21st. Her job is to apply the law we have. If she wants to legislate, she should run for congress. If she wants to amend the constitution, she should advocate as a citizen. What bugs her, really, is that either of those ways she’s beholden to a bunch of preferences from other people not as smart as she. I suppose if she wants to legislate with a pen and a phone she should run for president. One vote, one time, then she gets to do whatever she wants. That’s how it works, right?

  54. avatar Sora says:

    When people say Militia is obsolete, point them to the state to tyranny and useless military like the one in Iraq that ran away from the ISIS, leaving people to die.

    1. avatar ThisEnd^ says:

      The “Continental Army” was approximately 6,700 strong, while the “Continental Militia” was approximately 480,000 strong. Only the “Kentucky” and “Baltimore” Militia showed any real back bone in fighting the British. All the other, “Cut and Ran” from the Field of Battle when the British Army showed up…

      1. avatar VeteranSFC says:

        Well, when you consider the British Army was the best in the world at that time and their weapons consisted of the sturdy Brown Bess musket with a bayonet, and they also had ranks of pike men in those days. Colonial militia were armed with muskets, and a few had rifles, and fowling pieces (sporting shotguns) which were much less heavily built than the Brown Bess. So once you have expended your first volley, at the ranges that these weapons were most effective, you had an organized formation of long sharp objects coming your way at a run. Reloading was out of the question, and fighting off a musket/bayonet wielding opponent with a rather spindly Pennsylvania rifle was a losing proposition. You may call it cut and run, but the military term is stand, fire, and retreat. Once you’ve fired your one shot, you are facing several enemy who want to stab you with bayonet and pike, or club you with a butt-stroke from his musket, it was good sense to retreat and have another chance to fight again.

        Later, Colonial commanders would take full advantage of the militia that fires one volley and retreats. They put them at the center of a three element line and when the British charged the militia, the other two wings of the Colonial regulars would come in behind the British and decimate them.

        I call that superior battle tactics.

        1. avatar ThisEnd^ says:

          The “Brown Bess” was the Best Military Musket in the World, but the Best Flintlock Rifles were the “Kentucky” and “Pennsylvania” Flintlocks. Just ask Tim Murphy, Sharpshooter (i.e. Sniper) of the Continental Militia. That Shot a British General from his horse at better than 250 yards away…

  55. avatar 45N90W says:

    If a person reads the 2A in isolation, without any of the historical writings that are its context, a Ginsburg interpretation might make sense. And isolating issues–separating them from their context–is a frequent move of the left.

  56. avatar Mike W. says:

    As an American Citizen and Army Veteran, RBG can go fuck herself.
    How is this ancient windbag still on the SCOTUS? I hope she RETIRES quickly.

    1. avatar VeteranSFC says:

      She will not retire, but she is approaching her expiration date, more so than the rest of us.

  57. avatar glenux says:

    I don’t even know how a person, a judge can serve on any court bench and not know the context, purpose, and meaning of the US Bill of Rights and its 2nd Amendment and to further disregard the original State constitutions reference in the People’s right to keep and bear arms.
    For example, Pennsylvania’s constitution said the people’s right to keep and bear arms was for the defense of themselves [a personal right self-defense] and the state.

    The obvious question is how can a citizen serve in the militia ]providing his own weapon] if he is dead because he was not first allowed to defend himself and his family first?

    1. avatar MSq’dI says:

      Pennsylvania is one of four Commonwealth States in the United States, which can pretty much write their own Rules and Regulations that other Non-Commonwealth States don’t have…

      1. avatar VeteranSFC says:

        I believe all 50 states have the right to legislate any regulations they see fit. That is why they all have bicameral legislative bodies. Being designated a Commonwealth doesn’t really have any special mojo.
        Definition: com·mon·wealth /ˈkämənˌwelTH/ noun
        noun: commonwealth; plural noun: commonwealths; noun: the Commonwealth; noun: the commonwealth
        1. an independent country or community, especially a democratic republic.
        •an aggregate or grouping of countries or other bodies.
        •a community or organization of shared interests in a nonpolitical field.
        “the Christian commonwealth”
        •a self-governing unit voluntarily grouped with the US, such as Puerto Rico.
        •a formal title of some of the states of the US, especially Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
        •the title of the federated Australian states.
        •the republican period of government in Britain between the execution of Charles I in 1649 and the Restoration of Charles II in 1660.
        singular proper noun: Commonwealth
        2. an international association consisting of the UK together with states that were previously part of the British Empire, and dependencies. The British monarch is the symbolic head of the Commonwealth.

        Texas is a Republic, but still a state just like the other 49. It’s only a title and holds no legal power of it’s own.

        1. avatar MSq’dI says:

          Texas was a Republic! Texas was a Country prior to the Civil War! When Texas joined the Confederacy and Lost being in the Confederacy, it also lost its right to call itself a Republic. i.e “ To the Victor, goes the Spoils”! Guess what Texas was part of the Spoils…

  58. avatar VeteranSFC says:

    Ruth Bader-Ginsburg is so barely 20th century – 1917 to be exact – as in the Bolshevik Revolution. That is where all the progressives get their ideas, rooted in Marxist ideals and Leninist philosophies. Every last one of them is a communist, and many are openly so. Case in point – former CIA director John Brennan is a prime example. He even is on record as voting for a member of the Communist Party of America for President of the United States, Gus Hall, in 1976.

    These leftards are destroying the present and future of the USA by attacking the Constitution and all of our liberties guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. They have “educated” your children into thinking the radical and abnormal are valid and acceptable, all the while they have a field day encouraging these children to behave in riots they call protests. Protest is a peaceable assembly for redress of grievance, but these people vandalize and assault innocent people who get in their way. This is not protest, it is revolt. It is time someone becomes the adult in the room and explains in no uncertain terms that further disruption will not be tolerated. As soon as they start the violent behavior, arrest them and give them a real prison sentence. 5 years for destruction of private and or public property, and 15 years for any assault against anyone, no matter the severity of the physical injuries. It’s time we said NO MORE! to these people. You either obey the law or you become adjudicated and imprisoned for your crimes.

    That includes every politician, celebrity, organizer or inciter to these events of violence over disputes of political elections. Play time is over.

  59. avatar Ralph Sinamon says:

    Relevancy? Given that the purpose of the 2nd was to keep government officials in check, the 2nd is MORE relevant now than it was when it was written! Our government is currently the largest and most successful criminal conspiracy to ever exist! Our complacency has allowed and encouraged the criminal element to get themselves entrenched to a level that can only be cured by a total and thorough cleansing and removal of this sham we call government!

  60. avatar KyKPH says:

    Outdated? Tell that to the Venezuelans that had all their guns taken away from them for their “protection.” Now, due to corrupt socialist government policies, many are eating from dumpsters and have NO effective way to fight back against a totally dictatorial government. The only “militias” there are totally under the control or the leadership. Yes, RBG, it CAN happen in modern times! But due to the DISTRIBUTED political power afforded to us by 2A, it is much less likely to happen here!

  61. avatar Jim Macklin says:

    April 19, 1775 the unauthorized, private militia met the British Army to resist the confiscation of arms in storage at Concord and Lexington. These Minutemen were not authorized by the King of England or the Massachusetts Governor.
    A year later the Declaration of Independence was written and the need for citizens to have arms was included.
    A dozen years later the United States Constitution was drafted and the Militia was included in the Powers of Congress. Patrick Henry and others said that was not sufficient protection for the rights and freedom of the people. A Militia controlled by a tyrant is no protection at all.
    Thus the Bill of Rights was written including the means for the people to form a Minutemen independent militia when needed.
    So:
    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    1. avatar ThisEnd^ says:

      “Private Militia”? Who owned the Private Militia then!

  62. avatar JohnnyB says:

    At the time the US Constitution was written along with the Bill of Rights which includes the 2nd Amendment; but there were also were limitations on a standing army for no longer than two years sense that rule has been violated there is a need for the 2nd Amendment to control an out of control government as the Democraps are moving in that direction as they hire Antifa and other violent protesters at the drop of a hat….for anything they oppose…. there is nothing the Democraps won’t get a violent gang to protest as long as they the Democrap propaganda MSM….. organized by the Klintons….
    Plus this entire guilt upon acquisition is entirety opposed to the basis of our Constitution; yet Democraps and collage libertards all supported this injustice…. These morons MUST BE MADE to be forced to go back to school and memorize the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and they should not be allowed to return to their positions until they complete these classes with at least a B average……
    Who else agrees with me?????

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email