Recently there was an insane editorial on the 2nd Amendment posted in the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-0922-guns-dc-20150923-story.html?ref=yfp
At least they call it an opinion piece. Here is the quote that is the most insane:
This page believes the Supreme Court erred in the initial Heller decision by upending an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that had been embraced for half a century — that the amendment's reference to a "well-regulated militia" limits the right to keep and bear arms to organized military units, such as the National Guard.
Wow.
I wrote this response:
(Well that is too small to be readable so here it is):
Say this out loud and you can (hopefully) see how ridiculous it is:
The 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution protects "the right to keep and bear arms to organized military units, such as the National Guard." Yes, because that needed to protected.1. National Guard came into existence in 1933.
2. The 50 years of history alluded to mysteriously is a huge misrepresentation of U.S. vs Miller (SCOTUS)
3. Since when does the Bill of Rights protect the rights of the Standing Army? That's a bizarre twist. Consider the fact that after the Revolutionary War the Standing Army was DISBANDED!
I am posting this today because others have noticed the editorial and responded also. We should not such a ridiculous claim to stand on its own:
http://bearingarms.com/second-amendment-written-1965/
We need to educate people! The irony is that this author is accusing of rewriting history, when that is EXACTLY what they are trying to do! And what is worse is that the 50 years of "history" they are referring to is incorrectly interpreted.
