When Warren Burger Called the Second Amendment a 'Fraud'
By: Michael Luciano (Mediaite)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By Michael LucianoMar 28th, 2023, 11:31 pm Twitter share button <?php // Post Body ?>
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell turned back the clock by airing video of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger excoriating the Second Amendment.
On Monday, a shooter gunned down six people at a school in Nashville. Three of the victims were children, all nine years old.
The rampage has spawned the usual demands for gun control from Democrats and the calls to fortify schools from Republicans. During his show on Tuesday, O'Donnell stated the political divide on guns was not always so wide.
"There was a time when Republicans were no more in favor of gun rights than Democrats were," he said. "But then Republican campaign pollsters found the sliver of the electorate that cares obsessively about guns and added them to the sliver of the electorate that cares obsessively about stopping all abortions, and added them to the electorate that hates taxes and liberals. And that became their only formula for winning elections."
O'Donnell invoked Burger, a Republican tapped by President Richard Nixon to become chief justice in 1969. Burger served until retiring in 1986.
"Conservative Republican President Richard Nixon chose Warren Burger to be chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, knowing that Warren Burger would steer the court in a more conservative direction, which he did," O'Donnell said. "But the one thing that Warren Burger could not abide was the fetishism about the Second Amendment that he saw beginning to develop when he was chief justice."
The host aired a clip of Burger speaking on PBS in 1991, five years removed from his time on the highest court:
BURGER: If I were writing the Bill of Rights now, there wouldn't be any such thing as the Second Amendment.
REPORTER: Which says?
BURGER: That a well regulated militia, being necessary for the defense of the state, that people's rights to bear arms [shall not be infringed]. This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud - I repeat the word fraud - on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.
Now, just look at those words. There are only three lines to that amendment. A "well regulated militia." If the militia, which was going to be the state army, was going to be well regulated, why shouldn't 16 and 17 and 18 or any other aged persons be regulated in the use of arms the way an automobile is regulated?
O'Donnell accused recent Republican presidents of perpetuating a more extreme interpretation of the Second Amendment.
"The Republican fraud perpetrated by Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump and Republican members of the House of Representatives and Republican senators will continue to get children and teachers murdered in their classrooms by legally-purchased AR-15s because it is the Republican Party policy to make sure that America's mass murderers are the very best-equipped mass murderers in the world," O'Donnell said.
The full text of the amendment in question reads: "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."
Many gun control advocates say that the right to bear arms is tethered to the concept of a "well regulated militia" of the sort that existed at the country's founding, but is no more.
Watch above via MSNBC.
Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com
Filed Under: Lawrence O'DonnellMSNBC Previous PostNext Post Previous PostNext Post Michael Luciano - Senior Editor
Mike is a Mediaite senior editor who covers the news in primetime.
More Stories by Michael Luciano Load Comments
Tags
Who is online
76 visitors
The Heller decison by the Supreme Court remains controversial and the conclusion in dispute. Right now we have an originalist court that supports no restrictions on weapons. That could change with the next "liberal" court. What does that tell us? That the meaning of the second amendment will never be agreed upon.
Liberalism at it's finest, there is no dispute, only opinions, the supreme court is the FINAL arbiter of facts.
There is no dispute? Heller was a 5-4 decision down entirely ideological lines. Scalia strained to find a way to make an "originalist" interpretation of the second amendment that allowed individual gun ownership.
A liberal court in the future most certainly could overturn Heller.
Why not make compromise now and put it into law? Registration of guns, background checks, red flags, no new "assault" weapons made going forward, and no new ammo for existing assault weapons. Make this sort of compromise and you can have all the guns you want.
Nobody said they couldn't, How did Roe work out for your team? What i am saying is Heller is settled law, there is no dispute, only opinions from people who can't do shit about it, only the sitting 9 can.
Seems weird that anyone doesn't recognize SCOTUS as the final decision.
Quit making stupid fucking posts like this and the ability to write what you want will be given to you. subject to change based on who is in charge of course, No reason you won't be okay with that. right?
You and I know well enough for the gun-control lobby, they would fight every single step of the way. Pretending otherwise is a fool's game.
lol. I am describing reality to you. I dont know what you are describing.
And it is amazing the limitation they feel comfortable demanding on a right that says specifically shall NOT be infringed.
Now some knuckle dragging moron will claim that I think everyone should have nuclear weapons.
Warren Berger was a conservative Republican supreme court member who became chief justice.
He said arguments that the second amendment allows individual gun ownership are a "fraud".
And you think nothing is in "dispute"? lol.
No John, what you are describing is the restriction YOU want to impose on gun owner, what you WANT isn't reality, what we want is for you to simply FUCK OFF with your demands.
I don't give a shit about the opinion of a dead Justice any more than I care about the opinion of a drug addict sitting on the corner, neither hold any weight.
So you don't want individual gun ownership, only members of Militias like the proud boys? Warren is a fucking retard.
yikes. you are terminally confused.
Just like a conservative court overturned Roe?
So much for leftist "love of precedence". They only love the precedence that they set.
Give Democrats an inch and they will take everything. Literally.
For what purpose? So Democrats can leak out who owns gun for the benefit of criminals to either avoid their houses; or target them if they need weapons?
Already being done. In several states they even require individual sellers/buyers to conduct all transactions through a state registered third party. Great for gun shops making profit on something they had no part in.
You going to put teeth in those red flags? Like the parents of the Tennessee shooter that knew they had a gun; but thought it was sold. Never bothered to check; even though their "daughter" was living under their roof and they knew was a threat. They should be charged as well; but Democrats will ensure they are not. Unlike the Michigan parents who are being charged for their kid shooting people in high school. Or the reversal- someone has the legally owned guns confiscated because they have a grudge against them. They need to be charged as well. But Democrats will make sure that won't happen either. Even if it is a Constitutional right.
Individuals cannot own assault weapons legally- unless they have a special federal license. Gun grabbers don't even know the definition of an assault weapon. Big, black, and scary looking is not an assault weapon. Democrats and leftists need to be out of the conversation entirely. Also, what is the military going to use if you ban the production of all assault weapons?
Showing you have absolutely no damn clue about guns or ammunition. Do some damn research on what ammunition most of those big, scary, black guns you are so damn afraid of really fire. Then cross reference it with common hunting rifles use. Are you going to outlaw all ammunition for hunting rifles? Again, if you end all production what will the military use?
Don't trust you. Don't believe you. Will never give you the compromise you want. Once you take away the big scary guns; hand guns will be next. Because hand guns are used in more crimes and mass shootings than AR-15's.
Gun grabbers ultimate goal is to ban all guns. Nothing less. It has been stated so repeatedly.
Ok. I'll play along with you. What is your compromise on these issues that could be encoded into law?
I think, even more than that, they should bring the WHOLE 2nd Amendment into play.
It seems that everyone on the right completely ignores what the Amendment is about, "That a well regulated militia, being necessary for the defense of the state".
John, there are roughly 300 relative laws concerning firearms at the Federal level alone, other than registration which law do you think we need in addition to the 300 we already have?
I use relative because laws about the taxation and the like aren't really relevant to what you want I assume.
It always telling when a hoplophobe leaves out the second half.
The first part of the sentence describes the need: the second part describes the solution.
It is always telling when an entire subset of American voters purposely ignore the first half.
CORRECT !!!!!
The second part describes the solution for the need of a "well regulated militia". It does not describe a general overarching proclamation. So those that wish to keep and bear arms SHOULD be members of that "Well Regulated Militia".
Like you said, "The first part of the sentence describes the need: the second part describes the solution.".
But a militia isn't always needed, that why they are called UP in a time of need, so the persons must have their arms in the case a need arrives, That is why a PERSONS right to bear arms shall not be infringed, not a member of a militia's right, It is very simple, which is why everyone but most liberals get and understand it.
The Constitution says otherwise. Militia may not always be called up, but according to the Constitution one should always be maintained.
Which is why those with guns should be registered and trained in case they are needed, hence "Well Regulated".
Correct, those persons which would make up the militia if called upon. Without them being registered, how would they be called?
According to the Constitution those PERSONS which would make up a "Well Regulated Militia". It doesn't say Joe Felon can join the militia.
The 2nd Amendment states that a person right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN A WELL REGULATED MILITIA.
You cannot throw out half the Amendment because you don't like it.
If it is so simple, why did you argue against it being a blanket statement until you changed direction at the very end.
Oh that is rich , any relationship to the black knight from monty pythons search for the grail?
the gun controll cause has steadily been losing with the people and in the courts for the last 20 years or more , yet NOW they think we should "compromise" and give them what THEY want even though we already have what we want .
I have to admit , that is about the most retarded boneheaded way i have seen someone call for surrender to them when they are losing ......and likely to continue to keep losing .... tis only a flesh wound i say ......
because legislation can be changed by a simple majority you know that 51 telling the 49 what they can and cant do.
as it stands you have to change the constitution which i doubt the needed votes are there to do . and that is exactly what you will end up having to do.
As far as im concerned speaking for myself , no compromise , no dice , no sale , fuck off somewhere else .
Good luck getting all those Soros-backed idiot DAs to ever go along with THAT bit of fantasy.
The woke crowd will say that is discriminatory.
How many Soros-backed fools would ever prosecute a case based on your dreams?
"Warren Berger was a conservative Republican supreme court member who became chief justice."
That doesn't mean he was right John. (No pun intended)
Maybe, Thomas (almost 75) and Alito (73) are the oldest members.
No wonder they are so desperate to keep the senile old fool on office.
This comes up every little while as some sort of "gotcha," as if Berger is some infallible legal titan. The reality is, Berger is probably one of the greatest intellectual lightweights to sit on the Court in the last 50 years, and it would be pretty amusing to see liberals try and defend some of his other jurisprudence. Berger sat on the court when legal scholarship to the extent it existed was ignored and judges just based ruling on their own preferences. See Roe.
Heller changed the game with incredibly rigorous legal scholarship supporting the conclusion, to the point that even Stevens, who wrote the main dissent, ignored Burger's theory.
If you think Heller will survive a 6-3 liberal court you are dreaming.
What compromise on gun ownership would you agree to?
Of course not. The hive mind doesn't care about anything other than results.
t compromise on gun ownership would you agree to?
I'm not a gun guy., but no compromise matters if there aren't consequences for breaking the law. It's silly to talk about passing more laws when progressive DA's brag about not prosecuting illegal possession because of "equity".
Dodge
Chevy
I really believe that a straightforward reading of the amendment interprets the militia clause as sufficient, but not necessary. That is, it’s a good reason to preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but it’s not a requirement.
The people of that time were already armed for multiple reasons - like hunting, self protection - that had nothing whatsoever to do with being in a militia, and it would not have seemed reasonable to the Founders to completely disarm the populace. So when they said the people have a right to keep and bear arms, they meant it.
Having said all that, I don’t think it’s a particularly good state of the law. Firearm ownership should be much more heavily regulated than it is. It’s absurd that we do not require training and certification in the safe use and operation of firearms. The idea that you need training and a license to drive a car, but not to have a gun is INSANE!
It’s absurd that mental health is not tied closely to firearm ownership - and I don’t just mean psychopaths shouldn’t have guns. People should be trained in anger management as it relates to firearms. A lot of homicides happen just because an otherwise regular person got mad one day. Just as we expect cops to know how to de-escalate, civilian gun owners should know it, too.
But the Supremes have weighed in on their interpretation, and so it is up to Congress - or a convention - to rewrite the Second Amendment so that trained, mentally healthy people can have guns and the maniacs of the world do not.
DING DING DING!!!!! we have a winner, and no offense intended Tacos buy you made a common misconception in your post, what is covered under the second amendment is a right, not a privilege like driving. just like the right to free speech, or to bring grievance, And the writers were very clear, shall not be infringed. they had just come off a war that they would have lost if the people didn't have their own arms.
what does that mean? If "arms" are not infringed then there can be NO laws regulating guns. You want a bazooka? Fine , it is your right.
LOL.
All this stuff is interpreted by courts. What are you going to do when the Supreme Court is no longer in your favor?
Yes, I know. I’m very much aware of that. But that is merely a legal distinction - a technicality - describing the current state of the law. It says nothing about what the law should be, and that’s what we are talking about. Laws, rights, and privileges get changed or altered. It happens all the time, and it is way past time that we fixed the gun laws in this country.
Similarly, they had no experience of rampant gun violence in the towns or insane mass shooters.
The Founders designed the Constitution to be changed. If you think it shouldn’t be, then we should just bring back slavery and tell women they can’t vote anymore.
The Founders wrote their laws and designed the government making lots of assumptions that people would behave better than it turns out they have. For example, they assumed all three branches of the federal government would be responsible for ensuring the constitutionality of new laws. But as they soon found out, the legislative and executive branches can’t be trusted to do that. Thus, John Marshall invented Judicial Review, and now it’s all on the Supreme Court.
They also thought that regular people couldn’t be trusted to elect a proper Senate. That was changed with the 17th Amendment.
The circumstances of real life demand that we fix the Second Amendment. Or you can continue to watch kids die and pat yourself on the back for repeating NRA talking points.
By the way, I own guns. 9 of them, in fact. And I still think we need to change gun laws.
How in the world can more toothless gun laws make a difference. Determined mentally ill people or criminals will find a way to obtain guns.
[deleted] Whaaa! It’s too hard, so we should do nothing and just accept that thousands of people should die every year!
Biggest problem is that the laws already in existence are nowhere near being enforced on a regular basis. Then the liberal left insists on trying to make new laws on top of the existing ones.
Then why does the second amendment specifically mention militia?
So called second amendment advocates only cite the second part of the amendment
What about the first part?
And besides, we already have "infringement" . Machine guns are not allowed. Isnt that infringement ? Then you are down to "whose infringement"? Or, is it really infringement to require all guns be registered? Infringement according to who? Those who say so?
Since the environment has significantly changed since this amendment was written, the best approach would be a revised amendment and not rely on SCOTUS interpretations.
not true .
they ARE highly regulated with restrictions in place , but for anyone that wishes to jump through the governmental hoops perfect ly legal for posession and allowed .
let me guess ? flamethrowers next ? legal in all but one state and in a second a permit is needed , in the others nada ... next .....
I think because they knew they didn’t want to fund a permanent army or police force. In fact, the Constitution already limited the army, so they knew there would have to be militias.
Like I said, the militia is a sufficient condition, but not a necessary one. These people already all had guns whether they were in a militia or not. That didn’t change.
I will concede, though, that the amendment is - arguably - ambiguously worded. All the more reason to fix it.
Personally, I'm waiting for them to go after crossbows and slingshots next, both of which can be deadly under the right conditions.
I haven’t forgotten anything. Your position seems to be that because the task is difficult, we should make no effort. [deleted]