Podcast of Sanford Levinson on Heller

I just got finished listening to the replay of the WHYY broadcast of Sandy Levinson's and David Kairys' discussion of the DC v. Heller case. What a bunch of sycophantic drivel!!! If Sandy Levinson is considered a friend of the Second Amendment, then I think supporters of an individual rights view of the Second Amendment need a hell of a lot more enemies!!! Levinson was almost as much of a panderer to all sides as Akhil Amar is in his writings. "Constitutional Floozies" is what I would call them. They love to write and speak in such ways as to make all buyers willing to pay them for their oh so valuable services. What nonsense. And Mr. David Kairys... what a piece of work. I can tell you, I would never send my kids to any university that would employ a professor as clearly ignorant as him. How I pity the students at Temple University. What a tragic disservice!!! Mr. Kairys, what new right might the Supreme Court come up with in its DC v. Heller opinion? That individual citizens of DC have the right to keep and bear arms? What was that Fifth Auxiliary right of the individual British subject that Blackstone wrote about so many years before the U.S. Constitution was even written? And hasn't the Supreme Court already stated that those individual rights protected by the Bill of Rights existed before the Constitution’s creation? So, what would be new here? Come on Mr. Levinson, would this have been so hard to point out? Oh... I guess it would if you were so busy kissing each others egos. And lastly, Mr. Kairys, if you're so worried about the public safety there in Philly, why stop at just eliminating the individual's right to keep and bear arms? Why not go for the gusto? Who needs due process? And getting rid of Habeas Corpus could help get a lot of violent offenders off the streets. After all, couldn't one make a strong case that Philly is under invasion or insurrection? What a pathetic display that was!!!

Levinson is not a friend of truth or history.

Since the bill of rights was drafted from elements within the earlier constitutions of the colonies and they had keep and bear arms clauses not containing the militia phrase, it then stands to reason that the US Bill of Rights are INDIVIDUAL rights, not collective. Besides all that, writings by those involved in the process at the time state very clearly that the right to be armed was and is an individual right and duty.