Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Reality Check: The "Politically Incorrect Truth" About The Second Amendment
Real Clear Politics Video (at source) ^ | January 4, 2013 | NA

Posted on 01/04/2013 8:39:08 PM PST by neverdem

WXIX-TV Tucson reporter Ben Swann takes a look at what he called the "politically incorrect" truth about the Second Amendment. In his "Reality Check" segment for the local FOX affiliate, Swann explains the true intention behind the Second Amendment.

"This is where American history becomes very politically incorrect because the Second Amendment was not drafted for hunting, or just self defense from an attacker. The Second Amendment was put into place to guarantee the rights of the individual to be equally armed as military, both foreign and domestic, in the event that the citizenry might actually, at some point, have to fight their own government," explained Swann.

"Again, it's a very controversial subject. But if we're going to have a debate about what rights we're actually going to guarantee under the Constitution, then we need to have an honest debate about what the Founders were attempting to guarantee," Swann said.

"The Second Amendment is about making sure the population would not be controlled, dominated or oppressed by a government," Swann explained. "It's not my place to tell you what the Founders were thinking, or what they would be thinking today. But the principle of what they put into place had nothing to do with the kind of weapon they were guaranteeing, it was simply about matching force."

(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist; guncontrol; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last
To: the OlLine Rebel

The Liberator Pistol is a History lesson in itself,

if one is interested,,,


41 posted on 01/05/2013 2:00:15 AM PST by Big Red Badger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Trod Upon

Luepold Mark IV, mounted on a .308 and 30-06....Ave nice day....


42 posted on 01/05/2013 2:06:38 AM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: umgud
Unfortunately, far too many treat the constitution as a living document.

It was designed to be a living document, but when's the last time it was amended properly?

43 posted on 01/05/2013 2:17:09 AM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
(Article) "The Second Amendment is about making sure the population would not be controlled, dominated or oppressed by a government," Swann explained.

The Framers' original intent is discussed in this 1991 law-review (U. Penn.) article, which was about distribution of power in the Constitution, which reserved to the People alone the power of the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box, the Second Amendment making the last absolutely secure from any attempt by Congress, the States, or any combination of politicians and magistrates to attenuate or abolish:

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Scarry1.html

44 posted on 01/05/2013 2:34:50 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AlanGreenSpam

And that is perhaps the best ARGUMENT FOR ALLOWING ASSAULT WEAPONS

“Shall not be infringed” is certainly right up there as an argument, apparently lost in 1934.


45 posted on 01/05/2013 2:37:10 AM PST by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino
The “loyal” units must be carefully vetted for locals from the state being attacked.

Especially for white men from the countryside and suburbs. Everybody knows those sumbitches make very unreliable Communists and have to be watched like a hawk. They just don't have the right 'tude at all.

....but fuel truck drivers are sniped wholesale. Some by freelancers belonging to no organization. They were a leaderless cell of one and simply saw a target of opportunity.

This is called Generation 4 War .... a general's nightmare. Guerrilla actions a la the French maquisards and Serbian anti-Nazi guerrillas were Gen 2. Al-Anbar and Sadr City were, and Afghanistan is, Gen. 3. Gen. 4 is what the Al Q'aeda Salafists have wet dreams about, but their plans keep getting interrupted by Hellfire missiles.

Tons of veterans -- 10 years' worth -- know all about Gen. 3 war now. And they have knowledge of how Gen. 4 is supposed to work.

Yamamoto and Kipling were right. Invade America, wage war on America, which is her People, and you will die, along with your troops in the field.

46 posted on 01/05/2013 2:50:29 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Big Red Badger
The Liberator Pistol is a History lesson in itself ....

I've read about that little puppy. It was .45 ACP, had an effective range (due to inaccuracy) of about 7 yards -- funny, that's a typical gunfight engagement distance -- and one could copy them and turn them out in one's garage with just a couple of old, hidden-away machine tools.

They were air-dropped in numbers into occupied Europe.

Nasty little boogers, if you were a Nazi.

47 posted on 01/05/2013 2:57:25 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

The next generation Liberty pistol will likely be a double or triple barrel type of a derringer made completely from an engineered plastic like Delrin straight off a 3D printer.

Every part is plastic, even the firing pin will only have a metallic tip and will be of a metal less detectable to a scanner, non ferrous like aluminum, though for the first couple of shots its quite possible to actually use a plastic firing pin. Just need enough travel and strong enough main spring behind it. Its been proven that even the large low pressure case of the .45acp can be fired in a plastic barrel, and a triple barrel .22 would be a perfect close quarter pistol, no rifling, no traceable firing pin strike.


48 posted on 01/05/2013 3:14:09 AM PST by Eye of Unk (A Civil Cold War in America is here, its already been declared.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser

> Our only hope now is that the service men and women are our most patriotic citizens and they would stand for the people and not for the despots in a shooting war.

I have talked to many service men and everyone of them have been very patriotic. I have little doubt that if they were ordered to murder civilians they would turn on their own masters. It would be a little like “Last Resort”...http://beta.abc.go.com/shows/last-resort
which was cancelled For some reason...lol


49 posted on 01/05/2013 3:16:08 AM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: umgud

I actually do believe the Constitution is a living document— just not one subject to change on the whim of those who don’t like what it plainly says.

The Constitution is a living document— and its DNA is not subject to manipulation...


50 posted on 01/05/2013 3:30:40 AM PST by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hitkicker

For the vast majority of Americans, shotguns, handguns and rifles will be sufficient to ward off an attack by enemies, foreign and domestic (although I agree with the article that the second amendment, read logically, does not place restrictions on the kinds of weapons we may keep).

Ironically, those who most oppose the Second Amendment live in the liberal enclaves of big cities. Those cities are most in need of the heavy weaponry the writer is talking about, but they are the ones least likely to have it.


51 posted on 01/05/2013 3:34:13 AM PST by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk
... no traceable firing pin strike.

Well, if as you say the pin is tipped in soft metal (Al, Cu, Mg), the strike-mark would change after just a couple of firings. And anyway it could be replaced per your description of the design, with every use if need be.

Of course, by that stage of things, Obama's thugs would be murdering people out-of-hand just for having one.

52 posted on 01/05/2013 3:49:32 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
I know we have "precision" weapons but how do you drop a 500 lb. bomb in an urban neighborhood and hit only the right wingers?

If you're Barky, do you care? -- if it's a white neighborhood?

53 posted on 01/05/2013 3:52:20 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

People will die, we don’t live forever, its how we live and how we are remembered after we die. It would sooth my soul forever to hear my ancestors passing on from generation to generation about how I died, how I made a stand against overwhelming odds, how my blood fed the Tree of Liberty.


54 posted on 01/05/2013 3:55:27 AM PST by Eye of Unk (A Civil Cold War in America is here, its already been declared.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk
Well, don't be in too much of a hurry, FRiend ..... we're supposed to water the Tree of Liberty with the blood of tyrants ..... not ours necessarily.

Sic semper tyrannis!

55 posted on 01/05/2013 4:22:51 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441
...I agree with the article that the second amendment, read logically, does not place restrictions on the kinds of weapons we may keep

I'm all for Texas nuking up. I think Rick Perry ought to own, oh, 200-300 cruise armed with 20-400kT warheads, and screw any sort of range limitations. ALCM's, Tomahawks, whatever ..... and a few hundred 155mm and 205mm tactical nuclear shells, too.

I want to hear the fresh respect in Barky's sneering voice when he addresses the governor and People of Texas next time.

56 posted on 01/05/2013 4:28:16 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel
Even thousands of us armed with the best MIL-style autos are just going to get creamed by a few bombers overhead. Our little handguns aren’t going to cut it.

Those who freed us decided it was better if we didn't march in condensed, neat rows, but spread out instead. Millions spread out over 50 States (49 if you discount Hawaii as not strategically helpful) would be pretty darn tough to wipe out.

57 posted on 01/05/2013 4:30:27 AM PST by trebb (Allies no longer trust us. Enemies no longer fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser
"Our only hope now is that the service men and women are our most patriotic citizens and they would stand for the people and not for the despots in a shooting war."

You mean to say that the military would protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America as they promised to God?

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

58 posted on 01/05/2013 4:31:55 AM PST by Godebert (No Person Except a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel

You forget that the largest potential armed fighting force in the world is the standard American citizen who is ALREADY armed and has the ability to fight with rifles and pistols.

From a .22 to anything larger, the arsenal is already at the home of everyone who hunts, collects guns, uses them for target practice and protection. In addition to that, most have 2 or more available for unarmed citizens to use to protect their freedoms in case the need arises.

A mobilized citizenry can swarm over the government in an instant...and that means the military machine as well.

However, the government has deployed a secret weapon to control the people. It’s called ENTITLEMENTS. Those who accept entitlements will not threaten their rights to them and that accounts to over 49% of the population. These people are too lazy to work and surely will be too lazy to fight for our country.


59 posted on 01/05/2013 4:53:30 AM PST by DH (Once the tainted finger of government touches anything the rot begins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel
“put into place to guarantee the rights of the individual to be equally armed as military, both foreign and domestic, in the event that the citizenry might actually, at some point, have to fight their own government,”

Indeed.

So, we need to start facing facts that such “arms” include tanks, ships, fighter jets and the like. Even thousands of us armed with the best MIL-style autos are just going to get creamed by a few bombers overhead. Our little handguns aren’t going to cut it.

Ships and cannon were not expected for every man. Don't loose focus here and walk down the pathos path of the liberal mindset. Arms are what an individual can arm themselves with. That concept is the correct one. __________________ In a polity, each citizen is to possess his own arms, which are not supplied or owned by the state. Aristotle (384BC - 322BC)

60 posted on 01/05/2013 5:02:28 AM PST by Mobilemitter (We must learn to fin >-)> for ourselves.........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson