Posted on 09/30/2013 10:24:58 AM PDT by neverdem
Perhaps we were too harsh on textbook publishers last week for botching the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment, as even those in charge of the official website of a body sworn to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" apparently can't be expected to get it right. The official website of the United States Senate features a "Virtual Reference Desk" section on the Constitution which offers an explanation of the Second Amendment that reads, "Whether this provision protects the individual's right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated." The passage downplays the individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment and gives undue credence to an interpretation of the amendment long-held in disrepute and rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 and 2010.
While there remain a handful of radical anti-gun advocates who bitterly cling to the incorrect "collective" and "sophisticated collective" right interpretations of the Second Amendment, no debate is apparent in the platforms of the two major political parties, who, along with two independents, populate the upper house. The 2012 party platform(PDF) of the Democratic majority states, "We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms." The 2012 Republican platform(PDF) states, "We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment."
In fact, other parties that routinely field candidates for the presidency and senate haven't weighed in for the collectivists either. Expectedly, the Libertarian platform(PDF) reads, "We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms." The 2012 Green Party platform for 2012 is silent on the matter.
Further, the writers of the materials on the Senate's website needn't have even parsed through the U.S. Supreme Court's Heller and McDonald decisions in order to come up with a more appropriate explanation of the right; they could have merely looked to the history of their own governing body. In February 1982, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on the Constitution released a report entitled, "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms."(PDF) The interpretation of the right offered in the report was unambiguous, stating, "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and the court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."
The content of the Senate website is the responsibility of Secretary of the Senate Nancy Erickson, who spent 16 years as a staffer for the NRA-PVF "F"-rated Sen. Tom Daschle. Those with questions regarding the content of the senate's website are asked to contact the Office of the Secretary Webmaster at webmaster@sec.senate.gov. With enough encouragement, the writers of Senate.gov may be convinced to accurately list the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment and provide it with the same respect offered by political parties (at least facially), the U.S. Supreme Court, the general public, and the Senate itself.
A liberal guy I know is always talking about how the Second Amendment was written to protect slave owners from a rebellion. I just tell him, I don’t care why they did it, they did the right thing. Besides, what do liberals care about “original intent” anyway?
Now, where’s my rocket launcher? That should be legal.
Your liberal friend never read the Federalist Papers nor the writings of Thomas Jefferson.
The 2nd Amendment could have been written as:
“Guns are very dangerous to government and government does not want you to have them,(NOTE the comma)the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
There is absolutely nothing in the first clause of that sentence which in ANY way precludes us to not only keep and bear arms but also should have prevented the government from passing ANY laws on arms.
The first part could have said “The moon is made of green cheese,” and still not have changed the balance of the 2nd Amendment.
He says they're crap. So, I deduced three quick things: 1) He didn't read them, 2) doesn't believe they were really by Madison, Jefferson & others, and (most important) 3) not worth discussing with him anymore. But I still see him post on FB that the 2nd Amendment was for slave-owners, and is therefore illegitimate. Rachel Maddow's argument, BTW.
This is what makes it difficult to have a civil and honest debate with a liberal.
Anyone who would say the Federalist Papers are crap has no clue these are like an owners manual for US Citizens to understand THEIR government.
If that connection is destroyed (usually deliberately done by our public schools) then the Constitution just becomes a historical document subject to the Case Law whims of the day.
How can you debate with people who are able to hold these thoughts in their heads without their brains exploding?
You can’t, if you want to stay friends. And there’s no point if you don’t. Pray to St. Jude, I guess, for a “Lost Cause.”
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.