Posted on 12/29/2017 9:08:02 PM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
If there’s a reason why Hollywood should just stay out of politics, especially gun politics, and this is your classic example. Ed Asner and Ed Weinberger, a screenwriter, decided to teach the National Rifle Association a history lesson on the left wing site Salon. It dropped a little before Christmas, and it ended with both men getting a face full of buckshot. They argued that our Founders were pro-gun control, which is odd given that the first shots fired in our American Revolution at the battles of Lexington and Concord, were in response to British soldiers trying to seize our guns. Still, let’s go through their arguments:
Now that we have your attention, let’s consider the case made by the NRA, its Congressional hired hands, the majority of the Supreme Court, and various right wing pundits who claim the Second Amendment is not simply about state militias but guarantees the unfettered right of everyone to own, carry, trade and eventually shoot someone with a gun.
[…]
First, here’s that elusive Second Amendment as it now appears in the Bill of Rights: “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.”
Arguably not the clearest amendment in the Constitution. And that’s the problem with it: While stating the need for a “well-regulated Militia,” does it at the same time also guarantee the individual citizen the personal right to “keep and bear arms?” In 2008, Justice Antonin Scalia, ruling for the Majority, said that it was. Ignoring over 200 years of precedent, historical context, the Framers’ Intent and the D.C. laws of its elected officials, Scalia relied solely on the text, arbitrarily dividing the Amendment into two parts. The first – “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” — he called the prefatory clause. The second part – “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” — he called the operative clause. Claiming that second part was all that really mattered; Scalia discarded as irrelevant that inconvenient reference to a “state militia.
[…]
Here is Madison’s first draft of the Second Amendment:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
Madison’s intent could not be more obvious: his Second Amendment refers only to state militias. If not, why include that exemption for what we now call “conscientious objectors?”
When Madison’s amendment was rewritten by a joint committee from the House and Senate in 1791, the “religious” exemption was lopped off as too cumbersome in language and too complex to enforce. Thus, the Amendment as it now stands.
Okay—what am I missing here? Asner and Weinberger really just ignore the Supreme Court to peddle a recycled liberal talking point. Of course, the anti-gun Left peddled the tired and disregarded state militia provision, just as they ignore the Citizens United decision and its implications on expanding free speech rights. Also, this line, “the unfettered right of everyone to own, carry, trade and eventually shoot someone with a gun” is just pure trash. Law-abiding gun owners are not killers in waiting. Second, it’s not an unfettered right; Justice Scalia said so in the Heller decision, which they don’t mention in their piece:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire- arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
You hear that guys. You have the right to own a firearm unconnected to a militia, but states have the right to impose their own restrictions, like on concealed carry rights. This is a rather explicit recognition of federalism, along with limiting the Court’s impact so as to not produce challenges to laws prohibiting domestic violence abusers, the mentally ill, and convicted felons from owning firearms—all common sense provisions. Stephen Gutowski found some of Madison’s quotes about the Second Amendment as well. It doesn’t help the pro-gun control hypothesis that’s rather shoddy in this piece. In fact, if these two guys had read Heller, they would see it’s not some SCOTUS opinion intended to turn the country into the Wild West. Anti-gunners, you guys have lost this debate. Gun rights have expanded since this landmark 2008 decision. Every state recognize concealed carry rights, even in Washington D.C. The Second Amendment isn’t going anywhere. Deal with it.
Stephen Gutowski @StephenGutowski Replying to @StephenGutowski "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." - George Mason, during debates in the Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Stephen Gutowski @StephenGutowski Here's a little more on the history of the 2nd Amendment. During the debate on whether to ratify the Constitution several states offered amendment suggestions. Here's Virginia's own from June 27, 1788. pic.twitter.com/CryqVO2rqG
Stephen Gutowski @StephenGutowski Replying to @jnuzzi08 State militias weren't the intention of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment protects the right of "the people" from infringement by the federal government. The militia referenced is, as George Mason said, the whole of the people.
Like all communists, starting with the Soviets and all others that followed, prefer a disarmed public so they can be more easily mass murdered.
Stalinists lie always
Hollywood is pro gun-control because a gun can take the fun out of violent sexual abuse real fast..
These people have invaded every aspect of America.
I’ll make this very simple, because any libtards reading this no doubt need things dumbed down to 3rd grade level. I will not give up my firearms, period. You can try to take them, and yes probably ultimately succeed - but it will cost you, I’ll make sure of that. I will not give up my freedom and liberty cheaply. Ultimately it may cost me everything, so I will make damn sure it costs you.
Good old Red Ed Asner... a communist piece of sh*t still.
Thought he’d taken the Big Choke by now. Too bad.
Added him to my “List of People I Must Outlive”.
But compare the language of the first amendment "Congress shall make no laws" vs. the second: "shall not be infringed". There is no limit to the infringing agency in the second.
Also, look at the Congressional power to grant letters of mark and reprisal. This is the authority Congress can grant to private citizens to make war against the country's enemies. To do this required cannons and Congress wasn't passing those out, which implies the private ownership of the 18th Century's weapon of mass destruction and not merely muskets.
mark -> marque
The last thing anyone in Hollywood wants is for women to defend themselves.
They omit history that tells the full truth.
At the time the 2a was written, every man supplied their own weapon. Which means it was their personal weapon they used when serving in the armed forces. They bought it and owned it.
They used it for protecting themselves from animals and from thieves and murderers as well.
The left ignores this major historical fact because it totally destroys their idiotic arguments trying to distort the 2a.
Real Easy....
In other words;
Are You willing to Die
To take My Guns?
Does that sum it up?
The Pennsylvania constitution makes the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment very clear.
And at the time the 2a was written, all men were expected to own weapons. In some places it was against the law NOT to have a weapon and be of militia age if you were not in a religious denomination that objected to them.
Pretty much. If they’re taken from me, they’ll be empty and hot.
No need to correct yourself! We understood what you meant!
And besides:
Marque derives from the Old English mearc, which is from the Germanic *mark-, which means boundary, or boundary marker, which is derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *merǵ-, meaning boundary, or border.
-Wikipedia
Regards,
I'm shocked, Who would have know. /s
Ed the friendly commie, will never learn, his world is getting smaller, by the day.
Very good.
Plus, the “militia” referred to were the private citizens, with their firearms, who would stand together against enemies.
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.