Posted on 04/18/2015 10:01:07 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The New York Times is taking note of Senator Cruz’s suggestion that the Second Amendment was intended to “serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny — for the protection of liberty.” The Gray Lady calls it among the “ridiculous arguments against gun control.” It suggests the silliest such the idea is that the framers wanted to “preserve the possibility, or even encourage, the idea of armed rebellion against the government.” What arrests us about this note is the absence of any reference to Elbridge Gerry.
Gerry was the representative from Massachusetts who, during the debate over the Second Amendment in the First United States Congress, marked the point to which Senator Cruz refers. The House was considering an early phrasing of what became the Second Amendment. Namely: “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.” Here is what Gerry said:
“This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed.” What bothered him, he went on to note, was the religious exemption, which, he feared, “would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.”(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
Someone should show these bums our history of something like, say....
The Battle of Athens.
The NYsun Nails the NYT, and Ted Cruz nails them too.
The second amendment protects the people, it does not promote insurrection. The NYT is not worthy of TP.
Anybody know how to get on the Ted Cruz ping. I just found out what a ping was lol.
The second amendment has nothing to do with shooting rabbits. It is, was, and will always be about shooting government tyrants and we should never be afraid to say that.
How many millions of times has the argument been rehashed over the centuries I wonder?
Okay, n00b.
Just click on the keyword on this thread that says, “tedcruz,” and look through those related threads until you find a, “PingList,” posted.
Or, you can just ping, “SoConPubbie,” and ask to be put on the list.
Either will do, FRiend.
;-)
In particular, please read The Federalist 46 [Madison]:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation , the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments of the several kingdoms of Europe , which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms .
Note in particular that therein is nothing whatsoever spoken of hunting, sporting, or even possessing weapons for the purposes of purely personal defense [although free people may well do all of those things.]
Thus endeth your lesson. Now put the pointy hat on, go to the blackboard, and write Avogadro's Number of times: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Thanks :)
From my cold dead hands..
Wow, great reply!
The NYT can go eff itself. One of the best signs of this early campaign is that one or two Republican candidates (Cruz/Paul) are pushing back against the media narrative, and thereby changing the narrative.
Molon Labe and dont tread on me!
May such wonders never cease.
And those rights are natural rights given by God, and acknowledged in the Constitution. I almost have my wife understanding that. (”Well - I don’t think God wants us to have guns!”)
You don’t think God wants me to be able to defend my family?
Although I do scratch my head when she brings up the scriptures about obeying your rulers as God as appointed them over you, and how Jesus didn’t talk at all about Caesar - other than the giving him the taxes.
But - I countered with does that mean we all are supposed to be like Peter and James and John and drop our work and go evangilize? Or are we to serve God in our place of work, schools, and to run for public office to promote God in the governing of our land. And I firmly believe that God guided our Founding Fathers, who revolted against their government.
“(”Well - I don’t think God wants us to have guns!”)”
“He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” -Luke 22:36
I have often heard this verse used to justify having weapons to protect yourself/your family. I tend to agree.
He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have [at least a sidearm, if not a good battle rifle], sell your cloak and buy one.” —Luke 22:36
Far be it from me to suggest your wife should have stopped at "Well - I don't think!"
GMTA!!
:)
Excellent points and the reason religion was removed from the 2nd was it conflicted with the 1st amendment
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.