Talking points to refute left wing lies about the 2nd Amendment

Thanks to everyone who read this and commented.

My main point is to show how to defeat left wing claims about the 2nd Amendment, primarily the lies that it created the National Guard or allows broad bans and restrictions on the grounds of common sense or public safety.

It couldn't have created the National Guard when it already existed in Article 1, Section 8 and Article 2, Section 2. It couldn't have granted the legislature power to ban or restrict access to weapons when it could already do that prior to the 2nd Amendment being ratified.

They're either misinterpreting the 2nd Amendment, or it was ratified for no reason, since it doesn't actually do anything.

The second amendment is just that - an amendment. A clarification.

The Constitution is not a document that tells the people what to do. It tells the government what it can do. The second amendment does not tell US, the people, what we can do. It tells the government what it can do.

In the case of the 2nd amendment, it tells the government how.

The Constitution states that the government can maintain a militia consisting of the people. The 2nd amendment lays out further detail: an amendment.

It states that the government can have this militia by regulating (keeping in good working order) weapons for the people in the militia (citizen adults).

To accomplish this all people have a right to own and bear these weapons.

The federal government has been derelict in it’s responsibilities. The federal government is supposed to provide us our weapons and repair them when needed.

They must supply us.

The old claim is that through the civilian marksmanship program, they were providing us with military issue weapons - albeit cheap and not free. That program is now gone.

Like the rest of the Constitution the federal government has broken each and every one of these laws.

A state CAN NOT override the US Constitution, regardless of states rights arguments. That means that no state can enact a law that eliminated the Constitution. To which all state laws that limit gun ownership further than what the Constitution states is null and void.

These states can only enhance these laws. Which oddly enough the Connecticut State charter, among others such as Pennsylvania, actually strengthen the language of the Constitution in regards to gun ownership.

It is not an US problem. It is a THEM problem. The Constitution is a document that tells the government how to act, not us. All of the amendments are not directed to we the people. We the people may do as we wish to seek out freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You really need to read the highly suppressed and now out of print 1982 Senate report on the RKBA. I have a paper copy from the US Government printing office.

Here is an on line copy.
https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

“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 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.”

19th century cases
16. * Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878).

“If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the (p.17)penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”

17. * Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. Crim. App. 298, at 300-01 (1878).

“We believe that portion of the act which provides that, in case of conviction, the defendant shall forfeit to the county the weapon or weapons so found on or about his person is not within the scope of legislative authority. * * * One of his most sacred rights is that of having arms for his own defence and that of the State. This right is one of the surest safeguards of liberty and self-preservation.”

18. * Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8, at 17 (1871).

“The passage from Story (Joseph Story: Comments on the Constitution) shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights.”

19. * Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).

“’The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.”

And the SCOTUS case that led to the Civil War..

Are Negros citizens...Dred Scott
“It would give to persons of the negro race, who are recognized as citizens in any one state of the Union, the right to enter every other state, whenever they pleased.... and it would give them full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.”
Paragraph 77 in the link below.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO.html

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.