Posted on 10/17/2007 11:48:49 AM PDT by Dr.Syn
Second Amendment Rights and Black Sheep October 18, 2007 After carefully reviewing the historical documents pertaining to the drafting and ratification of the Bill of Rights, I am unable to find a single instance of “intent” that the Second Amendment was the bastard child of the litter. And yet liberals (including the Mainstream Media), who treat nine of the original Amendments with the same reverence they bestow on Mao’s Little Red Book, consistently treat the Second Amendment as the flawed bastard of the Bill. If any of our Constitutional Rights were trampled to the same extent that the exercise of Second Amendment Rights are daily disparaged and denied...the American Civil Liberties Union would suffer a collective panty-twist. In June of this year James Goldberg had his gun confiscated by the Glastonbury, Connecticut police and his gun permit was revoked after he was charged with breach of peace. Goldberg entered a Chili’s restaurant to pick up a takeout order on June 21. When he reached for his wallet to pay for the order a waitress spotted his legally owned and carried gun under his shirt and called the Glastonbury police. What happened next should frighten all Americans. As reported by the Hartford Courant, “Officers arrived and pushed Goldberg against the wall, while customers and wait staff watched. Goldberg, the soft-spoken son of a 30-year police veteran, said he calmly told the officers he had a permit to carry. They checked it out and found that he did. But because the waitress was alarmed he was arrested for breach of peace.” In true Gestapo style, Glastonbury Police Chief Thomas Sweeney had “...no problems with the officers' actions with regard to the incident,” And by the “always presumed guilty” treatment afforded legal gun owners, the state revoked Goldberg’s permit before his case even went to trial. Even though Goldberg’s arrest was dismissed by the Superior Court and his record was squeaky clean within a month of the incident, his permit was revoked and he had to apply to Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit examiners, “a civilian board that hears appeals on revoked or denied gun permits” for its reinstitution. The Board has given him a hearing date of May 14, 2009. Thankfully this Board is being sued by one of its own members, M. Peter Kuck, secretary of the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, for denying citizens their due process rights with regard to the denial of their Amendment II Rights. And another “alarmed” individual, Susan Mazzoccoli, executive director of the board, has responded to Kuck’s lawsuit in true totalitarian fashion...”We have tried to involve the governor's office to have him removed....” One can only imagine the national outcry if a poll worker became “alarmed” at the sight of a black man trying to cast his ballot and the police arrested that black man because he “alarmed” the female poll worker and then the state revoked his Fifteenth Amendment Right. Or better yet, in response to Malik Zulu Shabazz (head of the New Black Panthers) ranting “death to Israel...the white man is the devil...Kill every goddamn Zionist in Israel! Goddamn little babies, goddamn old ladies! Blow up Zionist supermarkets” in front of the B’nai B’rith building in Washington, D.C...how about suspending the First Amendment rights of Black Muslims? I bet he “alarmed” a few people that day. But pooping on your Second Amendment Right is no big deal. For the sake of those needing a refresher course, Amendment II of the Constitution states that, “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.” Not only does contemporary discussion of the Amendment go ludicrously out of its way to question the meaning of every word in Amendment II (including the placement of commas in the text), but it also questions the legitimacy of the Amendment. In every instance, the liberals toil in angst while trying to nullify the intent and simplicity of Amendment II. Yale Law School professor Akhil Reed Amar believes that, “The amendment speaks of a right of ‘the people’ collectively rather than a right of ‘persons’ individually.” (as if there is a difference between some abstract group of “people” and individual citizens) Yet, there seems to be no problem with the word “people” when it comes to the sacred First Amendment. How can this be? How can “people” in Amendment I instantly become individual persons but “people” in Amendment II are argued not to be individuals? By making Amendment XIV a “living right”, Professor Amar justifies this dichotomy by arguing, “...given that a broad reading is a policy choice rather than a clear constitutional command, it must be functionally justified. And the mere fact that, say, the First Amendment has been read expansively is not an automatic argument for equal treatment for the Second.” Amar further argues that, “...other amendments have been read generously; why not the Second? The obvious functional idea that sticks and stones and guns...can indeed hurt others in ways that ...words cannot.” And to this argument, one might ask the simple question, “How many “persons” did Adolf Hitler or Joseph Goebbels actually kill with a gun versus how many “people” did they kill with words?” Or ask about the 1932, German election that yielded a major victory for Hitler’s National Socialist Party. The party won 230 seats in the Reichstag and made Hitler Chancellor of Germany. (You have to love that right to vote) Yet, liberals fight daily to restore the voting rights of convicted felons while simultaneously trying to nullify the Second Amendment Rights of the innocent. Sort of gives a whole new meaning to Black Sheep. |
Other than you, people think “the people” means the people, to wit everyone (save perhaps a few extreme cases of demonstrable/adjudicated incompetents and violent criminals).
You, on the other hand, keep it means something which is unspecified.
To the contrary: methinks the point of such abuse is precisely to discourage others from doing the same. The point is to “chill” exercise of a right: it may be legal, but one will likely suffer such harassment and pain as to convince people in general to not bother.
The same people who's rights are enumerated by the other 9 amendments in the BOR.
That is why I posted the article. Nobody questions the broad application of Amendment I while so many try to pick Amendment II apart.
And the funniest thing is that Amendment I has the potential of being much more destructive to the nation as proven by the propaganda of all totalitarian states.
Who said that? I said only that their rights were protected. It doesn't mean that others weren't allowed to have guns.
"Even during the Revolutionary War, freed slaves fought in the Militia."
Doesn't mean their right to keep and bears arms was protected.
I totally agree that is the obvious strategy. Such has been going on across the country for quite some time. The second part of the posters statement is that I see more people getting fed up. Something will be done about these petty tyrants in my lifetime. I am convinced of that.
"especially since its ultimate leadership comes from DC)????"
The state militia had officers appointed by the state. The state militia was under the authority of the governor.
You are right Joe ~ don’t waste your time on those who refuse get it!
Be Ever Vigilant!
Until you have your own personal epiphany on this topic, you are pointless to try and converse with. Either start accepting facts, or shut the f*ck up...
I see. Then what militia is it referring to if not the well organized militia of each state with officers appointed by the state?
"the militia was everyone who was capable of bearing arms and were expected to report with their own weapons."
Pfffft! Tribe doesn't have a clue. Congress has the constitutional power to organize the militia and they did so in the Militia Act of 1792. That Act stated that militia members were to be white, male citizens, 18-45 years of age. They has six months to acquire a weapon, that being a musket, used by the militia.
If they already had a gun, it was more than likely a rifle -- accurate, but useless for rapid and sustained volley fire.
"The same scholars point out that any other interpretation of the word "people"
Then you tell me -- who were "the people", referred to in the second amendment?
"I have said it before, you are either a moron or a shill for big government, anti-individual rights groups."
Oh, stop it with your juvenile name calling. You want your posts deleted, that's fine by me.
I see. Then what militia is it referring to if not the well organized militia of each state with officers appointed by the state?
"the militia was everyone who was capable of bearing arms and were expected to report with their own weapons."
Pfffft! Tribe doesn't have a clue. Congress has the constitutional power to organize the militia and they did so in the Militia Act of 1792. That Act stated that militia members were to be white, male citizens, 18-45 years of age. They has six months to acquire a weapon, that being a musket, used by the militia.
If they already had a gun, it was more than likely a rifle -- accurate, but useless for rapid and sustained volley fire.
"The same scholars point out that any other interpretation of the word "people"
Then you tell me -- who were "the people", referred to in the second amendment?
"I have said it before, you are either a moron or a shill for big government, anti-individual rights groups."
Oh, stop it with your juvenile name calling. You want your posts deleted, that's fine by me.
So does mine. And, as I said, it refers to the state Militia.
"which does not in any way indicate that the State is the topmost controlling authority of the Militia being referred to."
Well, it's "well regulated". And its officers are appointed by the state. I give up -- what militia is the second amendment referring to?
The second amendment says it's well regulated. Article I, Section 8 says the officers are appointed by the state. Artile I, Section 8 says the state is to train the militia. Article I, Section 8 says Congress has the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia.
Seems pretty narrow to me.
True enough but the official state militia by statute (see below) is ceremonial and under the control of the National Guard which is under the control of the Governor who must yield to the President. Thus, it is an extension of the US military. Again, Amendment II does not say "State" militia.
Section 27-8 of the General Statues of Connecticut states that the "Governor's Guards --- shall be the organized militia."
Section 27-6a provides for the organization of the First and Second Companies of the Governor's Foot Guards and Section 27-7 authorizes the organizational structure of the First and Second Companies of the Governor's Horse Guards. These units trace their heritage to Colonial times and in the case of the First Company Governor's Foot Guards it has the longest continuous record of service of any military unit in the United States while the First Company Governor's Horse Guards shares that same honor for a military cavalry unit. Today these units are available to the Governor for service in state natural disaster operations and response to civil emergencies. Their combined strength as of July 1, 1999 is 325 officers and enlisted members. Annually they perform civic service at hundreds of official state, local community and private functions and at various historical and military celebrations throughout Connecticut and the nation.
Well, then, in that case you are correct. They do enjoy second amendment protection. I thought you were talking about something else.
You two maybe want to get together and figure out where the State Guard fits in?
"Incidentally the 2nd makes no reference to just organized and addresses both classes defined as militia"
Well, it does say "well regulated" -- and "unorganized" doesn't sound well regulated.
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, however, isn't referring to some armed, unorganized, neighborhood watch. It's referring to an official state militia.
Everyone? Even non-citizens? Illegals? You're saying that illegal aliens have the U.S. Constitutional right to keep and bear arms?
You forgot to ping me. An oversight I'm sure.
I bring up thoughtful arguments that cannot be countered by the mental midgets that hang out on these gun threads. If it goes against what they've thought to be true, they end up calling names, living up to their 40 IQ.
"and a whole lotta people pointing out numerous flaws in the argument"
Pointing them out, yes. Rebutting them, not a chance. Your most powerful argument to date? "But ... but ... it's unconstitutional!"
Pathetic.
"I have repeatedly tried to draw this problem to the attention of Moderators, who have apparently done nothing."
I'll be long gone before that -- leaving because of boredom.
The accused (in the 6th amendment)? The owner (in the 3rd amendment)?
Only homeowners accused of a crime have the right to keep and bear arms? Are you sure?
Maybe you can stop dodging my question and tell me who "the people" are in the second amendment. If you don't know, then say so.
Sure. And the one thing you haven't done is relate any of those to the second amendment.
I agree, the Founders went on at length about the right to keep and bear arms. So? What does that have to do with the second amendment?
Until you start tying the two together, you're just wasting my time and FR's bandwidth.
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.