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Second Amendment Rights and Black Sheep October 18, 2007 After carefully reviewing the historical documents pertaining to the drafting and ratification of the Bill of Rights, I am unable to find a single instance of “intent” that the Second Amendment was the bastard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 In June of this year James Goldberg had his gun confiscated by the Glastonbury, Connecticut police and his gun permit was revoked after he was charged with breach of peace.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arrest was dismissed by the Superior Court and his record was squeaky clean within a month of the incident, his permit was revoked and he had to apply to Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit examiners, “a civilian board that hears appeals on revoked or denied gun permits” for its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. |
If your view of the BOR is so skewed that you believe a right only exists once you are accused then you must believe that anyone who buys a gun is "the people" and the right to keep and bear that gun is only invoked after the fact. What do you think the founders meant when they said the "people".
If they meant me then they meant you too. They meant all of the people (that they considered citizens at the time). The only exception would be someone who had forfeited freedom and rights under existing law.
And again, I never said it did. I said "it refers to" the state militia. Please stop misquoting me.
When I said the state militia was under the authority of the governor, I was talking about 1792, not 1999. We don't have a state militia like that anymore. The closest we have is the State Guard. They are not under the control of the National Guard. They are under the control of the governor.
Instead of, "They meant all of the people (that they considered citizens at the time)" can we just shorten that to, "They meant citizens"?
Fine. Then why didn't they say "citizens" in the second amendment? They did elsewhere in the constitution -- Article IV, Section 2 says, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
I'm thinking they didn't mean citizens. Citizens included women and children. It included the elderly, the infirm, the insane, the crippled. Was it their intent to turn "the security of a free state" over to this group?
The Militia act of 1792 seems to negate that. It called for an "able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States", 18-45 years of age. Wasn't it their right that was protected from federal infringement? Weren't the Founders concerned that the federal government might disarm their militia?
Here is your exact statement from post #58 (including the quotation marks you included):
True. That is a militia. But the second amendment refers to a "well regulated state Militia" and the U.S. Constitution says that officers are to be appointed by the state.
Your militia would, therefore, not enjoy second amendment protection.
Amendment II never "refers" to a "state Militia".
Additionally, the chain of command for the National Guard passes up from the Governor to the President.
Apparently you are either playing games or you are a member of the flat Earth society and have fallen over the edge.
"What is the militia? It is the whole of the people except a few public officials." George Mason
Once again, Paulsen is shown a liar.
L
Then to what Militia is it referring? Is it a different Militia than the one referred to in Article I, Section 8?
If so, can you explain the logic in that?
The correct quote is, "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
"The whole people" is another way of saying "the people", and it means the people acting as a group, not individually.
(Whose house? My house. Whose house? My house.)
I think Mr. Mason was smart enough to say exactly what he meant. He certainly wouldn't abide the likes of you trying to 'explain' his words.
More likely he'd give you the b**** slapping you so richly deserve. In fact I think he'd refer to you as a "Tory" or even worse a "Kings man".
L
Go back to English class. The phrase "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" does not preclude any citizen. The entire amendment assumes the pre-existence of the RTKABA. What did "people" mean in the 1700's? The same thing it means now. One could make the argument that they intended to include women, the sick, the infirm and slaves. Thus they dispensed with the word citizen and used the word people.
Do you own a gun?
One argument that RP seems to be implying is that the term "regulated" is meant to explain the need for gun "control" or someone appointed by a governmental entity to "control" these bands of brothers and common neighbors. There have been numerous forays into this from a historical linguistics standpoint, and the general concensus is that the word regulated in reference to the Second Amendment is meant to convey the idea that the mustering of the militia would provide local protections by a group of able-bodied individuals who are well regulated with there weapons insomuch as their weapons are in proper working order and the individuals are thoroughly knowledgeable of the functionality of their weapon and how to properly and accurately fire it.
reg·u·late
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
Also take a moment to read the Federalist Papers. They are the most under-utilized pieces of history in the debates of our modern times. If half of the Democratic party read and pledged to uphold the actual ideas of the founding fathers, and then they read the Federalist papers... they would probably implode upon themselves and become Republicans at the event horizon.
From Federalist Paper #29 (Alexander Hamilton)
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
He states assembly once or twice a year, which I would wholly agree to if it wouldn't be made into a media spectacle every time the "gun nuts" gathered together for military exercises.
Mr. Paulson, I respect your opinion, but I think your arguments are hollow, at best. You seem more interested in raising the hackles of the same people who would undoubtedly come to your aid and rescue in the event of an attack wherein you were not able to defend yourself. I would personally suggest you choose your words with much regulation, as you are slowly spinning out of control with the arguments herein.
"No free man ever shall be debarred the use of arms." "Shall not be infringed". "That every man be armed."
Go away you pathetic troll...
You won't be missed.
It doesn't? So you're saying the Founders could just as easily said, "An armed citizenry, being necessary to the security of a free state ..."?
IIRC, the debate at the time was against that. So maybe they were precluding "any citizen".
"One could make the argument that they intended to include women, the sick, the infirm and slaves."
You could, but you couldn't support it.
And it becomes crystal clear that you never read the "Unabridged Second Amendment" which I posted earlier.
Nice FAL in the ad.
I have no idea where you got that. I don't think you do, either. I have always stated that a well regulated Militia is one that is trained, accoutered, and armed.
And Hamilton was correct -- training, accoutering and arming all the militia of the United States would be futile and injurious. The term "well regulated Militia", therefore, could not possibly apply to every citizen. It only applied to white, male citizens, 18-45 years of age.
Their right to keep and bear arms was protected from federal infringement.
"Mr. Paulson, I respect your opinion, but I think your arguments are hollow, at best."
If your interpretation of my definition of "regulated" is any example, I would say you don't understand my arguments well enough to come to any conclusion.
Thank you for the well reasoned sanity.
Are you trying to quote Jefferson? Then get it right, you lazy lapdog. The correct quote was, "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands.
First, a "freeman" (not free man) was a citizen with full rights. Freemen (or freeholders) was another term for "the people".
Second, this quote had nothing to do with the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Jefferson was proposing that this be included in the 1776 Virginia State Constitution.
Third, it referred to arms used on one's own property.
Fourth, it was rejected.
"That every man be armed."
Another misquote. Get off your lazy a$$ and do some research of your own.
Patrick Henry was debating Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 (the militia clause) of the U.S. Constitution, NOT the second amendment. That clause gives Congress the power to arm the state militias -- but that power is concurrent with the states arming the militia.
"May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, &c.; and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man (IN THE MILITIA -rp) be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, &c.? Every one who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed?"
I think you're right.
I'm sure the posters on these threads would love to continue being blissfully ignorant, thinking their gun rights are protected yet wondering like little children why oh why their rights are being eroded.
Along comes party-pooper robertpaulsen, telling them the second amendment doesn't protect their rights, that the real protection comes from the states, that now is not the time for a showdown with the U.S. Supreme Court ... well, of course I won't be missed. Not by these "hear no evil" monkeys.
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.