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Second Amendment Rights and Black Sheep October 18, 2007 After carefully reviewing the historical documents pertaining to the drafting and ratification of the Bill of Rights, I am unable to find a single instance of “intent” that the Second Amendment was the bastard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 In June of this year James Goldberg had his gun confiscated by the Glastonbury, Connecticut police and his gun permit was revoked after he was charged with breach of peace.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arrest was dismissed by the Superior Court and his record was squeaky clean within a month of the incident, his permit was revoked and he had to apply to Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit examiners, “a civilian board that hears appeals on revoked or denied gun permits” for its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. |
I read it. I just don't agree with it. Besides, the courts interpret the U.S. Constitution, not English usage experts.
Then you tell me -- who were "the people", referred to in the second amendment?
Why do you bother asking? You ignore everyone on this board that disagrees with you, and you ignore the facts and case law that debunks your assinine opinions. But, for the record, lest someone actually think you know what you are talking about, here goes.
Don't take my word for it - which you never do, and of course, you won't take Rehnquist's word either since you are the Alpha and Omega on the Second Amendment and all things Consitutional, but here goes:
In United States v. Verdigo-Urquidez, Chief Justice Rehnquist for the U.S. Supreme Court, addressing to whom the fourth and second amendments pertain, ruled:
‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by ‘the People of the United States.’ The Second Amendment protects ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms,’ and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to ‘the people.’...While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.39
Now, as dead corpse so aptly put it, accept that you are wrong or just STFU.
No you won't, you have an agenda here and it is beginning to appear that you are paid to be here spreading disinformation.
Every one of you arguments is false and has been demonstrated to be false by case law. yet you press on.
Where did you get your J.D.? How long have you been practicing law? What area(s)?
Or do you just sleep at a Holiday Inn Express before you come on these threads?
We would have a couple of years ago, now we aren't sure.
Clearly you were asleep during your Constitutional law classes. There is a principle called "surplusage" and when interpreting the document the Courts apply that principle. In terms you might understand, the document cannot be interpreted as having extra language in it - therefore the simple fact that there is a section elsewhere in the document dealing with the militia and since the second amendment is in the section dealing with individual rights one cannot interpret the second amendment as dealing with the militia since the drafters would have put it in the section dealing with the militia.
It's basic constitutional interpretation, but of course you knew that being so smart and all.
/sarcasm
"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?"
No, he was pointing out that since every man would be armed there was no reason to issue arms.
Again, if the second amendment dealt with the organized militia it would not have been inserted in the Bill of Rights, a section dealing with individual rights - it would have been inserted Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 - a section dealing with a specifically delegated power of government. Again, this is a basic principle of Constitutional interpretation.
Again, you clearly don't understand the basic premise(s) of our government and what the Constitution was and is - a limiting document which recognizes that each individual has certain rights merely because the individual exists and that over time governments will seek to usurp them and therefore must be held in check from people like you. Henry knew during this debate that every person would be armed, and argued from that point of view. You can't grasp these historical facts either because you are too stupid or you have an agenda.
You are pathetic.
I’ve given you page after page of fully sourced quotations and links to original sources you hydrocephalic miscreant. Take your trolling back over to gunguys.com.
Yet another example of Bobbies "turn about" trolling style. It isn't people like us, who feel ANY infringement is a violation of our Rights that is eroding those protections Bobby. It is people like you who snip, splice, misrepresent, and outright LIE to twist the original meaning clearly written by those who WROTE our Constitution. You would rather push some liberal judges "interpretation" of the Second Amendment than try and uphold what George Mason actually WROTE when he penned the BoR.
Go away you pathetic excuse for protoplasm.
I've been trying to point this out to site management for the better part of the last 4-5 years now...
I'm quite aware of the nexus for my argument, Sir. You're all over the map in this thread, so it's hard to nail it down.
While I do agree that you've argued for a well-pedigreed (in this case, distinguished or excellent) militia, you've also argued several times for the annexation of "State" to the 2A in modification of militia. And with said annexation, you argue that it's the State's duty to organize that militia under their banner and rules. This is antipodal to the very core of the 2A. You're taking the words of the 2A and jumbling them to make your argument. I believe your interpretation would read:
"A well-regulated State militia, being necessary for national security, the right of the State to organize the people to allow them to bear arms shall not be infringed."
I believe that your argument, regardless of its nexus, is flawed and belies the entire point of the BOR; that of a menu, if you will, of pre-ordained rights assumed by all citizens of this country upon their birth (or conception, as it were) which are inalienable by any man or government.
I will give you credit, however, as it seems you're picking your battles in a "divide and conquer" methodology vs. attempting to globally argue your point in this thread. Additionally, you will take intellectual pot shots at people in an attempt to belittle them, while it seems, to me anyway, that you are continuing to discredit yourself as a shill for Big Government.
Personally, Sir, I don't trust the government for anything. I believe history has validated the claim that government is more disorganized as it grows, and in our case, government has reached the top of the bucket and is relying on surface tension and a measured approach to the voting public to keep things from spilling over the edge.
Don't upbraid me, Sir, with your banal insults. Instead, let's attempt an intellectual conversation without resorting to namecalling.
If we agree, how can I be wrong?
Yes, you have. And like the two quotes that I documented, I don't recall any of them referring to the second amendment as protecting that right.
Which is why I asked you to tell me which ones, in all those pages, specifically referred to the second amendment, since that is what the rest of us are discussing.
You can certainly find one, can't you?
If we agree, how can I be wrong?
Because we don't agree since you selectively read Verdigo-Urquidez, specifically ignoring Rhenquist's defining what "the people" means in the Second Amendment.
You asked me in a previous post to show you what 'the people' means in the second amdmendment. I do and you don't even acknowledge that you are wrong.
Even if we were to bring back the entire Constitutional delegation to tell you what they meant you would argue with them since what they said doesn't fit with your agenda.
That's how and why you are wrong.
BTW, still waiting to hear where you got your JD and what area you practice in...
More than one. I've already given them to you. Go back through the archives if they've slipped your memory, again. I've even given you links to the appropriate pages, copied them when you wouldn't follow them or outright ignored them, and even hosted images from the thomas.loc memory hole from Elliot's to show the Debates in the States and the 1st Congress.
And still you persist in your idiocy.
You were part of the Klowne Posse weren't you....
Which is why I asked you to tell me which ones, in all those pages, specifically referred to the second amendment, since that is what the rest of us are discussing.
You can certainly find one, can't you?
This is a prime example of why you are a jackass.
I posted Rhenquist's statement in Verdigo-Urquidez which specifically deals with the second amendment, yet you keep prattling on as if there is nothing out there. Check Cruikshank, Emerson, Parker, Miller, et. al.
Each either directly or indirectly deals with the second amendment. Each comes down on the side of an individual right. (Cruikshank is particularly telling, since it is the oldest opinion, and therefore the closest in time to the penning of the document.)
Earlier you denigrated Lawerence Tribe. While I might not agree with most of his opinions since he is a socialist and judicial activist at heart, I admire his intellectual integrity on this issue. SCOTUS cite him regularly and he is recognized as a top notch legal scholar. He and other legal scholars believe a constitutional amendment is required for most gun laws to pass scrutiny.
But you are so much smarter than these Justices and legal scholars...what law school did you attend again?
Most of them have more intellectual integrity than this idiot.
Eh... depends. With his blatant denial of facts, reality, ect... for a while I thought he was a badly written chat-bot.
Some of those rights listed in the Bill of Rights are individual rights. Some of those rights are held by individuals as part of a certain group -- what the Founders referred to as "the people" or "the whole people" or "the people at large".
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals..."
-- Albert Gallatin, Oct 7, 1789
"since the drafters would have put it in the section dealing with the militia.'
How could they possibly do that? The U.S. Constitution was ratified by the states two years before the Bill of Rights.
Th U.S. Constitution gave the power to arm the well regulated state militias to the federal government. But the Founders did not want the federal government to have the power to disarm the state militias by withholding these arms.
The states, therefore, kept the power concurrent and added the second amendment saying that the federal government could not infringe on the right of the militia members to keep and bear their arms, since a well regulated Militia was necessary to the security of a free state.
Note that the Founders did not say "an armed citizenry" or "an armed populace" was necessary to the security of a free state. They said, "a well regulated Militia" -- a properly trained, organized, accoutered, and armed state Militia.
Any protection of the individual right to keep and bear arms was accomplished by state constitutions. That was true then and it's true today.
They are called Amendments. You do what an Amendment is don't you?
Did you read the same cite that I did?
Yes, it was hoped that every man who showed up for Militia duty would be armed -- he said, "Every one who is able may have a gun."
But then he says, "But we have learned, by experience" that despite their best efforts, "it is still far from being the case".
"a limiting document which recognizes that each individual has certain rights merely because the individual exists and that over time governments will seek to usurp them and therefore must be held in check from people like you."
You do realize that the Bill of Rights, as written, only applied to the federal government? So if the Founders were indeed concerned about government usurping these rights, they were only concerned about the federal government usurping these right.
"Henry knew during this debate that every person would be armed"
No, he didn't. He knew they wouldn't be armed. He said so. He said, "it is far from being the case".
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.