Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Second Amendment Rights and Black Sheep
dansargis.org ^ | October 17, 2007 | Dan Sargis

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After carefully reviewing the historical documents pertaining to the drafting and ratification of the Bill of Rights, I am unable to find a single instance of “intent” that the Second Amendment was the bastard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In June of this year James Goldberg had his gun confiscated by the Glastonbury, Connecticut police and his gun permit was revoked after he was charged with breach of peace.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arrest was dismissed by the Superior Court and his record was squeaky clean within a month of the incident, his permit was revoked and he had to apply to Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit examiners, “a civilian board that hears appeals on revoked or denied gun permits” for its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. 



TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: armedcitizen; banglist; beserkcop; donutwatch; leo; rkba; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 341-357 next last
To: MileHi
It just isn't worth it.

You aren't playing by the same rules that they are...you post the truth, mean what you say and don't intentionally mis-state what they say.

They do exactly the opposite and then complain that you are posting by their rules and they are adhering to yours.

BTW, how are you and yours?

281 posted on 10/21/2007 6:33:18 PM PDT by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

By your assorted assertions, the 2nd Amendment serves no purpose whatsoever.


282 posted on 10/21/2007 8:42:30 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
It just isn't worth it.

Your ignorance versus the facts. No contest.

283 posted on 10/21/2007 8:51:21 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: MileHi
See what I mean.

Psychologists call that projection.

284 posted on 10/22/2007 2:35:06 AM PDT by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
... while yelling insults over his shoulder.

You called it.

285 posted on 10/22/2007 3:08:59 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
Haha! Willfully obtuse.

We are good here, yope you all are too. Good bumping into you.

286 posted on 10/22/2007 5:03:14 AM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Re-read post 189. Be sure to read ALL of the words. Find your translator if you need it.

4. Experience proves the inefficacy of a bill of rights. True. But tho it is not absolutely efficacious under all circumstances, it is of great potency always, and rarely inefficacious. A brace the more will often keep up the building which would have fallen with that brace the less. There is a remarkeable difference between the characters of the Inconveniencies which attend a Declaration of rights, and those which attend the want of it. The inconveniences of the Declaration are that it may cramp government in it's useful exertions. But the evil of this is shortlived, moderate, and reparable. The inconveniencies of the want of a Declaration are permanent, afflicting and irreparable: they are in constant progression from bad to worse.

Poor stupid Roscoe...

287 posted on 10/22/2007 5:08:01 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Gosh, it sure does look like Dead Corpse is providing proof that the BOR only applied to the federal government.

You mean with quotes like this?

"A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences." -Thomas Jefferson

You and Roscoe need to stop smoking the same brand of crack...

288 posted on 10/22/2007 5:10:05 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Check your stats moron. The FBI crime stats showed the AWB did nothing to curb violent crime. Poor you...


289 posted on 10/22/2007 5:13:10 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: MileHi; Abundy

Same old game with our anti-RKBA trolls. Being agenda driven, the facts don’t matter to them. I have no idea why Jim allows them to pollute the forum with their violations of the ToS and their blatantly Left-wing views.


290 posted on 10/22/2007 5:22:55 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
"By your assorted assertions, the 2nd Amendment serves no purpose whatsoever."

Asked and answered.

Your turn. What do you think the second amendment protects?

291 posted on 10/22/2007 6:09:23 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Same thing Ashcroft said it meant.

Same thing Orrin Hatch said it meant

Same thing Patrick Henry:
"The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)

St. George Tucker:
The restraints imposed on the legislative powers of the federal government, are briefly comprised in the ninth section of the first article of the constitution, or in the amendments, proposed by the first congress, and since ratified in the mode prescribed by the constitution. Of these we shall take a brief survey, in the order in which they occur.
Thus far the restrictions contained in the constitution extend: "The conventions of a number of the states having, at the time of adopting the constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction, or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution 241." The following articles were proposed by congress, as amendments to the constitution, which having been duly ratified by the several states, now form a part thereof.
8. 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. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4. This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty. - St. Georges Tucker. Tucker's Blackstone Vol 1, 1803

and William Rawle:
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by a rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."

...said it meant. The only ones not in agreement are the Brady Lawyers, activist liberal judges over the last 70 years, and you two moonbats on this thread.

292 posted on 10/22/2007 7:20:21 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

When I want a cut-and-paste job from an ignorant embarrassment to this thread, I’ll ask you.


293 posted on 10/22/2007 7:33:04 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

You won’t have to ask. Just repost your own stuff...


294 posted on 10/22/2007 7:36:34 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

He does, and it’s all variations on “the 2ndA doesn’t apply”.


295 posted on 10/22/2007 7:44:09 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

Yeah... he’s pretty much a “one trick pony” when he trolls these threads. No matter what historical documentation is posted, he just puts his tiny little fingers in his ears and repeats the Brady Mantra his handlers taught him.


296 posted on 10/22/2007 7:51:18 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"No matter what historical documentation is posted"

Orrin Hatch is historical? John Ashcroft is historical?

I asked you for one historical quote that referenced the second amendment. I'm still waiting.

297 posted on 10/22/2007 8:56:31 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Reading comprehension problems again Bobby? You might wanna get your eyesight checked again...

The restraints imposed on the legislative powers of the federal government, are briefly comprised in the ninth section of the first article of the constitution, or in the amendments, proposed by the first congress, and since ratified in the mode prescribed by the constitution. Of these we shall take a brief survey, in the order in which they occur.
Thus far the restrictions contained in the constitution extend: "The conventions of a number of the states having, at the time of adopting the constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction, or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution 241." The following articles were proposed by congress, as amendments to the constitution, which having been duly ratified by the several states, now form a part thereof.
8. 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. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4. This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.
- St. Georges Tucker. Tucker's Blackstone Vol 1, 1803

And yeah... pretty much everyone has taken a turn posting even MORE quotes that you willfully ignore.

298 posted on 10/22/2007 9:30:38 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Further, if you had clicked either link, both of them have even MORE historical references within that you will also ignore.

By definition, this is called "ignorance". Something you have an endless supply of. Of course, if you stopped and actually did the intellectually honest thing and read them, it would destroy the premise of your agenda.

I'm not holding out any hope for you. You've been shoveling the same sh*t for years on this website. You've been proven wrong time and again, and Phred Phelps like, you just continue to annoy people.

299 posted on 10/22/2007 9:33:35 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Sorry. I do not see where that quote supports your claim that the second amendment protects the right of any person to keep and bear arms from infringenment by any level of government.

I mean, c'mon. The very first sentence of your own quote says that the BOR restrains the federal government.

Out of all the quotes, cites, refernces, etc. that you've cut-and-pasted on this forum, ad nauseum, THAT'S your best shot? Pathetic. Embarrassing, actually.

300 posted on 10/22/2007 9:44:28 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 341-357 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson