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Second Amendment Rights and Black Sheep October 18, 2007 After carefully reviewing the historical documents pertaining to the drafting and ratification of the Bill of Rights, I am unable to find a single instance of “intent” that the Second Amendment was the bastard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 In June of this year James Goldberg had his gun confiscated by the Glastonbury, Connecticut police and his gun permit was revoked after he was charged with breach of peace.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arrest was dismissed by the Superior Court and his record was squeaky clean within a month of the incident, his permit was revoked and he had to apply to Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit examiners, “a civilian board that hears appeals on revoked or denied gun permits” for its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 don’t think that anyone ever believed it would reduce crime, on either side of the aisle.]
Slow and dishonest is no way to live your life, Dead Corpse.
Why not? After Florida passed its weapons laws, crime against its residents went way down but crime against tourists had a massive increase. I would have a rental stand at airports to rent out firearms and ammo and have some instant training when someone gets off the plane.
And as for felons who completed their sentence (paid their WHOLE “debt to society”), before the GCA ‘68 abomination. could and did get the right to keep and bear arms restored. Which was as it SHOULD be. If you can’t trust them to behave, then DON’T grant them parole... Children get to own firearms at the discretion of the parents and the insane and feeble-minded would have their right tempered by a judge, AFTER their due process hearings. Any more of your idiocy I can debunk for you, bobby???
Offer them a short course on U.S. History and let them vote, too.
"before the GCA ‘68 abomination. could and did get the right to keep and bear arms restored."
Before the GCA, yes, felons were allowed to have guns. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lewis v. United States (1980), that the right was never protected for felons.
"If you can’t trust them to behave, then DON’T grant them parole"
We trust them enough to parole them, but we don't trust them enough to parole them with a gun. Simple enough for most to understand.
"Children get to own firearms at the discretion of the parents"
Whatever. That doesn't mean their fundamental, constitutional right to keep and bear them is protected. It isn't.
"and the insane and feeble-minded would have their right tempered by a judge"
They may have their condition declared by a judge, but the judge does not make the determination whether they may own a gun. That decision is made by the legislature.
We need to get something clear here. I'm referring to the constitutional protection of a right, not the right itself. If a right is not protected, that does NOT mean you don't have it or that the activity is prohibited.
For example, the RKBA of California citizens is not protected -- neither by the U.S. Constitution nor the California State Constitution. Yet millions of Californians legally own guns. And they have the right to own them.
Highly unlikely considering that Hamilton's mom was black.
The "US was created by and for white-male landowners" is little more than 20th century communist propaganda designed to portray the US as always having been an exploitive system. There was never any Federal constitutional requirement to own land in order to vote, and if it was limited to pure whites only then Hamilton himself would've been unable to vote due to his mixed heritage.
(Of course, this fact actually tends to reinforce your overall argument, even if it disproves your one concession to the previous bogus argument being presented).
No it doesn't. It doesn't mention state militias at all. It only says that a well-regulated militia (specifying neither local, state, nor national) is necessary to the security of a free state.
Because militias are necessary for such freedom, the right of the people to keep and bear arms isn't to be infringed (so that the people will be able to form a militia if necessary).
You seem to lack even a child's ability to parse simple English. Assuming that you are still in grade school, you should probably try to concentrate more on your education instead of wasting peoples' time by posting such silly assertions.
Correct. I said it refers to state Militias.
"It only says that a well-regulated militia (specifying neither local, state, nor national) is necessary to the security of a free state."
Correct again. And to what Militia is it referring? A different Militia than what is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 -- you know, the one with officers appointed by each state?
"Because militias are necessary for such freedom, the right of the people to keep and bear arms isn't to be infringed (so that the people will be able to form a militia if necessary)."
Correct again. That's three in a row!
"You seem to lack even a child's ability to parse simple English."
Bzzzzzt! Well, three out of four.
You have no reason -- zero, zilch, nada -- to believe that the Founders were referring to anything BUT a well regulated (organized, armed, and accoutered) state Militia. Cite for me just one reference, one quote, one sentence that the Founding Fathers were referring to a local or a national Militia.
Without that reference, what you're doing is called "trolling" -- posting something outrageous in order to get some kind of reaction. I note that you also followed that with an insult, which tells me you have no interest other than to disrupt the thread.
Go away, little man. Or the mods will make you go away.
http://astore.amazon.com/familyforest-20/detail/0142800430
"was the illegitimate child of James Hamilton, the younger son of a Scots laird, and Rachel Faucette, a woman of British and French Huguenot descent who had fled from her first husband. (Chernow's extensive research has uncovered nothing to substantiate claims that Hamilton, by way of his mother, was partly black.)"
And I never said that there was any Federal law requiring a citizen to own land in order to vote. It was one of many ideas conceived during the first Constitutional Convention that was voted down. Hamilton thought it a good idea, but the majority of his contemporaries, including Jefferson and Madison, did not. He was outvoted.
Possibly, but I have heard it repeated on numerous occasions (the latest was a PBS special that had John Adams making the claim). He was called a creole and a mulatto in newspaper accounts of the time, but those too could have been merely the result of statements by political enemies. In any case, a review of what history is available shows that he was a strong advocate of the rights of African men (and like many of the founders, an abolitionist).
And I never said that there was any Federal law requiring a citizen to own land in order to vote. It was one of many ideas conceived during the first Constitutional Convention that was voted down. Hamilton thought it a good idea, but the majority of his contemporaries, including Jefferson and Madison, did not. He was outvoted.
The original post seemed to suggest that you thought that such was the case. Apologies if I misunderstood your statement (it seemed you were agreeing with the erroneous statement made by the person you were quoting with "Hamilton was more of the mind you describe").
When it clearly doesn't. In other words, you lied and knew you were lying when you did it.
Correct again. And to what Militia is it referring? A different Militia than what is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 -- you know, the one with officers appointed by each state?
You have no reason -- zero, zilch, nada -- to believe that the Founders were referring to anything BUT a well regulated (organized, armed, and accoutered) state Militia
If you were as half-educated as you pretend, you would know that such issues are discussed in the Federalist Papers ( starting for example, #29). There is no such thing as a "state militia", since by definition the militia is the body of people at arms. A "state militia" would only be that portion of the militia present in a given state (where the body of the Constitution limits the power of the federal government by reserving to the state the election of officers for that portion of the militia).
As far as the 2nd amendment goes, it does not secure the right for the "militia" in any case, it secures it for the people.
I note that you also followed that with an insult, which tells me you have no interest other than to disrupt the thread.
I rarely insult others; you genuinely seemed to be a young, ignorant (not stupid, just ignorant, since you don't know what words like "state" or "militia" mean) person because of the arguments you are making. There is nothing shameful about your ignorance, but you should try to correct it before you reach adulthood.
I see. Then what was the Virginia Militia? The Maine Militia? The Vermont Militia?
"A "state militia" would only be that portion of the militia present in a given state"
Ah. And the other portion?
"As far as the 2nd amendment goes, it does not secure the right for the "militia" in any case, it secures it for the people."
Correct. The people in the well regulated, state Militia. It did not secure that right for every person. Or do you think it did?
Congress has the constitutional power to organize the militia of each state. They did so in the Militia Act of 1792. The second amendment protects the RKBA of those individuals as part of their state Militia.
Try rebutting that with facts instead of name-calling. If you can.
The Constitution grants Congress the power to organize “the militia”. It does not say “the militias of the various states”, it does not say “state militias”, it simply says “the militia” and does so in the context of the whole of the USA.
Likewise the 2nd Amendment - which refers to the “militia”, not “state militia”.
Stop moving words around, and adding them to where they aren’t.
Correct. The U.S. Constitution says "the militia". But it is certainly referring to a state militia. What other kind of militia has its officers appointed by each state?
"Likewise the 2nd Amendment - which refers to the “militia”, not “state militia”."
Correct. The second amendment says "well regulated militia". But it is certainly referring to a well regulated state militia. What other kind of militia is well regulated (organized, trained, armed, and accoutered)?
Under the Militia Act of 1792, Congress organized a state militia. The Militia Act was not referring to a federal militia nor a neighborhood militia. It was referring to a state militia with officers appointed by the state.
Likewise for the Militia Act of 1792. It has the states appoint officers, and has states do other tasks pursuant to the militia, but does not separate out militiaS as multiple independent entities. What the Act organizes is a federal organization pursuant to explicitly delegated Constitutional power, with portions thereof managed (but not owned per se) at state level.
The officers appointed by a state preside over militia members resident of that state. Both, however, serve in "the militia" (singular), which is a federal organization with the President at its helm.
If, as you contend, it was all about "state militias", then Congress would not have been granted the power to organize the aggregate thereof, and would not have had the power to pass a federal "Militia Act" which legislated the organization in great detail (right down to the minimum number of bullets each member must have). The states are granted the power to assign officers, but it is done as a whole under the organization of Congress and direction of the President.
Then how did we end up with multiple state militias? Coincidence?
"serve in "the militia" (singular), which is a federal organization with the President at its helm."
Only on the very rare occasion when the state militias are federalized. Otherwise, the militia serves under the governor of each state.
"If, as you contend, it was all about "state militias", then Congress would not have been granted the power to organize the aggregate thereof"
One does not preclude the other. Where did you come up with that?
It's in the best interest of the nation that the individual state militias are identical in organization and weaponry. I haven't found anything to suggest that the Founding Fathers intended a federal militia. Maybe you can cite some support for your bizarre theory.
That portion of the militia which happened to reside within that State.
Ah. And the other portion?
Outside the various States, there would be that portion which might reside in territories, the federal district, or any other area under the authority of the new Republic.
Correct. The people in the well regulated, state Militia.
Once again, this shows you have no clue what the word militia even means. It also shows that you lack the ability to comprehend even the most basic of English sentences. The right is secured for the people, not "the militia". The "militia" is a collective, and collectives do not have rights, only individuals.
It did not secure that right for every person
Certainly if the founders had wanted to do so, they could have used language like "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Oh wait; they did. Are you an idiot who can't understand simple English, or just a liar who hates basic freedoms?
Congress has the constitutional power to organize the militia of each state
Wrong. The Constitution grants the power "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia". Not "militias", but singular "Militia".
Try rebutting that with facts instead of name-calling. If you can
That's difficult to do when an accurate assessment of the facts would involve calling you far worse names than would be allowed on this board.
Well, I've been told the people were the militia. Whatever.
"The "militia" is a collective, and collectives do not have rights, only individuals."
Maybe "civic" is a better descriptor. For example, voting is a civic right. You have the individual right to vote, but that right is secured for the people (collectively) only during certain circumstances -- you can't vote anytime you want to.
Similarly, the second amendment protects your individual right to keep and bear arms from federal infringement, but that right is secured for the people (collectively) only during certain circumstances -- when they assemble to form a well regulated state Militia.
All other times, your individual right to keep and bear arms is protected by your state constitution.
"Not "militias", but singular "Militia"."
And the singular "Militia" consists of the militias of the several states. Therefore, my statement that, "Congress has the constitutional power to organize the militia of each state" is correct.
"they could have used language like "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
So you're saying that "the people" in the second amendment means "every person".
The 5th amendment extends due process to every person. It says so. That protection applies to citizens AND non-citizens. It applies to children, the insane, illegal aliens, foreign visitors, prisoners, etc. Every person. You're saying these people have second amendment protection to keep and bear arms?
Who can't understand basic English? Who's a liar?
Justice "dead wrong" Stevens attempted to assert the same nonsense in the Heller decision today. Justice Scalia's (and the official position of the United States) opinion shows that you, just like Stevens, are "dead wrong".
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.