Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Progressives and The Second Amendment
Roderick T. Beaman

Posted on 02/13/2014 12:56:58 PM PST by crazylibertarian

The Second Amendment to The United States Constitution reads thus: “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.” A Jacksonville, Florida progressive has stated that this means the right belongs to the militia, not the people as stated in the second part of the sentence.

This has been an argument from Leftists for decades, including the American Civil Liberties Union, which has never given up its goal of placing this country under an economic dictatorship. ACLU sponsors leftist talk shows but has NEVER give a penny, that I know of, in sponsorship of any libertarian talk show despite their devotion, at least as strong, to The Constitution. You see, true libertarians are proponents of freedom, ACLUers and progressives are proponents of enslavement to the government which they think of as them.

A logically parallel statement to the Second Amendment would be: A good cake being necessary to a wedding celebration, the right to buy and have an oven, shall not be infringed. What is the goal and who would have the right, the people or just the wedding celebrants?

No progressive will address this because no progressive can.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: banglist; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-29 last
To: MosesKnows

exactly.


21 posted on 02/13/2014 1:37:11 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: lepton

Made sense as they would all be the ones comprising the army (if pressed into service) at the time.

Swiss still have this idea. Israel too.


22 posted on 02/13/2014 1:39:11 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Our second amendment was put forth after our Founding Fathers studied the Swiss model. They did quite a bit of review on the subject. They’d seen the powers the Swiss had stood up to for centuries, with militia, and many feared a standing army.


23 posted on 02/13/2014 2:31:51 PM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: crazylibertarian; All

If y’all want to read a really good book about this subject and it’s history, check out, “That Every Man Be Armed,” by Stephen P. Halbrook. I listen to the audiobook when I’m at work. Excellent stuff.


24 posted on 02/13/2014 2:40:58 PM PST by RandallFlagg ("I said I never had much use for one. Never said I didn't know how to use it." --Quigley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lepton

I’ve always thought that the phrase “well regulated” meant “efficient/proficient/skilled/accurate.” Re: “Regulator clocks.”

Regulated” by your interpretation has the meaning of “...bound by law/required.”

In context, using my understanding of the word regulated, the law reads “a skilled militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,....”

Try inserting your definition into the 2nd Amendment.....

Note I resist any interpretation of words that believes that the 2nd Amendment refers to any of limitation or requirement on the People.


25 posted on 02/13/2014 2:46:25 PM PST by Forty-Niner (The barely bare, berry bear formally known as Ursus Arctos Horribilis....,I')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: crazylibertarian

bkmk


26 posted on 02/13/2014 3:20:46 PM PST by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Forty-Niner

Regulated” by your interpretation has the meaning of “...bound by law/required.”


No. By my definition, it means it be kept in good working order, with maintained functionality. The referenced laws were what made it mandatory.

On a related note, early court rulings also said that substantial state restrictions on firearms were unconstitutional on the grounds that the states and the union could not deprive each other of a functional militia. I haven’t seen where that was overturned...just ignored.


27 posted on 02/13/2014 5:23:36 PM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: crazylibertarian

Since all males at the age of 18 are required to register for selective service, I’m thinking that pretty much constitutes a militia.


28 posted on 02/13/2014 10:24:08 PM PST by mikefive (RLTW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mastador1
It’s a asinine argument, if the Second Amendment was solely direct to militias why would it even mention the right of the people to keep and bear arms? It would be the same as me arguing that the First Amendment was directed solely to the press and not ordinary citizens.
. . . and you actually think that journalists respect the right to freedom of the press for anyone other than themselves?

29 posted on 02/14/2014 4:50:01 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion ("Liberalism” is a conspiracy against the public by wire-service journalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-29 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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