Skip to comments.We plead self defense for second amendment rights
Posted on 05/09/2007 11:00:15 PM PDT by TheBethsterNH
We plead self-defense for second amendment rights By Bill Walsh Guest columnist
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Moses killed an Egyptian, to save a relative from being beaten to death.
About one million times a year, citizens of the United States exercise their Second Amendment recognized right to defend their lives and property with firearms. In 98 percent of these incidents, the mere brandishing of a firearm suffices to deter the crime.
In states where the right to concealed carry is not unduly restricted, violent crime is dramatically lower than in places where the right is restricted or prohibited. Conversely, crime has greatly increased in Britain and Australia after the imposition of strict gun laws.
Twenty-five years after enacting the strictest gun ban in the country, the murder rate in Washington, D.C., is 46.4 per 100,000. In Alexandria, Va., just across the river, the murder rate is only 2.1 per 100,000, according to FBI Uniform Crime Reports.
That crime is suppressed where the law-abiding may well be armed is a matter not of argument but of statistics.
It was heart-wrenching to watch the coverage of the monstrous crime committed on the Virginia Tech campus.
It appears that a young student has given external expression to his internal rage by committing mass murder. We may never know whether it was unrequited love, wounded pride, envy, wrath, lust, other moral failing or madness that motivated him.
He chose to commit a carefully planned evil act against which only deadly force can prevail.
The Statist will say there ought to be another law but in spite of a strict prohibition of firearms and even knives with blades over four inches in length on campus by Virginia Tech regulations, the man who determined to violate with impunity the laws of God and man and commit a heinous and horrifying crime was not in the least deterred by scruple over a minor and arbitrary code.
No law is efficacious against someone, who fearing neither God nor Man, discards his life and his soul, his evil ends to obtain. Unfortunately, his victims, in compliance with campus regulations, were defenseless.
The Second Amendment also recognizes the right of the whole people to self defense against unjust government. Our founders built upon their memory of the English Constitution of 1688 to guarantee the right to keep and bear arms to all citizens. It is notable, that the English right was only partially extended to Catholics who, at that time, did not enjoy the full status of citizenship.
"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proved to be always possible." - Hubert H. Humphrey
Vice President Humphrey did not live to see the military operation conducted by the Federal Government, in August of 1992, against a family in rural Ruby Ridge, Idaho, during which an FBI sniper shot to death Randy Weaver's teenage son, his wife and even the family dog.
Humphrey did not live to see what happened in Waco, Texas, on Feb. 28, 1993, where the government conducted a massive raid which included the use of tanks and incendiary devices, and resulted in 80 persons, including women and children being burnt to death.
Humphrey's life-span did give him opportunity to observe government's potential to go wrong on an even larger scale. He must have been amply instructed by the Turkish genocide of the Armenians, the Stalin purges and genocide of the Kulaks in Ukraine, the Nazi Holocaust and the millions killed in Vietnam and Cambodia after our retreat from Saigon.
Humphrey was not, in the least, an anti-government person, but he knew that government has always the potential to be the worst enemy of the people.
Why then, do some liberals persistently push for disarmament of the law-abiding individual? They will demonize a mechanical device that can never be un-invented, but ignore the reality that man can choose good or evil.
They will opportunistically seize upon the latest tragic playing out of evil choices by twisted individuals to try to legislate away the rights of ordinary good people.
Nothing thereby is accomplished but further injustice. The innocent would be the helpless prey of the guilty and society would be no longer free but ever helpless before government's potential to go wrong.
How ironic it is to hear effete Europeans mock America for her insistence that law-abiding citizens have a right to the means of personal protection guaranteed by our Constitution.
These same Europeans have not the courage to similarly criticize the violence perpetrated by Radical Islamic murderers around the world. One does not have to be an Israeli to know what I mean, but it would help. How ironic indeed to be mocked by the inhabitants of the continent on which the Jews were first disarmed by Hitler's edict of 1938 and then murdered by the millions.
We have as much right to weapons such as firearms as the lower beasts have to their teeth and talons. Our superior intelligence has devised these other means of defending ourselves.
"Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or the state (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 2265)." This is a pro-life issue.
The movement to suppress these rights is rooted in a perverted ideology, rather than any purported concern about crime or safety. It springs from a notion that man is but a clever beast, not a free person made in the image and likeness of God. No question of value, let alone liberty. Bring forth the muzzle and chains. Or, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has said, "Mr. & Mrs. America. Turn them all in."
Charles Krauthammer understands the issue well. Here is what he had to say about it in the April 5, 1996, issue of the Washington Post: "It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today. Passing a law like the assault weapon ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."
I’m all for the second amendment. Heck, I think it should have have been first and it will always be first in my heart. It says, “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.” I keep ‘em and I bear ‘em. But it doesn’t say anything about defending lives and property. I’m in favor of those things as well but I’m not going to pretend that they are mentioned in the second amendment.
Would like to add that not only for desentization, but to convince the public that the feral ones were given the power to control guns in the first place, which they weren't.
Maybe it's time for the people to consider updating and publishing another declaration of the causes and necessity of taking up arms.
"The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people." - Fisher Ames, Letter to F.R. Minoe, June 12, 1789
Seems to me the times are becoming perilously similar with each passing day.
“Im in favor of those things as well but Im not going to pretend that they are mentioned in the second amendment.”
You are correct that the second amendment does not mention anything about protecting ones property or self. However, the Federal Bill of Rights was modeled after the original states constitution and bill of rights. It is implied. My own state’s constitution (Pennsylvania) is a little more clearer in it’s 21st section: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”
If you would read the original 13 states constitution and bill of rights, you will find similar wording in most of them. There are also many places where the founding fathers talk about the right to bear arms. The main reasons that they give are usually to defend one’s self, property or against governmental tyranny. See Federalist paper 46 where George Mason expounds in great detail about our reasons to keep and bear arms.
I will agree on one thing, the second amendment was not to keep hunter’s rights as some politicians seem to think (See Mitt Romney and lifelong hunter statement). If a state wanted to completely do away with hunting in their state, I don’t see anything in the federal constitution that would prevent that. Of course in my state, if they did that they better prepare to have white tailed deer living in every neighborhood. Actually, we already do have this!
The notes left by the founding fathers make it clear what the second amendment is for. The main purpose was for protection against the government. A militia is supposed to be NON-governmental. It is comprised of free citizens bearing arms who can counter any overt act of aggression by the government. The second purpose was to insure citizens had the means to protect themselves from attacks on their persons by criminals.
These intents are extremely clear in the notes and writings of the founding fathers, notes and writings that are used to make rulings by the Scotus, or they are supposed to be used for that. The reason no one has been able to completely turn the meaning of the second amendment around, the way the left has tried to do with their idiotic statements about only the military should be armed, is because the intent of the second is crystal clear.
Protection, from criminals and government, period. If you don't know that you should be studying history and the constitution a little bit more, you sound as if you need the education.
Too bad no one believes it any more. Try and correct "government abuse" via force of arms and see how fast they spin you as the villain.
The frog pot isn't just at a boil, the frogs are cooked and no one cares...
Survivor of Texas Massacre Testifies in Congress on “Assault Weapons” Ban (video)
Dr. Suzanne Hupp testifies to congress on attempts to ban modern rifles, which are commonly mis-identified as “assault weapons”. Dr. Suzanne Hupp’s parents were murdered along with 21 other people in a massacre by a mentally unbalanced man in Texas.
Dr. Hupp left her RTC pistol in the car parking lot because at the time it was a felony to carry in a liquor establishment.
The movement to suppress these rights is rooted in a perverted ideology, rather than any purported concern about crime or safety. It springs from a notion that man is but a clever beast, not a free person made in the image and likeness of God. No question of value, let alone liberty.
The first is answered by the second. The libs deny that there is Good & Evil, since to do so would require that they admit to the existence of forces beyond and above our power (i.e. G-d). Since they are so egocentric, they cannot admit to a higher Being than themselves. But something is clearly wrong, or there wouldn't be crime...so they need a scapegoat, and it is an idol of their creation - the gun, a hunk of metal, with some wood or plastic mixed in. In their view, anyone who has one of them automatically becomes possessed by it (except them - they, our betters, can resist the power of the bad idol, whereas we racist redneck slobs don't have the brains or the morality to do so).
Another way of looking at this is that libs (the ones at the top, not the myriads of useful idiots and hoplophobic blissninnies that most of us deal with on a daily basis) want nothing more than power, and the only way to have absolute or near-absolute power is to have a disarmed populace. Lenin and Uncle Joe showed them the way - disarm the rabble, and then 1 man with a gun can control 100 (especially if you shoot a few dozen or hundred every once in a while, for no particular reason - this is terror, and it is what they want to do to us). BTW, I think that this drive for power is also rooted in a distinct lack of faith - otherwise, they'd realize that there are more important things and that those given power have duties and obligations, not merely privileges.
This is why the text is written the way it is. It does not restrict the use of arms to any particular purpose. And the introductory clause does nothing more than give the State's interest in approving the amendment. I suggest that you read Judge Silberman's analysis of the text in the Parker decision for more detail on the text and its intent...
To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment
protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right
existed prior to the formation of the new government under the
Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for
activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being
understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the
depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from
abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the
important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the
citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient
for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to
placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right
facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be
barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth
for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second
Amendments civic purpose, however, the activities it protects
are not limited to militia service, nor is an individuals
enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or
intermittent enrollment in the militia.
The Founders intended that the text contain no limitations on the application of the right protected by the Amendment. Yes, preserving the ability to perform militia service is in the State's interest, but that is not the sole purpose of the Amendment. No other specific purpose, such as hunting or self-defense, is mentioned either. The text was intended to protect an individual's liberty, not to give the Government a set of "outs" to violate that liberty.
Be Ever Vigilant!!
You need to read the Founder's articles on this topic. Self defence is assumed to be implied by the "right of the people to keep and bear arms". After all, what is the point in bearing arms? The problem is that people in those days understood the responsibilities of citizenship. Modern people don't seem to know much about the facts of life as they relate to human nature and independance. One can't be free if the government must micro manage every facit of life, including the defense of one's own home.
Read "The Federalist Papers". They will give you a better understanding of the rights and responsibilities of citizens and governments.
Nice post, newbie. Welcome.
Liberals do not fear an all powerful government - but they do fear armed individuals.
Thanks "Bethster", and welcome.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
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.