Is the N.R.A. Un-American?

The New York Times ^ | May 13, 2013 | Professor Stanley Fish

[2ndDivisionVet]

The more militant members of the N.R.A. and most of its leaders may be un-American.

By “militant” I don’t mean those who wish to protect recreational shooting and hunting; nor do I mean those who, like Justice Antonin Scalia, believe that there is a constitutional right to defend one’s home and family with firearms. These are respectable positions (although I am deeply unpersuaded by the second). I mean those who read the Second Amendment as proclaiming the right of citizens to resist the tyranny of their own government, that is, of the government that issued and ratified the Constitution in the first place.

The reason this view may be un-American is that it sets itself against one of the cornerstones of democracy — the orderly transfer of power. A transfer of power is orderly when it is effected by procedural rules that are indifferent to the partisan, ideological affiliations of either the party exiting power or the party taking power. A transfer is disorderly when it is effected by rebellion, invasion, military coup or any other use of force.....

[Windflier]

The good professor is obviously woefully ignorant of American history and the roots of the 2nd Amendment. If he’d ever bothered to read the founding generation’s thoughts on the right to keep and bear arms, he’d see how foolish he sounds to those who have.

In his zeal to defend his liberal political ideology, he’s actually arguing against having the means to defend himself against everything a liberal would fear from a totalitarian right-wing government.

[Windflier]

...when those organs of government chartered to protect the Constitution are charged with doing everything they possibly can to flout it through legalistic twisting and rhetorical and even physical bullying, it is simply, demonstrably, historically un-American to put up with it. Bloody, unrestricted, uncontrollable violence on the part of an individual presented with a smothering and oppressive government is very American. It isn't always pretty.

That is one of the best statements of true Americanism that I've seen on this website in far too long.

Thank you!

[freeandfreezing]

Professor Fish is clueless. He should read some of the state constitutions to better understand how our nation was formed. A couple of excerpts from the New Hampshire Constitution, with dates:

Article 1. [Equality of Men; Origin and Object of Government.] All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.(June 2, 1784)

[Art.] 2. [Natural Rights.] All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.(June 2, 1784, Amended 1974 adding sentence to prohibit discrimination.)

[Art.] 7. [State Sovereignty.] The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled. (June 2, 1784)

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind. (June 2, 1784)

Fish's foolish concept was explicitly rejected by the people who wrote and adopted the United States Constitution.

[Conservative4Ever]

Because professor that document you liberal types are in the process of destroying...let me refresh your memory...it starts out with WE THE PEOPLE. its a pretty good read, you might want to give it a go.

[Bender2]

Re: Is the N.R.A. Un-American? The New York Times May 13, 2013 by Professor Stanley Fish

Did you... ever notice that--

Fish rot... from the head down.

[freeandfreezing]

Well, it is, after all, Stanley Fish, who seemed to clear his head a little after his stint with the Modern Language Association but not, evidently, very much.

Good point. His head seems a bit muddled, since he rests much of his argument on the statements of people posting comments to newspaper articles. I wouldn't consider that much of a basis for any conclusion.

But luckily Prof. Fish didn't read all of the comments to the article. If he had he'd probably conclude that everyone can earn thousands of dollars a month working at home if they would just visit some website.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

It makes no difference to me if someone tries to take my freedom away from me through a ballot, or with a bullet, it is the same act of aggression.

[BenLurkin]

Bump!

[Jack Hammer]

Another over-educated and clueless imbecile heard from.

[Amberdawn]

I refuse to take anyone named “fish” seriously. The idea that this guy is unpersuaded that firearms are necessary to defend one’s person or home is a MORON.

[raisetheroof]

...of the government that issued and ratified the Constitution in the first place

Government did not create the Constitution. It is the Constitution that created government.

[Psycho_Bunny]

Wow....what an idiot.

[Smokin' Joe]

Well, Professor Fish, find a copy of The Federalist and read number 46.

The "more radical" elements of the NRA are spot on, and any less is the pussification of the Republic, the Constitution, and the Founders' intent.

If you can't handle that, take a Midol and STFU.

[octex]

Stanley Fish??????

HAHAHA....
***********************
Made me think of the Don Knotts movie, “The Incredible Mr. Limpet”!

[Don W]

Ummm, perfesser, the USA was founded by folks who fought the tyranny of their government. Mebbe a lil ‘mercan Histree might be a good read?

[Redcloak]

I mean those who read the Second Amendment as proclaiming the right of citizens to resist the tyranny of their own government, that is, of the government that issued and ratified the Constitution in the first place

Wow... Off the rails in 4 sentences. That's gotta be some kind of record.

The Federal government didn't ratify itself. The Constitution was ratified by the States; by representatives elected by the People. And the People and their representative were very concerned that the new Federal government would devolve into tyranny. This wasn't some abstract concern to them. They had just seen it happen to them in their own country. Their king and their parliament betrayed them and stopped treating them like Englishmen.

They saw standing armies as a threat to liberty. Why? Because the king's standing armies had just been used to oppress them. They saw the concentration of political power as a threat to liberty. Why? Because concentrating power into a few hands in far away London did result in them losing their freedoms. As a result, they demanded limits on the new Federal government. In particular, they demanded that their right to have access to arms be recognized by the new Federal government. They weren't demanding a right to sporting goods. They were demanding the right to the means necessary to overthrow another tyrant like the one they had just rid themselves of.

[SECURE AMERICA]

Is the New York Times Un-American?
Millions of Americans would answer yes...........

[boop]

I thought Jefferson wrote that it was NECESSARY to overthrow an unjust government should it come to pass.

And I'm pretty sure he meant that literally.

Of course, Jefferson would be considered a dangerous loon, and locked away for his own good if he dared write that in 2013.

Damn Teabagger.

[big'ol_freeper]

RE: Fish rot... from the head down.

And some fish are just plain rotten

[Howie66]

Evidently, the brain dead Un-American New York Slimes doesn’t think so.