Posted on 03/30/2018 8:08:20 PM PDT by Kaslin
This week, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote an op-ed in The New York Times that advocated a position most liberal pundits and activists have been incrementally working toward for a long time: repealing the Second Amendment. And while many liberal columnists argued that Stevens had only given fodder to gun advocates -- because his position is unfeasible right now -- not one whose piece I read argued that Stevens was wrong on the merits. Not one claimed that American citizens do, in fact, have an inherent individual right to protect themselves with firearms.
Whether repeal of the Second Amendment is feasible or not, historical revisionism is meant to mangle its meaning into irrelevancy. Stevens claims that his conception of gun rights is "uniformly understood" yet offers no legal precedent to back up the contention. Stevens claims that the Second Amendment's explicit mention of the right of "the people" does not create an "individual right," despite the inconvenient fact that other times the term is mentioned, in the Fourth, Ninth and 10th Amendments, the amendments have been found to protect the individual rights of the people.
Now, I'm not a legal scholar, but the idea, as the former justice argues, that the founders wanted no limits on the ability of the federal (or even a state) government to take weapons from law-abiding citizens conflicts with the historical record. Never once in the founding debate did a lawmaker rise to argue that gun ownership should be limited. Most state constitutions already featured language to protect that right. A number of states demanded that the national constitution include such a provision.
The debate over the Second Amendment centered on a dispute over who should control the militia: the federal or state governments. Everyone understood that a militia consisted of free individuals who would almost always grab their own firearms -- the ones they used in their everyday existence -- to engage in concerted efforts to protect themselves, their community or their country (sometimes from their own government).
This might surprise some, but the Minute Men did not return their muskets after Lexington.
In the writings and speeches of the American founders, the threat of disarmament was always a casus belli, which makes sense for practical and ideological reasons. None of the natural rights codified in the Constitution -- none, not freedom of speech, press or religion, or the ability to vote or demand due process -- had a longer or deeper history in English common law and tradition than the right to defend oneself.
Guns were so prevalent, in fact, that some framers noted that a tyrant would never take the nation because the general public out-armed the state. Noah Webster reasoned: "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops ..." His only mistake was trusting that the whole body of the people would always uphold the Constitution.
Even during the 19th century, not a single case challenged the notion that the Second Amendment is anything but an individual right. Again, it was so self-evident that when it was brought, it was merely a way to juxtapose American liberty with tyranny elsewhere. In 1823, Charles Sumner, one of the leading thinkers of the American Enlightenment, noted that if the population of the United States were "like that of Europe, chiefly consisted of an unarmed peasantry," it would be conquerable. "Here," he went on, "every house is a castle, and every man a soldier." John Adams, who had argued that self-defense was "the primary canon of the law of nature" when defending British soldiers after the Boston Massacre, concurred that an armed citizenry would not be susceptible to despotism.
When Jacob Howard, the Michigan senator who helped introduce the 14th Amendment to (attempt) to ensure that blacks in the South had protected Constitutional rights, he specifically noted "the right to bear arms" as a right to insure. The right to self-defense surely terrified the racists of the South more than any other.
The collective theory is modern invention. Even the photo of a musket and an AR-15 juxtaposed above Stevens' column to illustrate the antiquatedness of gun rights in the modern age misjudges history. Just as the First Amendment protects modern communication, and just as the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends to guns that were not in existence at the time of the founding. Unlike contemporary liberal columnists who'd like to revise the Constitution, the founders were well aware that the fleeting emotions of the population could corrode rights.
If you think the Second Amendment is antiquated, that's fine. Repeal it. The history of the Second Amendment, though, doesn't change to comport with your contemporary positions.
p
Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended.
*Four ruffians break into my house.
*"What the devil?" as I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle.
*Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot.
*Draw my pistol on the second man, misses him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbor's dog.
*I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot.
*"Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms.
*Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion.
*Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up.
Just as the founding fathers intended.
The right to bear cannons is implicit in the Second Amendment. That right was exercised for at least 75 years after the Bill of Rights:
CANNONS and ARTILLERY WERE LEGAL IN PHILADELPHIA IN 1790
ORDINANCES
“Ordinance of January 18 1790 An ordinance for the suppression of nuisances and enforcing of useful regulations within the city of Philadelphia For the other sections of this ordinance see Nuisances and Carriages 1 And whereas the firing of cannon or other great pieces of artillery or ordnance and the illuminating of houses within the city on occasions of public rejoicing have been attended with many great mischiefs and inconveniences. It is therefore ordained and enacted That no person or persons whatsoever shall fire or discharge any cannon or other piece of artillery or ordnance or illuminate or cause or permit to be illuminated any house within the built parts of this city without the permission of the mayor of the city for the time being first had and obtained in writing under his hand under the penalty of forfeiting and paying for every piece of cannon or other artillery or ordnance so fired or house so illuminated the sum of five dollars all and every the fine and fines imposed by this ordinance shall be recoverable with costs of suit by any person
who shall sue for the same before the mayor recorder or any
alderman of the said and shall go one moiety to the person or persons who shall sue for the same and the other moiety for the use of the city Ordinance of July 9 1821 p.78”
“A Digest of the Ordinances of the Corporation of the City of Philadelphia: And of the Acts of Assembly Relating Thereto Corporation (PHILADELPHIA)”, John C. LOWBER (and MILLER (C. S.))Robert Desilver, 1822 - “Municipal charters and Ordinances” - 301 pages
++++++++++++++++==
“Cannons for sale Six very excellent double fortified sizes, with ammunition...”
“New-York Commercial Advertiser”, August 02, 1804, Page 1
for sale 4 cannons
“New-York Evening Post”, July 16, 1811, Page 1
‘for sale 200 cannons and 100 tons of shot’
“New-York Evening Post”, September 23, 1828, Page 3
“for sale 200 cannons and howitzers and tons of shot and ammunition”
“The Evening Post”, November 02, 1844, Page 1 [NY City]
“for sale 50 cannons and 100 tons of shot”
“New-York Evening Post”, September 09, 1829, Page 1 [NY City]
https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/lccn/sn83030385/1829-09-
09/ed-1/seq-1/#date1=01%2F01%2F1790&sort=relevance&date2=12%2F31%2F1845&searchType=advanced&SearchType=phrase&sequence=0&lccn=&index=7&words=Cannons&proxdistance=&to_year=1845&rows=20&ortext=&from_year=1790&proxtext=&phrasetext=cannons+&andtext=&dateFilterType=range&page=12
+++++++++++==
U.S. Govt sells 400 cannons, 36 mortars, muskets and cartridges to the general public.’”
“Evening Courier & Republic”, February 07, 1866, Page 3 [Buffalo, NY]
They may make it mandatory to turn in all firearms, but they may get them bullets first.
Tinyurl.com is your friend.
That stuff really messes up page renders in iOS Safari.
Good one.
Ironically, by calling for the 2nd Amendment’s repeal, Stevens acknowledges that it’s about the right of individuals. Otherwise, there’d be no reason for him to want it repealed in the first place.
Let’s compare how many people are killed by illegal ha d guns in the nation’s cities to the number of killed in mass shootings. Take it a step further, how many children or young people are killed every year, by other means than guns?
A few days ago, a woman drove her car off the Pacific Coast Highway with her partner and six adopted children inside, killed them all. Are you going to ban SUVs?
Let’s compare how many people are killed by illegal ha d guns in the nation’s cities to the number of killed in mass shootings. Take it a step further, how many children or young people are killed every year, by other means than guns?
A few days ago, a woman drove her car off the Pacific Coast Highway with her partner and six adopted children inside, killed them all. Are you going to ban SUVs?
He left out of the scenario a tomahawk,
and a knife....and your bare hands.
When I was a Kid, you could buy a War Surplus German Anti-Tank Rifle from the back of a Magazine.
It cost $179 including Ammunition.
Nope, just Ban Driving and Bulldoze PCH.
I’m sure Gravity bears some of the blame as well.
Additionally, all but three states explicitly protect their citizens right to keep and bear arms for defending oneself and enabling the state to conscript able bodied men in defense of the state.
So, the argument of restriction fails against the constitution of the United States and the 10th amendment state right to govern themselves as well the prescription of their constitution.
It sure would be nice if the 3%, or whatever is out there, could bank together and conduct another installment of the, Battle of Athens. This stuff is starting to get out of hand.
You have the face of the movement, an ugly, skinny, arrogant elitist snob. Whose daddy is retired FBI and carry’s a gun, because his mommy let the world know about that. Who MAY or MAY NOT have been at the school when the shooting took place. Who, somehow, in the midst of all that chaos, confusion and horror, has the sense to film himself and start asking about gun control. Amazing how this pain in the a$$ seems to always be in a certain place at a certain time.
His sidekick, a teenage lesbian with a buzzcut, admits to bullying the alleged perpetrator from middle school through high school and not a word from anyone about it.
And these two, who a few weeks ago were contemplating the Tide Pod challenge are the faces of a movement to take a right away from the people.
BTW, I’ve never heard one person, when debating the 2nd Amendment, ask the question as to why the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, & 8th Amendments are all about the, Individual, but somehow the 2nd isn’t.
Too many people today misunderstand the document, thanks to liberal attempts to turn it into something it is not, for their benefit. I had to pass American Government 1 and 2, but the was a long time time ago in the 1970's.
As I understand, “History”, in particular American History, has been watered down so much you would think the schools are teaching history about some other country.
It goes back to the old saying, “Teach them what you want them to hear”.
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.