Posted on 06/05/2022 11:27:40 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
In his Thursday night address to the nation, President Joe Biden laid the groundwork for a nationwide gun grab. During his remarks, he repeated his now-familiar argument that no amendment is absolute.
Because disarming Americans is a subject dear to most liberals’ hearts, MSNBC’s far-left host Chris Hayes felt compelled to weigh in on the debate.
Hayes on Twitter declared the conservative understanding of the Second Amendment as “an *obviously* deranged reading of it.”
Hayes continued writing that “In fact, under a certain (once fringe, now common) reading, that’s the whole *point* of the second amendment. People should be sufficiently armed to be able to murder agents of the state en masse if it comes to that.”
“This,” Hayes told his followers, is “an *obviously* deranged reading of it all, totally incompatible with basic principles of civic life and liberal democracy, but it casts a very long and ominous shadow over our politics right now. One that’s getting longer by the day.”
(Excerpt) Read more at westernjournal.com ...
I do not recognize radical authoritarian leftists as being liberal.
They know nothing about the men who wrote the document and why they made 2A so explicit.
Because they are not liberal, they are socialists, of which fascist is one derivative.
They can't find "shall not be infringed" in it, but they can find an imaginary "right to privacy/abortion."
Lost in the gun rights debate, much to the detriment of American freedom, is the fact that the Second Amendment is in fact an “AMENDMENT”. No “Articles in Amendment” to the Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be new knowledge to any American the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was determined that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until “further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added” “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions) powers”. (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791.
In this Light: “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.” What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to “amended”? THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE “MILITIA”. The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the “militia” as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. “(Again quoting from the Preamble to the Amendments.)
What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the “Militia” that was so offensive to the States?
First understand that the word “militia” was used with more than one meaning at the time of the penning of the Constitution. One popular definition used then was one often quoted today, that the “Militia” was every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word “militia” as used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment to correct. The only definition of “Militia” that had any meaning to the States demanding Amendments is the definition used in the original Constitution. What offended the States then should offend “People” today: “Militia” in the original Constitution as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power: “To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions.” Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress: “To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MILITIA, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;” Any “patriot” out there still want to be called a member of the “MILITIA” as defined by the original Constitution? Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;” The only way the States would accept the “MILITIA” as defined in the original Constitution was that the Federal “MILITIA” be “WELL REGULATED”.
The States realized that “THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE” required that the “MILITIA” as originally created in the Constitution be “WELL REGULATED” by a “restrictive clause.” How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional “MILITIA” be “WELL REGULATED”? By demanding that “restrictive clause two” better know as the “Second Amendment” be added to the original Constitution providing: “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” The States knew that “PEOPLE” with “ARMS” would “WELL REGULATE” the Federal “MILITIA”! Now read for the first time with the full brightness of the Light of truth: “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.” For those still overcome by propaganda: The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the “MILITIA” is not “WELL REGULATED” by “PEOPLE” keeping and bearing arms, the “MILITIA” becomes a threat to the “SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.” The “MILITIA” has no “RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS” in the Second Amendment, rather it is only “THE RIGHT OF THE “”PEOPLE”” TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
They can’t find “shall not be infringed” in it, but they can find an imaginary “right to privacy/abortion.” <<,
I believe you’ll find that “right” in the Blackmail letter to CJ Roberts...
You really need to read the highly suppressed 1982 Senate report on the 2nd Amendment. I have a paper copy. Hard to find now. Read and you will see why.
https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html
“The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”
19th century cases
16. * Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878).
“If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the (p.17)penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”
17. * Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. Crim. App. 298, at 300-01 (1878).
“We believe that portion of the act which provides that, in case of conviction, the defendant shall forfeit to the county the weapon or weapons so found on or about his person is not within the scope of legislative authority. * * * One of his most sacred rights is that of having arms for his own defence and that of the State. This right is one of the surest safeguards of liberty and self-preservation.”
18. * Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8, at 17 (1871).
“The passage from Story (Joseph Story: Comments on the Constitution) shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights.”
19. * Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).
“’The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.”
And the SCOTUS case that led to the Civil War..
Are Negros citizens...Dred Scott
“It would give to persons of the negro race, who are recognized as citizens in any one state of the Union, the right to enter every other state, whenever they pleased.... and it would give them full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.”
Was there ever any other legitimate interpretation? I mean I’ve always understood that the real purpose was to serve as s check on the government.
Thanks, Mat! Great read.
Stopped clock.
The USA Constitution Admendments are “absolute!”
Isn’t the 2A settled law? Over 500,000 lawyers agreed and signed go stupid letter to that fact.
“totally incompatible with basic principles of civic life and liberal democracy,”
Dear Dumb-ox Hayes: The Constitution says that we are a “Constitutional Republic, NOT a Utopian, liberal democracy!”
Means something to foreign entities, Yamamoto said, while declining the offer to invade America, that there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.
CH doesn’t understand God given right to self protection. What are we to use to defend ourselves “ tiddlywinks “?
And then look at me with a straight face and tell me it can't happen here. Yeah, you don't dare.
Since the Democrats hate the second amendment so much let’s pass a law that bans Democrats from possessing guns. How could they complain? And we all know it will reduce gun violence crimes by 95% if it could be enforced.
I have been on campus during a mass school shooting(3 times actually). It was a gun-free zone. The only thing you want is a gun
Isn’t the root word of liberal, Liberty?
Yet so called liberals have nothing to do with Liberty.
You write: “Isn’t the 2A settled law? Over 500,000 lawyers agreed and signed go stupid letter to that fact.”
The problem: There are l.3 million lawyers in the USA.
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.