NEITHER SIDE HAS BEEN ON TARGET OVER GUN RIGHTS (Another call for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment)

The Columbus Dispatch | May 19, 2002

[tarawa]

ping

[PatrioticAmerican]

Just anohter idiot who knows nothing of history our this country's foundations. Another public school idiot.

[Joe Brower]

[Billthedrill]

The author seems to think that labeling a point of view the NRA's somehow invalidates it. But the author is absolutely correct in his parsing of the Second Amendment: The amendment means that because a free state needs a militia, the right to guns can't be infringed. but neatly leaves out whose right is referred to in his synopsis. The framers did not.

I would agree with his suggestion Perhaps we should leave the Second Amendment alone and deal as best we can with an apparently inviolable right of the physically fit of military age to have guns. What I can't understand is why the author doesn't seem to buy into his own conclusion.

[Walkin Man]

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What part of this does the gun-grabbing leftist prof not understand?

[BlackbirdSST]

Just anohter idiot who knows nothing of history our this country's foundations. Another public school idiot. Oh come on! He is a great thinker, at least in his own mind! Blackbird.

[Blue Screen of Death]

One would think that people who believe that President Bush is so morally corrupt that he knew about the 9/11 attack and kept quiet so his friends could make money on the deal, would be the first to want to arm themselvs as protection against the this government.

Go figure. The same people who believe that this administration is horrible, corrupt and willing to kill their own citizens for a few bucks on puts and calls on the stock market are the ones that see no need to keep and bare arms.

[45Auto]

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

--Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at p. 750, August 17, 1789.

[boris]

"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.'"

No, it does not. The Second Amendment contains only a single comma.

--Boris

[45Auto]

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. 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 that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States"

--Noah Webster in "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution," 1787, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at p. 56 (New York, 1888).

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..."

--Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist No. 29.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

--Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1.

[45Auto]

Prof Oldenquist is an idiot. I would have hated to have had to take a philosophy course from the old dingbat. The historical essays and discourse involveing the writing and ratification of the Constitution leave NO DOUBT what the 2nd means and what the Founders had in mind. Even a near illiterate like Prof Oldenquist should be able to glean the simple meaning from the above quotes. Duh!

[45Auto]

Publications by the learned dingbat:

Andrew OLDENQUIST __________

Professor Emeritus, Department of Philosophy, Ohio State University, 350 University Hall, 230 North Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.

Oldenquist, A. 1978. Evolution and ethics. Personalist 59: 58—69. Keyword: evolutionary ethics.

Oldenquist, A. 1980. The possibility of selfishness. American Philosophical Quarterly 17: 25—33. Keyword: evolutionary ethics.

Oldenquist, A. 1990. The origins of morality: An essay in philosophical anthropology. Social Philosophy and Policy 8: 121—140. Keyword: evolutionary ethics.

This guy's specialty is evolutionary ethics, or as some might put it, "situational morality". Typical leftist nonsense used to rationalize any type of assinine behavior.

[babyface00]

IMHO, there are several flaws in his argument.

1) The phrase "well regulated militia" - he assumes that "regulated" means being constrained by numerous laws (the 20th century use of the word) rather than the 18th century use, which meant utilizing a common caliber of ammunition. Secondly, he defines militia as being an organized organ of the State, and not a group of individual citizens who may, or may not, share the interests of the government currently in place

2) The phrase "security of a free state" - there's a subtle difference between treating a "free state" as a government, vs a "free state" as being the collective citizens (regardless of the government in power). Is it for the security of the government in power, or that of the people who make up the body of the citizenry? I would argue the latter, the professor argues the former.

3) His budget example is off base. How about this phrase:
"An armed group of individual citizens using agreed-upon ammunition being necessary for the security of free people, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".
Would this person still doubt the clear meaning of the founders?

4) And that's not even considering the many crystal clear quotes by the founders that have already been posted.

[coloradan]

Attorney General John Ashcroft is trying, most likely in vain, to persuade the Supreme Court to interpret the Second Amendment as the National Rifle Association interprets it.

This sentence - #1 in the article body, is a lie. Olson has asked the Supreme Court to reject hearing any Second Amendment cases, specifically Emerson's and Haney's, so that they will not offer any interpretation of it.

[betty boop]

BTTT!

[dead]

I would agree with his suggestion Perhaps we should leave the Second Amendment alone and deal as best we can with an apparently inviolable right of the physically fit of military age to have guns. What I can't understand is why the author doesn't seem to buy into his own conclusion.

Why do you want to take guns away from the elderly or infirm?

Grandma needs her guns as much as the next guy.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

One of the definitions of militia is " a body of citizens organized for military service". I think the correct argument is that the founders thougt of all citizens as "the militia", even if they may rebel against the government from time to time. Remember that the founding fathers were commiting illegal acts against the British government. They thought the citizens should be armed just in case they had to commit drastic illegal acts against the new government to protect their freedom.

[babyface00]

I agree. That's a good point.

Why would a bunch of people who had just liberated themselves via force of arms from the greatest military power of the time, then go delineate a "right" to the newly-created government which would have effectively prevented their own insurrection, had it been in place? It's obvious, they intended to insure the citizens were armed.

I've often lamented that the wording of the 2nd amendment is a little cumbersome, but then the "intelligencia" of today turn even plain English around to mean something sinister. I doubt it would have made any difference to those who would prefer to "crouch down lick the hand that feeds them" rather than assert their rights as free men.

[robertpaulsen]

"For example, if the Constitution said, "A federal budget, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of Congress to levy taxes shall not be infringed," this wouldn't mean Congress is guaranteed a right to levy taxes to gamble with or for other purposes unrelated to funding a federal budget."

If this language is so clear and unambiguous, why didn't congress use it when they wrote the 16th amendment?