The Myth of the Second Amendment

Massachusetts ACLU ^ | 12/02

[BornOnTheFourth]

BUMP to read later when I'm not exhausted.

Can anyone here point me to the statistics regarding accidental gun deaths of children and the crime rate increase in England/Australia post-gun?

Thanks!

[Mr. Mojo]

As the nation’s oldest and most prominent defender of individual rights, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) holds the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights in the highest regard.

There goes my dinner.

[Noumenon]

I will walk with Krishna on the field of battle.

Great Masters have come and gone throughout the course of human history; stripped of their followers' nonsense, their teachings and advice are remarkably alike.

There is a purpose to our lives. There is a reason why we are here in this time and in this place. I think you understand.

[2Hot4You]

1) Barf Alert Needed

2) The Constitution and the Bill of Rights GRANT NO RIGHTS, rather they restrict the power of the federal government to infringe on the God-given rights of the citizenry

3) The right of the people to keep and bear arms was reaffirmed by the second amendment so that they could readily form-up militias; the original Constitution contemplated no standing army (the army was, and may be still is, required to be re-authorized every two years by the Congress)

[2Hot4You]

"A well educated citizenry being necessary to the future of a free republic, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

Clearly, this means that only official state run schools and universities may possess certain dangerous books, and the state may restrict the right of individuals to own or read books.

An excellent parallel. I hope you don't mind if I steal it!

[spunkets]

"Maybe it's time to change strategy and not leave ourselves hanging out there waiting to be rounded up."

Nah...

Molon Labe. Anything else will lead to thumbsucking before the big bend over.

[KrisKrinkle]

"Thus when individuals were charged with having deprived black citizens of their right to freedom of assembly and to keep and bear arms, by violently breaking up a peaceable assembly of black citizens, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank held that no indictment could be properly brought since the right 'of bearing arms for a lawful purpose' is 'not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.' Nor, in the view of the Court, was the right to peacefully assemble a right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment: 'The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is and has always been one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government. . . .It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution.' (From: "THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS," REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION of the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, UNITED STATES SENATE, NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, Second Session, February 1982.) http://www.barefootsworld.net/senate82.html

As I recall, US v Cruikshank upheld a "Jim Crow" law. Doesn't the mASS ACLU reference to it at this time make them subject to scorn in the national media?

And if we follow Cruikshank in regard to the Second, maybe we should follow it in regard to States Rights.

[PatrioticAmerican]

“A Militias in 1792 consisted of part-time citizen-soldiers organized by individual states. Its members were civilians who kept arms, ammunition and other military equipment in their houses and barns—there was no other way to muster a militia with sufficient speed. Over time, however, the state militias failed to develop as originally anticipated.”


OK, this guy is nitwit. A result of the public school system.

Where is his proof that the state’s controlled the militia??? It was, in fact, the militias who were not considered professional soldiers of any state possession. Militias were always private citizens who came when called, not those who were organized by the state governments.

Where is his proof that speed of muster was the reason for private storage of arms? The fact is that the people, private citizens, owned their own arms and the state had no say or control, as they do today.

Where is this nitwit’s proof that the militias did not form as anticipated? Specifically, where is his proof that there was any anticipation of formation at all? I have never read a word of expectation by any government official as to the desired composition of militias?

[PatrioticAmerican]

One of my favorites:

Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.

[spunkets]

"Where is this nitwit’s proof that the militias did not form as anticipated?"

The guy's a nitwit, that'sfor sure. He needs to read a list of the units that fought in the Civil War.

[dpa5923]

the Constitution doesn't grant rights

It is shocking how many people (educated people at that) don't understand this. I have been hammering this into my kids' heads for years now.

Thank you for posting it. (I would have done so, but you beat me to it!)

[TheWriterInTexas]

So, You Want To See Me Naked, Part II?

by Linda A. Prussen-Razzano, Dallas Bureau Chief

November 19, 2002

American Partisan

"Candidly Yours"

In January of 2000, almost three years ago, I wrote a long, blistering article entitled, "So, You Want To See Me Naked?". Originally appearing in Enter Stage Right, it would later be reprinted (with or without permission and usually without compensation) on numerous pro-gun websites. According to Steve Martinovich, Editor of Enter Stage Right, it was, at the time, the single most popular column in the history of the magazine, beating out even the distinguished Colonel David Hackworth.

Imagine my surprise when, a few short weeks ago, I received a call from a production assistant at Fox News asking inquiring about my article. A lot had happened in my life since I wrote that piece, the most obvious being the births of my beloved son and daughter. Where before I had a regular column and wrote frequent guest articles, I since moved into a state of semi-retirement. I am now devoting as much time as possible to two miraculous children – successful pregnancies after years of encroaching sterility and heart-wrenching failures.

The sentiment I expressed then remains the same; however, the depth of devotion to that sentiment has increased tenfold. And just so people understand explicitly why I hold this position, allow me to point out several key facts:

1. Every single person on this planet has several inalienable rights. These rights are ours by virtue of our humanity, stemming from a universal authority higher than any government fashioned by man. The Constitution does not grant us our rights, it merely lists the ones we automatically possess. Our rights are not subject to the whim of elected officials or tyrannical despots – they are an unquestionable part of us. We can judge the virtue of a society by how vehemently it recognizes and defends a person’s exercise of their rights, or how actively it seeks to thwart them.

Hence, any attempt to deny, infringe, or remove these rights violates the very essence of our humanity, defiles the universal truth of human rights, and undermines the moral absolute that allows us to bring freedom to those people denied their rights by oppressive regimes.

Those who claim they want a "reasonable compromise" on our rights are, in fact, asking us to relinquish them, just so they can feel an added sense of false security. In light of the magnitude of their request, there is nothing reasonable about it. Moreover, these requests typically come from people who have little understanding about the inherent nature of rights, thinking them subject to the will of the populace instead of a necessary and intrinsic part of our existence as human beings. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that they are so ready to relinquish them, or to demand that others relinquish them. Since they have no concept of their permanence, they view them as transient and disposable, instead of a critical part of a free society.

2. We not only have the right to live, we have the right to protect our lives. We have the right to protect our lives against any power that seeks to unjustly take it from us. Just as you do, I have the right to defend my life against some murderous creep crawling through my back window, against an enemy invading my country, and against a tyrannical government that seeks to oppress me.

3. God gives us children to love, cherish, nurture, and protect. Like many of you, I take this responsibility seriously. I will not struggle with innumerable locks, politely asking an intruder to please stop torturing my babies while I prepare myself, just so others can feel all warm and comfy inside. I am an unapologetic gun owner. I own them for a reason. I will have them at the ready, to use when absolutely necessary, because my childrens’ lives are more important to me than some misguided sense of self-satisfaction.

4. Just as I teach my children not to run with a lollipop in their mouth, not to play with scissors or utensils, and not to drink bath water, I will teach my children about guns. When they are ready, I will enroll them in the "Eddie the Eagle" program, take them to the range, and let them go hunting. They will learn to respect the power of a weapon, understand it is not a toy, and be trained to defend themselves. Those who can’t grasp the concept that appreciation for life is taught in the home should not procreate.

5. Let’s be blunt, shall we? Murder is against the law. Rape is against the law. Robbery is against the law. There are thousands of other variations to these crimes, all of them against the law, yet crimes still occur. Law-abiding citizens follow the law; criminals - by their very nature, do not. As this is an extremely easy concept to understand, only the most ignorant among us would presume that passing additional gun-control laws will actually have an impact on crime.

Perhaps you’ve noticed this is a sore spot for me. Can you guess why?

I know what it’s like to have a gun pressed to the back of my head, to have some freak tell me he’s going to blow my brains out if I don’t comply, to wet myself in horror and have my life snapshot before my eyes, to be the very victim the anti-gun crowd holds up as just cause for banning guns.

That’s right…it’s personal.

In truth, I have several friends who choose not to exercise their right to keep and bare arms. I respect their decision; they understand their family dynamic better than anyone. If they aren’t comfortable handling a gun, if they can’t overcome their propaganda-driven fear, if they have religious or personal objections, by all means, they shouldn’t own one.

But don’t tell me I shouldn’t, or can’t, exercise my right to own a weapon. I have just four words for folks like that: Over My Dead Body. I will not play the victim for you. I will not trust the future of my security to things like "luck". I will not be a statistic, just so you can feel as if you have "done something." I will not relinquish my inherent, inalienable right to defend myself and my family, leaving us naked and exposed like manufactured future victims, so that you can pretend you made my world a safer place.

As I have said before, my days of being a helpless female are over. ***

Photo of Linda Prussen-Razzano courtesy of staff files COPYRIGHT © 2002 BY THE AMERICAN PARTISAN.

[optimistically_conservative]

In case you didn't see this. A fictional story about radical gun prohibition.

I hadn't, thank you - a must read!

[Aarchaeus]

I'd say we're just about one more unconstitutional law away from teaching these commies to understand English

Why wait for one more?

[Celtman]

Well it wasn't until after WW1 that the states even HAD any militias. Thats some 120 years after the constitution was ratified!

      ????????

      Are you referring to the National Guard?  The National Guard is not the militia.  You have it backwards.  The states all had militias until after WWI.  The members of the militias were typically all able bodied men of the state.  No one "joined" the militia.  As others on this thread have pointed out, state militia units were quite active in the War between the States.

[Travis McGee]

Here is one of my all time favorites, by John Stewart Mill, the 19th century English philosopher who taught himself Greek by age three and several other languages by five. (IOW, he was a Very Smart Guy.)

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than he."

[Travis McGee]

Be my guest, but I can't claim that one as my own, it's been floating around for a while.

[Travis McGee]

A nitwit is a well meaning moron.

The ACLU is a calclating cabal of evil intent. They intend to disarm us, in order to give us a clear choice between silent servility and the boxcar ride.

[Travis McGee]

The ACLU may take all of my guns, (as soon as I am finished with the bullets.)

[MissAmericanPie]

Well, I suppose they never heard of "Common Law", individual gun ownership has been the "Common Law" of the free citizens of the USofA from it's birth.

And if they can't comprehend that, the Constitution covers it in "All powers not delegated to the government remains with the people".

And if they don't understand that, bang.