Contact Information:
info@aclu-mass.org
Contact Information:
info@aclu-mass.org
How the ACLU and liberals deceive -- they give only part of the quote from the Supreme Court --
They omit the words following the quote -- the Supreme Court paragraph is --
---"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States. [U.S. v. Cruikshank]
Nice try, ACLU.
The framers had in mind only state's militias, huh? Well it wasn't until after WW1 that the states even HAD any militias. Thats some 120 years after the constitution was ratified!
What's wrong with this picture? A "vast majority of constitutional 'experts?'" HA!
"After the Revolutionary War, the states insisted on the constitutional right to defend themselves in case the fledgling U.S. government became tyrannical like the British Crown"
Implication: 2nd amendment had a sunset provision. In other words, the US government is no longer a fledgling (oh no it is more like a full grown vulture!) therefore there is no more constitutional right of the states to defend themselves, or for the people to keep and bear arms.
Rebuttal: "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." --Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, June 1776.
Conclusion: If Jefferson is any authority, then the right to keep and bear arms is perpetual and applies to all free men.
And that does not even address the silliness of saying the states wanted the constitutional right to protect themselves. They had the right to protect themselves, knew it, and were prepared to do it, constitution or not. They didn't wait around for a piece of paper to say it is ok. What utter garbage.
Now, in order to determine the intent of the founders in regards to this issue, I now turn to Thomas Jefferson who said:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776)
Since we are no longer a free people - being economically (and otherwise) enslaved by the tyrannical madmen in the District of Criminality - in the current context, the ACLU is correct.
What shall we now do about it?
The overwhelming majority of Law Reviews, some with great reluctance, disagree.
Comprehensive Bibliography Of The Second Amendment In Law Reviews
But lawyers don't know nearly as much about the law as disgraced social studies professors.
Since the amendment says its the PEOPLE who shall not have their rights to arms abridged. The its quite obvious that the militia is made up of THE PEOPLE. Not some National Guard that was created by the Congress.
If the ACLU doesn't like the plain intent and meaning of the 2nd. Then they should campaign to change it. Until then, I have a right to bear arms. Period.
So to remedy that the ACLU decides to focus entirely on the first phrase and entirely ignore the second.
The Supreme Court has flatly held that the individual’s right to keep and bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution."
Strange thing for a Supreme Court to say since the USC doesn't delineate all individual rights. Prior to the Bill of Rights it didn't grant ANY rights. It merely described the powers of the federal gov and the role of the states within it. Many founders (e.g. George Mason) OPPOSED the redundancy of the BoR b/c they worried it would lead people to think that the USC actually grants rights to states & individuals and that others are not inviolable. The 9th & 10th were supposed to alleviate this concern. I guess it didn't work.
Like any powerful special interest, the NRA works to secure its financial well being.
But, of course, the ACLU is the one exception to this rule.
The NRA implies that the Bill of Rights forces us to accept unlimited gun ownership
Factually false. The NRA opposes granting gun ownership to people with violent criminal records. That is one limitation they endorse.
I don't necessarily buy the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but pap like the ACLU puts out doesn't help advance the debate.
After the Revolutionary War, the states insisted on the constitutional right to defend themselves in case the fledgling U.S. government became tyrannical like the British Crown. The states demanded the right to keep an armed "militia" a form of insurance.
Article 1, Section 9. of the U. S. Constitution:
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
So by the ACLU's interpretation, the signatories to the Constitution signed onto the Second Amendment and immediately declared Section 9 null and void since a tyrannical federal government could simply deny to the states their consent to keep troops. All the signatories who wrote that they simply wanted to have the Bill of Rights declare some rights not stated in the Constitution are liers. On one hand they signed a document stating that the states cannot have troops without the consent of Congress and yet they wanted the states to have the ability to resist the federal government (I guess without troops, or did they expect a tyrannical federal government to give consent to the states to keep troops?).
If you take a contradictory view and see the Second Amendment as giving the people a way to resist a tyrannical government, then there is no conflict. The states are still prohibited from maintaining National Guard troops without the consent of Congress and the people can still form militias to resist a federal government that might withhold that very consent. It is impossible to reconcile the ACLU's position.
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!
There goes my dinner.
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.
by Linda A. Prussen-Razzano, Dallas Bureau Chief
November 19, 2002
"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.
info@aclu-mass.org
I got a bounce on that email addy. Anybody got a better one?