[Second Amendment First]

One needn't be a constitutional law scholar to discern the Founding Fathers' intent in the Second Amendment. The original draft presented to the first session of the first Congress read: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." (The emphasis is mine.)

Clearly, the framers placed the right to bear arms within the context of organized military service.

Poet=creative use of words

Patrick Walsh

Patrick Walsh

• Princeton, NJ 08540
• E-mail: pdwalsh67@hotmail.com

• Web site: www.patrickwalshpoetry.net

• Printable Version
• Back to Directory of Writers

• Apply to Be Listed
• View the Criteria for Listing

Author's Bio

A 1989 graduate of St. Bonaventure University with a B.A. in history, I served four years as an infantry officer in the 25th Infantry Division at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.

I received a Master's in Anglo-Irish literature from the University of Dublin, Trinity College, Ireland in 1997.

A lifelong runner, I've completed over a dozen marathons, including eight consecutive Boston Marathons. My best effort to date was a 290th place finish (out of 18,000) at Boston in 2004.

I live, write, and run in Princeton, New Jersey.

Publications and Prizes

Journals:

Barrow Street, Christian Science Monitor, Chronogram, Cimarron Review, College Green, Hudson Review, Poetry New Zealand, Press, Quadrant, Spitball, The Malahat Review, The Recorder, THE SHOp, U.S. 1

Personal Favorites

What I'm Reading Now:

The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck, Travels with Charley in Search of America by John Steinbeck, Les Fleurs du Mal by Charles Baudelaire

Favorite Books:

At Swim-Two-Birds; Down and Out in Paris and London; Dubliners; Good-Bye to All That; The Grapes of Wrath; In Search of Lost Time; Lolita; The Lord of the Rings; Moby Dick; Molloy; The Picture of Dorian Gray; War and Peace; Ulysses

Favorite Authors:

Samuel Beckett; Robert Frost; Robert Graves; Ernest Hemingway; Friedrich Holderlin; James Joyce; Philip Larkin; Vladimir Nabokov; Herman Melville; Friedrich Nietzsche; Flann O'Brien; George Orwell; Marcel Proust; Henry David Thoreau; William Shakespeare; Wallace Stevens; John Steinbeck; Jonathan Swift; J.R.R. Tolkien; Leo Tolstoy; Walt Whitman; Oscar Wilde; William Butler Yeats

[Red in Blue PA]

Tell these people they cannot defend themselves Patrick!

http://ccwsaveslives.blogspot.com/

[David]

I absolutely agree with this nit-wit--the Second Amendment ought to be modified to make clear the right of citizens of the United States to own, carry, and use in self defense or for any other reasonable purpose including enforcement of Constitutional rights and privileges, guns and arms of any character comparable to those on which any field rank military personnel are qualified.

Note his point about dispatching a dozen executives in a board room with a single clip in his Glock--wrong; if any single one of these executives is armed, Walsh is lucky to get off the second shot.

[Right Wing Assault]

Gun cancer? What is that, rust?

[SamuraiScot]

I think the availability of guns in America is stunningly negligent public policy.

Ditch yours first, Paddy. Then take out an ad in the local paper to say you've done it.

And I don't feel that great about someone who lists Lolita as one of his favorite books.

[Malone LaVeigh]

The old gun lobby claim "guns don't kill people" is specious. No one rails against the manufacture of axes or baseball bats; there are no campaigns to ban Bowie knives.

There would be if we could somehow magically make guns disappear. Guns, axes, baseball bats and Bowie knives are just tools. Someone intent on committing violence will find a way, and liberal morons will continue to to believe that they can eliminate this behavior by banning inanimate objects.
Eventually, we'll get down to rocks. Then what?

[Southbound]

“I fired everything from 9mm pistols to .50-caliber machine guns, routinely qualifying as “expert” with an M16A2 rifle.”

Probably soiled himself every time he did, too.

[Puppage]

Clearly, the framers placed the right to bear arms within the context of organized military service

And, in what context do you see the right of free speech? Why is it always THIS amendment that has strings attached to it? Because YOU don't like it, sissy boy?

[Sivad]

Tired, old retread of a bankrupt argument. At least
one other poster has referred to the Federalist Pa-
pers. I will go a step further. Refer to Federalist
#46 approximately paragraph nine.

Written by James Madison, deemed ‘Father ot the
Constitution’, this particular article was writ-
ten to show that local governments can balance
the power of the federal government. He GLOATS
at the fact that the American citizens are armed
and states that if European citizens had arms
they would throw off the yoke of their
oppressive governments.

Read it and weep gun takers everywhere.

[ansel12]

there are no campaigns to ban Bowie knives.

The Bowie knife has had it's campaigns, there have been times when guns were allowed, but the Bowie was seen as too brutal and effective at close quarters to allow. Currently the Bowie is banned in many places in America, and double edged knives are illegal just about everywhere.

Interestingly, my 17" Hell's Belle, fighting Bowie is legal to carry in California, and it is a source of comfort in knife based biker bars, it also draws attention.

"There is no question that the knives were deadly. Across the young country, according to one breathless account, "Bowies were drinking blood from New Orleans to Dubuque and from Savannah to Brazos." In 1837 the Arkansas Speaker of the House killed a fellow legislator with a Bowie on the floor of the Arkansas House of Representatives. That same year Alabama passed a law stipulating that anyone who killed another person with a Bowie knife "shall suffer the same as if the killing had been by malice and aforethought." In 1828 Tennessee banned their sale."

[GoldenPup]

Paddy boy?...your damp, lace trimmed, pink panties are showing. Don’t like guns?...move to the UK.

[ProfoundBabe]

No one rails against the manufacture of axes or baseball bats; there are no campaigns to ban Bowie knives.

Patrick's apparently never been to the UK either.

[ArrogantBustard]

Clearly, the framers placed the right to bear arms within the context of organized military service.

It seldom fails that a sentence prefaced with "Clearly", or "As everyone knows", or similar, is complete and utter nonsense.

[Ancesthntr]

One needn't be a constitutional law scholar to discern the Founding Fathers' intent in the Second Amendment. The original draft presented to the first session of the first Congress read: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

First of all, that draft wasn't accepted - so it means NOTHING.

Second, whether you read this draft or the actual 2nd Amendment that was ratified and is still the law of the land, something is clear: that the Founders wanted a nation of riflemen, riflemen who would go forth and become an effective militia, riflemen who would give foreign and domestic enemies of liberty significant pause before acting.

All things considered, I'd say we've done pretty well. Yes, we have a few miscreants who commit crimes, many of those with guns. But let's look at 2 things: first, the number of casualties that we have in this nation. It should be noted that the violent crime rate per 100,000 people has declined substantially in the last 15 or so years, despite the fact that something north of 5 million new guns are sold quite legally in this country (and during the last 2 years it was significantly over 10 million, if the number of NICS checks is accurate). So we have at least 60 million more guns than when the "Assault Rifle Ban" was put into place (and probably closer to 80 million more), yet crime has dropped. That is what is known as a "negative correlation." End of his argument, right there.

But, second, let's look at what the costs of NOT having guns would be - perhaps we'd have been invaded by Japan, a Japan that was deterred from such by the experienced words of Admiral Yamamoto - he, as a military attache in this country, knew this country, its industrial potential and its people. He knew of the vast quantities of guns in the hands of civilians, civilians who knew how to use those guns to great effect, and he warned his fell General Staff officers against an invasion. Perhaps some would-be tyrant (Lefties hate Nixon, so let's use him) decided that he wanted to be President for life - if he had the military with him, who could possibly stop him (or her - we're watching YOU, Hillary)? Well, today, you'd have some 85 million Americans, armed with roughly 250 million guns, as opposition. You think that Iraq or Afghanistan is tough? Our military and all police forces combined couldn't hope to win against even an unorganized nationwide resistance by 10% of gun owners - they'd be chopped to ribbons in short order.

Anyhow, you statist idiot, MOLON LABE!!!! Come and take them, if you dare.

[scott7278]

With a bolt-action rifle and a telescopic sight, I could put a bullet through my neighbor from a hundred yards away as he crosses his living room.

Normal people don't think like this.

[lrb111]

Patrick, you will love our neighbor Mexico. They do not allow guns there. You will also find that, you marathon man you, will have ample opportunity to use that experience.
Just running ,and running.

[Monterrosa-24]

How can Liberty lead her people forward if they people have been turned into sheeple...like this zip wad "writer".

[Hot Tabasco]

My Gay-dar just went off........

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

As I recall the U. S. Supreme Court recently decided contrary to the opinions on guns that the decadent expressed in his article.

I think that with this internet business almost anyone can become a pundit. We have no means of sorting out a persons competence except by reading their articles. At least under the old system of organized media their was a kind of screening done by the editorial boards.

This guy is a hack writer expressing a trite opinion i.e. gun ownership is a collective right not an individual right. Silly!

[spodefly]

With a bolt-action rifle and a telescopic sight, I could put a bullet through my neighbor from a hundred yards away as he crosses his living room. With a Glock 17 pistol stashed in my briefcase, I could enter a boardroom, coolly dispatch a dozen executives, and still have five rounds left to deal with the security guards.

The fact that you even think this way is reason enough for you to choose not to own firearms. But most of us don't think that way, Patrick. Your argument is "I could 'cooly' be a homicidal maniac with my guns, so no one should own guns". Get some help, you freakin' moonbat.

[ctdonath2]

“Clearly, the framers placed the right to bear arms within the context of organized military service.”

Yes - with the principle that participants were armed FIRST, _then_ joined in.