Gun-Rights Advocates Should Fear History of Second Amendment

The Daily Beast ^ | 12/18/12 | Jason DeCrow(?)

[ForYourChildren]

Think it’s one short sentence that gives everyone the right to bear arms? Think again. Saul Cornell unravels the tangled history of one of our most misunderstood Amendments.

On Sunday, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer went on CBS’s Face The Nation and argued that people who support gun control “have to admit that there is a Second Amendment right to bear arms”.

Schumer’s effort to reach out to the gun-rights community may be well-intentioned, but it is also deeply ironic. If the nation truly embraced the Second Amendment as it was originally written and understood, it would be the NRA’s worst nightmare.

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.

It’s time for a history lesson about one of America’s most popular and least understood rights. It’s also long past time to expose the hollow, ignorant fawning over the Second Amendment by gun-rights advocates for what it is.

In contrast to the libertarian fantasies that drive the contemporary debate about firearms in America, the Founders understood that liberty without regulation leads not to freedom, but anarchy. They understood that an armed body of citizens easily becomes a mob. In other words, a bunch of guys grabbing their guns and waving a flag emblazoned with a rattlesnake is not a militia.

{excerpt}

[John Valentine]

Whoever is responsible for this “analysis” needs a full-time personal grammarian.

Seriously.

[NTHockey]

>>Why liberals, especially liberal Blacks and Jews, can’t see this basic logic is surprising to me.<<

Because liberals don’t think; they feel.

[John Valentine]

Yes, the Bill of Rights confers no rights on the People; the People already possessed these rights and others long before the Bill of Rights was even a gleam in anyone’s eye.

What the Bill of Rights does do is to prohibit the federal government from attempting to interfere with these rights in any way. That’s largely been forgotten since the idea has gradually passed from favor in the schools since the coming of the Progressive era a century ago.

No, European style, rights are seen as something bestowed on the lowly by the grace and good will of those on high.

[TigersEye]

It’s so brilliant and yet so obvious. I slap my forehead for never having seen it.

[NY.SS-Bar9]

“A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed”

[exnavy]

How about this, I’ll give up my firearms as soon as we pry the pens from the cold dead fingers of the idiots who write this garbage.

[sauropod]

review article comments

[arthurus]

It completely ignores the contemporary use and meaning of "well regulated militia to substitute the modern infatuation with government regulation of everything.

[arthurus]

Back in the 90s when the militia movement was in full swing, the local militia had a good share of black members. In fact, they were the trainers, the ones who showed those new to firearms how to shoot and how to strip. they acted as the Sergeants.

[arthurus]

Actually dribble and drivel are the same thing. Drivel is the older, more formal word.

[samtheman]

Excellent re-wording for the sake of analysis.

[Soul of the South]

My talking point #4

The Constitution can be amended. If you feel strongly about eliminating gun ownership, I suggest you work with your legislators to pass a repeal amendment and submit it to the states for ratification.

[Pollster1]

TALKING POINT #3: The Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) were numbered the way they are currently because that’s the order in which they were passed by the respective state legislatures. Tells ya somethin’, huh?

I don't believe this is correct. My understanding is that the order of the 17 proposed amendments from the House was retained when 12 passed the Senate (after, among other changes, the Senate put the Second Amendment in its final form), and that order was retained when 10 of the 12 were ratified. The Second Amendment was actually fifth on the original list, and three that came before it from the House didn't pass.

Note: Original wording from the House was, "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

If you have better information, please provide a reference.

[ontap]

I don’t give a damn what the liberals use as an excuse to confiscate guns. The people of this country have spoken on the interpretation of the second amendment. But like every other right there are people who would give it up!!!

[ontap]

Very good video on gun rights!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

[Brooklyn Attitude]

The author of this piece got nearly everything wrong. For example, no individual rights arguments on the 2A before 1981? I remember arguments on that point in the 60’s.

[VOR78]

Pure bull manure.

If the 2nd Amendment only applies to regulating militias, then what does he make of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to organize, arm, train and discipline the militia?

[goldstategop]

The Second Amendment refers to the armed, unorganized body of the people - a militia in plain usage meaning any one who can take up arms.

Article 1 Section 8 refers to the organized militia one created by Congress. Today called in the states the National Guard but which can be called forth by the federal government.

They are two different forms of militia. The Second Amendment would be redundant if the Founders had meant to set up only a state-organized militia.

Ask a liberal and hoplophobe to explain why two different kinds of militia are referenced in the Constitution.

[VOR78]

Agreed. Even the modern version of the Militia Act includes two such classifications of ‘militia’.

But you’re absolutely correct. This liberal nitwit does not realize that the original Constitution already included the provisions he argues the 2nd was about, and therefore, his argument is redundant and irrelevant. 2A could only have been a protection of individual rights when placed in the context of the entire Constitution.

And I’d also like to see him explain the 1st set of militia acts, which required the members to supply their own weapons and ammunition.

[Georgia Girl 2]

“Stop talking about it, and come and take them.”

That’s the bottom line with the 2nd Ammendment. Gun control advocates just think that if they can get the Congress to pass a law forbidding gun ownership then that’s the end of it. They just pick up all the guns and its over.

So everyone needs to make sure these gun control nuts know that gun confiscation will never happen under any circumstances. No matter what law gets passed it does not trump the Constitution and we will just not give em up. Its not going to happen.