Posted on 10/11/2014 10:20:49 PM PDT by 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}
Granting letters of marque and reprisal granted civilians military powers. Most commonly that was done to allow privately owned ships to act as privateers to make war at sea. This came with the presumption that those private ships were already armed with the 18th Century's weapon of mass destruction: the cannon. The founders anticipated an armed populous even before the second amendment, and armed with more than just muskets.
More verbal diarrhea from the Leftards!
Here they come again...Another gun grabber with his head up his ass...
Using his First Amendment rights to chip away at the 2nd...If his interpretation were correct, then only “journalists” would have free speech...His arguments are beyond shop-worn...Sorry, try again if you must...
Like the First, the Second spells out a right “of the People”...That’s all of us, not just the cops and military...Who is the militia? It’s all of us able to bear arms in defense of ourselves, our families and the Nation...Against? Threats from criminal elements, foreign AND domestic...
Totalitarian government, ultimately...
The Second Amendment is clear to all who are not out to obfuscate and deceive...Like my Grandpa Tom used to say, “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure”... Its meaning and purpose are plain; serving as the last highest hurdle for a would-be tyrant...
Useful idiot Cornell and his fellow travelers, like the “sappers” of old, keep on trying to chip away at its foundation...Like the gnawing worms they are, the goal of Schumer, Cornell, et al is not public safety, else they would support the Second...Instead their goal is the tyranny their chosen “leaders” would bring if free to do all they’ve planned...
I wish all such continued bad luck...
Molon Labe!
Charlie Reese used to rephrase the 2nd like this..
” ‘A well educated elite, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to become educated shall not be infringed.’ does not give ONLY THE ELITE the right to be educated.”
Actually it sounds like it would give everyone the right to be educated enough to become the elite!
free college educations for all
This blatant abuse of the language might be valid if none of the opinions expressed in the Federalist Papers etc. were observed.
” Who in their right mind could envision an army or militia that was devoid of arms!?”
Like our soldiers on military bases?
Kinda like how this Country got started, eh?
Where would the anti-gunners be without their lies.
The "70 years of established jurisprudence" were based on lies about the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in US vs. Miller. The Supreme Court was asked to reverse a lower court decision dismissing weapons charges against Miller based on two theories.
One was that Miller had to be a member of a Militia in order to be protected by the Second Amendment. The second was that the weapon Miller used had to be useful to a Militia in order for possession of such a weapon to be protected by the Second Amendment.
If membership in a Militia had been a requirement, then it would not have mattered what the weapon was. But the Court completely ignored the government's claim that Militia membership was required, and instead remanded the case for further consideration by the lower court regarding whether or not the weapon itself was useful to a Militia; with the clear understanding that the charge against Miller should be dismissed if the weapon itself was useful to a Militia, with no regard whatsoever to whether or not Miller was a member of any such Militia.
It was only the lower courts which later completely misrepresented this case resulting in 70 years of infringements with the collaboration of a silent Supreme Court.
The article claims that there is no relationship between the Second Amendment and state protections of the right to keep and bear arms, despite the use of virtually identical language in most cases.
This is just one huge problem. The founder’s concept of the world ‘regulated’ in the constitution was to make regular, not to stop, control, limit, ect.. but to make regular. In this particular case they all the militia should be armed comparably, and that congress had the ability to do so.
As for disciplining the militia it was very important and stated specifically so that they had to be in-charge of that themselves. The whole idea of a militia as apposed to a standing army was that it consisted of the citizenry not people picked and entirely controlled by Washington. Otherwise there was no difference between the organisations.
But while were on the subject of Original meaning the whole of the Federal Constitution had an entirely different meaning to those who wrote and randifed it than the constitution ‘apparently means’ to the Federal employees in black robes.
I would gladly embrace the original meaning of the 2nd amendment just like every other clause of the Federal constitution including the 14th.
The lawless Federal employees in black robes have done little to nothing to improve upon it in their lawlessness which has almost excursively been directed toward expanding the power of those who hand picked and anointed them.
"Although the Supreme Court has held this Amendment to include only arms necessary to a well-regulated militia, as so construed, its prohibition is absolute."(Black, Hugo, The Bill of Rights, New York University Law Review, Vol. 35, April 1960.)
As Stephen Halbrook correctly pointed out, under the "collective right" version of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court would have dismissed Miller's lawsuit against the Feds due to obvious lack of standing.
They would have explained that Miller obviously had no 2A rights and should have never been allowed to assert a claim for 2A protection in the first place.
The confusion surrounding the Miller case is absolutely incredible.
Miller NEVER sued the federal government.
The original criminal case against Miller, for violating the National Firearms Act of 1934, was dismissed by the District Court on the grounds that Miller was protected by the Second Amendment. Little elaboration of the reasoning was provided. Evidently the District Court thought that the meaning of the Second Amendment was pretty clear.
It was the government who appealed the dismissal. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case directly, completely omitting any appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals. The existing Supreme Court must have been very anxious to meddle in this decision to have taken the case in this manner. Miller had no representation before the Supreme Court.
Hugo Black's assertion that the Second Amendment's "prohibition is absolute" appears to be an admission that so-called "assault rifles" are absolutely protected.
The Heller decision now clarifies that the right to keep and bear arms is broader than its enabling of a Well-Regulated Militia and extends to arms useful for self defense in the home.
good read ,Thanks
You’re both welcome. It’s the best scholarly work on the language of the era that I’ve seen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.