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}
But since it is one of the lead articles on yahoo, many low-information people will see it and their ignorance will be reinforced.
The only thing I can think of is that there is an election coming up.
Chaps my you know what.... Bunch of liars!
The comments on the site are very good.
LOL, the SPLC classifies everyone who joins a militia as a terrorist, so there’s no getting the Left to respect the Second.
If a person believes that, and has even just two neurons to think with, wouldn't he/she (or he-she?) want to have some minimal protections from such a state?
Wouldn't they want, for example, the right to bear arms and the right to private property?
I also happen to think that it is very easy for democracies to degrade into oligarchies. And that is why I am a strong defender of the 2nd Amendment and property rights.
Why liberals, especially liberal Blacks and Jews, can't see this basic logic is surprising to me.
Here is really nice comment on that site, that shows the stupidity of thinking that the 2nd amendment is about militias.
“The whole first half of the second amendment is just a reminder... an example given, as to why it’s so import for the people to be armed, not a requirement for being armed.
People seem to have problems with the sentence structure, so here is an example I try to give people that might make more sense to them. This is the same structure of a sentence...
‘A healthy breakfast, being necessary to the start of a good day, the right of the People to own and eat food shall not be infringed.’
In this example, who has the right to own and eat food... the People, or the breakfast? Is it saying there is no right to any food unless its breakfast, it must be healthy, and it can only be eaten at the start of a good day? No, the first part is simply a reason given as a reminder as to why it’s so important.”
Nonsense, pure nonsense. How many times do we have to suffer such drivel?
Let’s re-write the title for the Left.
Free Speech Advocates Should Fear History of First Amendment
Think it’s one short sentence that gives everyone the right to shoot off their mouths? Think again.
Thomas Jefferson succinctly summarized the thoughts of the ‘founding fathers’ on the differences between tyranny and liberty, and the concomitant responsibilities of free men.
The comparison of the 2nd amendment’s recitation of the natural law right to defend oneself and others to the “treason clause” and saying the existence of one repudiates the other is where the writer loses the plot.
Rebellion to tyranny is not treason, but common sense.
This is just more weak beer from the left: ‘You shouldn’t be allowed to own firearms unless you are militia, and if you are militia you must be an “extremist”.
Stop talking about it, and come and take them.
Leonidas
Any of them who are active participants rather than dupes see it just fine and are sure they're going to not only have rights to arms and other things the majority won't, they're convinced they'll have additional State protections as well.
That's how oligarchies always get the sort of middle level support they need to gain power, they convince the people they need they'll be taken care of when the new system is put in place.
How often such oligarchies actually provide those they depended on what they led them to think they could expect is another matter. One carefully avoided in "history classes" by government academic machines that now bathe the population in revisionist history.
JMHo
Hoplophobes continue to drive themselves crazy over the Second Amendment.
By claiming it does not mean what it actually says.
“Drivel”, this kind of lies just ticks me off, I thought I caught all my typos, grammar, etc... but oh well...
I think you missed my point. (?)
What’s ironic is these are the same folks who want to regulate your speech in the name of political equality.
They’re being consistent in their preference for government regulation of our thoughts and actions alike.
Sorry... I got your point. The article is nonsense.... We agree.
But I also noticed that in my haste, I said “dribble”, not “drivel”
Anybody the SPLC is “terrified” of is OK in my book.
The right to bears arms is a fundamental right. The Second Amendment does not confer the right — it exists in every free man and woman.
And that won't take much more than a day or two.
!
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.