Posted on 04/17/2015 8:02:22 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Yesterday, TalkingPointsMemo reported that Texas Senator Ted Cruz sent an email to supporters urging them to send him money to make him president so that he could, as president, protect their right to violently overthrow the president.
As the email read:
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn’t for just protecting hunting rights, and it’s not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny — for the protection of liberty
Cruz’s assertion was so absurd that Lindsey Graham — sporting an A rating from the NRA — not-so-subtlely compared Cruz to Jefferson Davis, pointing out that as far as armed rebellions go, “we tried that once in South Carolina. I wouldn’t go down that road again.”
The email is a reprisal of a meme normally reserved for NRA forums and first year government seminars at Liberty University, trotted out by gun activists once they’ve run out of arguments for why they so desperately need to keep an arsenal of high-caliber weapons stockpiled in their toolshed.
How historically nonsensical and utterly baseless Cruz’s claim is shouldn’t bear repeating, but if a US senator and declared presidential candidate is taking the argument seriously, it does. Here are just a few reasons why it makes absolutely no sense to say that the Constitution protects your right to revolt:
Citizens have guns to fight for the government
The Second Amendment states, in full, that “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.”
“Being necessary to the security of a free state” doesn’t mean “being necessary to the citizens’ ability to shoot government officials if they don’t like paying taxes.” When the Constitution was ratified, the United States was an extremely weak country. Having just come off the heels of the Revolutionary War and the disorganized disaster that was the Articles of Confederation, the country had little standing army to speak of and not a whole lot of money available to raise one. With Spain occupying Florida and a number of potentially unfriendly great powers — most notably Great Britain — running trade routes nearby, the country desperately needed to arm itself.
So the Founders deputized the citizens, guaranteeing their right to keep arms for the purpose of organizing into militias that could fight off invaders, as they had done during the Revolutionary War.
As long as you actually read the first 13 of the 27 words in the Amendment, this should make perfect sense. The most definitive answer to this comes from linguist Dennis Baron, who has apparently read the Constitution a bit more carefully than Ted “Nullify the Supreme Court” Cruz.
As he argued in an amicus brief filed for the DC vs. Heller case, the Second Amendment was meant to be read according to the grammar used at the time in which it was written. And in the 18th Century, if you opened your sentence (like this one) with a clause and a comma, everything after that clause pertained only to that clause. So “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” refers only to “a well regulated militia,” and probably only to the extent that a well regulated militia is an essential component of our national security. If we were to rewrite the Second Amendment in 21st Century English, it would read something like this:
A well regulated militia is essential to the security of a free state. Therefore, the right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of maintaining a well regulated militia shall not be infringed.
So, no, Ted Cruz, the Constitution doesn’t say you can keep your gun in case one too many people sign up for affordable health insurance and you decide that that’s the last straw. It says you can have a gun if the United States Army falls apart and we need to rely on citizen brigades of militiamen to stave off a British re-invasion. That isn’t going to happen for the next ever, so you don’t get to keep your semi-auto just because it makes you feel like more of a man.
Wouldn’t you need a bigger gun?
But let’s say I’m wrong, and the Constitution does give citizens the right to fire on the police. Why are there any gun restrictions at all?
America’s standing army in 1787 wasn’t exactly intimidating. By contrast, America’s standing army in 2015 is, and I’m sure Ted Cruz would agree, not to be messed with. An AR-15 doesn’t hold a candle to your local police force; starting beef with the full firepower of the American military with nothing more sophisticated than a semi-auto is like bringing a ham sandwich to a gun fight. If citizens really did rise up and revolt with the guns currently available, they would lose and lose badly.
But under Ted Cruz’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, this shouldn’t be a problem. As far as he’s concerned, he’s got the right to the same firepower the military has.
It’s the logical conclusion of his argument. If you really can ignore the whole first half of the Second Amendment, and the Constitution does really guarantee citizens the right to keep and bear arms in case there’s a need for an armed insurrection, then why not Uzis? Why not RPGs? Why not frag grenades and anti-tank missiles and M24 Sniper Weapons Systems (the M24 is a sniper rifle so powerful that apparently the military doesn’t think calling it a “rifle” does it justice)? Hell, why not your own Black Hawk attack helicopter? I’m sure Sikorsky Aircraft, the company that makes them, would sell you one if you could afford it.
As soon as you say that any gun new gun restrictions are off the table because Americans have a universal, comprehensive right to bear arms, you’re also saying that all existing gun restrictions are off the table because Americans have a universal, comprehensive right to bear arms. There is no gray area as to which arms are and aren’t allowed. Combine that with an anti-government itch, and why wouldn’t you be filibustering bills over your God-given Constitutional right to play with your Call of Duty weapons in real life?
Dennis Barron didn’t get his way in DC vs. Heller. The court ruled that citizens have a right to a personal handgun for self defense at home. That may lead to more gun deaths than it saves, but I can at least understand the thought process behind the practical — if not Constitutional — argument for that right. The world has changed a lot since 1787. We don’t rely on militias for national security, and your over the counter handgun can do a lot more damage than the best muzzle loader ever could.
There are gray areas to be ironed out with respect to who should be allowed to own what kind of gun. Those are debates worth having. But we can start by all agreeing that, as an American, we aren’t going to give citizens the right, or the ability, to overthrow America.
******
Jon Green graduated from Kenyon College with a B.A. in Political Science and high honors in Political Cognition. He worked as a field organizer for Congressman Tom Perriello in 2010 and a Regional Field Director for President Obama's re-election campaign in 2012. Jon writes on a number of topics, but pays especially close attention to elections, religion and political cognition. Follow him on Twitter at @_Jon_Green, and on Google+.
*******
I think the disarming of German citizens and the following tyranny support Cruz’s position quite well.
I love blogs and bloggers. They think that just because their words are immortalized somewhere on the internet, they really have meaning and truth attached to them.
Not this guy.
Apparently the political science major/Obama booster author of the story never read any of the writings of the Founders, such as Jefferson, on the subjctt of an armed citizenry. Or, he doesnt care what they thought.
Um, yes, it does. The Revolutionary War was the first such act of rebellion for our forefathers. It worked, and we have The United States of America as a result.
CRUZ or LOSE!Just what is “high honors in Political Cognition”??
There are dozens of such examples to choose from. Never has a government disarmed its citizens for no reason. There will be tyranny sooner or later.
I think this guy is probably of the leftist variet if you look at the nature of the articles listed on his blog. He ppears to be another one of “those” guys who sets up a blog that appears to be conservative in nature because it uses the word America in it when Communist Party would be more appropriate. I get tired of the deception used by the left. Lying is all they got.
A classic example of taking a statement actually said and then trying to twist it into a statement that supports your thesis. I have no vested interest in Cruz at this point in time, but creating straw men like this and then trying to tear them down just earns my disrespect and clearly is not going to win me over to your side of the argument.
The constitution clearly and specifically affirms his position.
Jon Greene, another useful doofus, needs to take a reading comprehension class.
See how my comma’ed clause is used to apply only to the subject.
Well heck I just now saw this - it explains everything:
“Jon Green graduated from Kenyon College with a B.A. in Political Science and high honors in Political Cognition. He worked as a field organizer for Congressman Tom Perriello in 2010 and a Regional Field Director for President Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012. Jon writes on a number of topics, but pays especially close attention to elections, religion and political cognition. Follow him on Twitter at @_Jon_Green, and on Google+.”
“Being necessary to the security of a free state” doesn’t mean “being necessary to the citizens’ ability to shoot government officials if they don’t like paying taxes.” …Mister “Political Cognition” here seems to be utterly unaware that the War of Independence was fought over exactly that issue among others. Of course, it will not sink in to his brain until citizens are shot for not paying illegal taxes. (Not that he understands the concept of a “free state” . . . that “political cognition” kinda gets in the way.)
This guy is has a gnat’s brain to argue with the gigantic constitutional legal intellect that is Ted Cruz.
These Liberal nuts of today simply REFUSE to admit that the Founding Fathers were well aware that they, the Liberal nuts of today, would find their way into power, sooner or later!
They fear that if the people actually knew the real basis of the right to “keep and bear arms,” they might finally stop taking the butt-pounding that Washington, D.C. continues to provide every American citizen!!
” “Being necessary to the security of a free state” doesn’t mean “being necessary to the citizens’ ability to shoot government officials if they don’t like paying taxes.” “
You mean I can no longer shoot IRS agents when the come to my door ?
Just D A R N !!
Yes, straight from Fearless Leader.
>Um, yes, it does. The Revolutionary War was the first such
>act of rebellion for our forefathers. It worked, and we
>have The United States of America as a result.
Amen brother, I second that amendment. This article is garbage, lock, stock, and barrel.
-Frank
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.