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+.
*******
Sorry, but those of us with measurable IQs and a sense of history disagree.
And that rebellion is a lot close than it appears, you lib slime.
AGREED..!!!!!
0’s butthole buddies Bill Ayers and Bernie Dhorn believed in violent revolution, and judging by Meghan Kelly’s interview with the “former” domestic terrorist who “turned his life around” probably still does. Oh, but that’s different.
It is a mechanism to get laid in a liberal environment - whether straight or queer. It essentially means nothing substantive towards freedom or the liberty to keep freedom viable.
These people just don’t understand that their words and Americans’ responses to those words are fast approaching solutions that rely on “not-words.”
Political Cognition? Pfft! What the Hell sort of leftist BS field of study is that? And FIELD ORGANIZER? "Well, Tom, the field looks well-watered."
My God, I love how the lefties use every contorted, ridiculous combination of words under the sun to make themselves feel important.
Sorry Tom, not only is your premise flawed, your thesis is based on a strawman argument that has been thoroughly debunked every time is it examined in-depth. Your "blog" amounts to nothing more than an attempt at educated discourse, which fails in the most basic ways.
“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.”
The idiot who wrote the blog knows nothing more than what is in a textbook and what he learned from watching MSNBC and reading the DailyKos.
In other words a useful idiot of the left.
1. The 2nd Amendment does not refer to a right to revolt from anyone. It does, however, refer to the ability.
2. The "security of a free state" does not mean "the safety of the sitting government". It means security of a state whose freedom is threatened by enemies foreign and domestic, including progressive "thinkers".
3. "Keep and bear arms" means precisely that. It does not admit of legalistic pettifogging such as "you can have arms but not ammunition".
4. Cruz knows more about the amendment than one Jon Green knows or likely ever will.
5. "Political cognition" fail. This isn't even good high school stuff.
The author has succeeded in creating a piece of barf-inducing tripe.... (apologies to all the tripe consumers)
Maybe he just read this:
All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.—Benito Mussolini
Does no one but us Constitutionalists ever read the FF's numerous editorials, publications, diaries, correspondence between themselves, their debates, etc. regarding the intent of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and its Amendments? I'll look them up and post thme as I have in the past. In the meantime...
"When in the Course of human Events,
People like this are good for one thing... cooking and eating.
Okay, that's two things, but they're really closely related... this one writes like he'd be good barbecued, perhaps with some fava beans and a nice Chianti...
Kenyon College is a private liberal arts college in Gambier, Ohio, founded in 1824. It is the oldest private college in Ohio. The campus is noted for its Collegiate Gothic architecture and rural setting.[5][6] Kenyon College is accredited by The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools.[7] Newsweek selected Kenyon College as one of twenty-five “New Ivies” on the basis of admissions statistics as well as interviews with administrators, students, faculty and alumni.[8] The acceptance rate for the Class of 2018 was 24.6%.[9]
Kenyon was established in parallel with the Bexley Hall seminary by Episcopalian Bishop Philander Chase. Though its theological program gradually waned in importance (ultimately leading to the disassociation and departure of the seminary in 1968), the college continues to maintain an affiliation to the Episcopal Church. The college today prefers to emphasize its liberal arts tradition over its religious background.[10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyon_College
An armed citizenry is the very reason why a true tyranny like what happened in Soviet Union and China didn't happen here.
From the Declaration of Independence:
when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce [the citizenry] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
End of discussion.
I supplied two of them above, along with quotes from more recent DEMOCRATS.
The poodle chews it (snap it!).
We should create an "Episcopalian" alert!
“America’s standing army in 1787 wasn’t exactly intimidating”
It wasn’t supposed to be. The founding fathers knew a large standing army would lead to constant wars and domestic tyranny. That’s why we didn’t have them.
This so called political scientist knows nothing. In fact, he should move to North Korea where he’ll be safe and among his loving ilk.
Not a speck of cereal!
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.