Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

To Keep and Bear Arms
Washington Post ^ | March 22, 2008 | Charles Lane

Posted on 03/24/2008 12:30:11 PM PDT by neverdem

Nearly 135 years ago, the United States experienced what may have been the worst one-day slaughter of blacks by whites in its history. On April 13, 1873, in the tiny village of Colfax, La., white paramilitaries attacked a lightly armed force of freedmen assembled in a local courthouse. By the time the Colfax Massacre was over, more than 60 African American men lay shot, burned or stabbed to death. Most were killed after they had surrendered.

Though it caused a national sensation in post-Civil War America, this horrible incident has been largely overlooked by historians. It deserves fresh study today not only to illuminate the human cost of Reconstruction's defeat but also to enrich our understanding of constitutional history. Some of the most relevant lessons relate to the issue at the heart of District of Columbia v. Heller, the case on the D.C. gun control law currently before the Supreme Court: whether the Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.

During oral arguments on Tuesday, the justices debated what the framers of the Second Amendment intended. The members of the court did not mention Reconstruction. Yet during this period, we the people gave the Union a second "founding" through constitutional amendments abolishing slavery, granting blacks citizenship and enabling them...

--snip--

Firearms pose threats to modern-day urban dwellers -- crime, suicide, accidents -- that may outweigh any self-defense they provide. Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, we can call on professional police.

In the D.C. gun case, the Supreme Court should find that local governments may enact reasonable and necessary restrictions on dangerous weapons. To be sure, if the justices also back an individual right to keep and bear arms, that will be harder for legislators to do. But as a matter of historical interpretation, the court would be correct.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist; heller; parker
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last
To: Turbopilot

> Check again. Although the article was common sense, the idiot author managed to force a conclusion exactly opposite of what the article stated.

Alternatively, perhaps an idiot editor didn’t like his conclusions and re-wrote the end of the article for him?


21 posted on 03/24/2008 12:57:10 PM PDT by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghill mi do dhuine. Fg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: beckysueb

Yeah, what’s the point of this race-baiting?

To further indocrinate blacks and encourage them to further hate and attack whites? Like they haven’t been doing that for years. I’m sick of this “poor oppressed black” bullcrap.


22 posted on 03/24/2008 12:57:38 PM PDT by july4thfreedomfoundation (Change.....that's what we will have left in our pockets if a Democrat gets elected president!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, we can call on professional police.

Nah, don't think so. Ever heard of a police artist? They're the guys who come out after a crime and draw those really neat chalk lines around the folks who waited on the cops to protect them.

23 posted on 03/24/2008 1:01:44 PM PDT by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Let's look at more recent history, such as 2005. According to the DOJ, there were 4,497 whites mudered by blacks vs 337 blacks murdered by whites in 2005. (we'll also ignore that whites and hispanics are lumped together in these stats). Similar ratios are present for all the years covered (1976-2005).

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/ovracetab.htm

24 posted on 03/24/2008 1:09:17 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

No...it don’t need to be relooked at. It was a different time and a different era. It has nothing to do with life as it is today. So give it a rest....let it go......get a life!!!


25 posted on 03/24/2008 1:11:22 PM PDT by Wavrnr10 (Eagles soar but weasels don't get sucked in jet engines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“Firearms pose threats to modern-day urban dwellers — crime, suicide, accidents — that may outweigh any self-defense they provide. Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, we can call on professional police.”

Check the founders’ context again. It was the militia at Lexington and Concord, a loose confederation of like-minded and equipped individuals. The overarching concept of the Second Amendment is defense against tyranny. It is the individual’s responsibility to be armed. It is the government’s responsibility do defend the country (calling on the militia if needed). That an armed society is more polite (criminals have less traction) is simply a joyous byproduct of individual taking on the responsibility of personal and familial defense.

“...a ship can get you work. A gun can help you keep your ship.”


26 posted on 03/24/2008 1:14:22 PM PDT by petro45acp (NO good endeavor survives an excess of "adult supervision" (read bureaucracy)!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, we can call on professional police.”

Because all Americans live in cities today.

Oh, wait. They don’t.

My parents live less than a mile outside a city, and have had to wait several hours for law enforcement to tend to a wreck on the road in front of their house. Good thing nobody was breaking into their house.


27 posted on 03/24/2008 1:30:52 PM PDT by Tex Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

> Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, we can call on professional police.
I haven’t had that good a laugh in a long while.
Nothing beats the 3 S’s (Shoot, Shovel and Shutup.)


28 posted on 03/24/2008 1:32:12 PM PDT by BuffaloJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, we can call on professional police.

Did you see the story posted here last week, about a Covina CA woman who was killed by burglars, while she was on the phone begging the 911 operator for help?

29 posted on 03/24/2008 1:34:37 PM PDT by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“reasonable and necessary” is a cover for pretty much unlimited restriction in this case. Don’t grant the WP any Constitutional common sense.


30 posted on 03/24/2008 1:39:15 PM PDT by ThanhPhero (di hanh huong den La Vang)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“Firearms pose threats to modern-day urban dwellers — crime, suicide, accidents — that may outweigh any self-defense they provide. Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, we can call on professional police.

In the D.C. gun case, the Supreme Court should find that local governments may enact reasonable and necessary restrictions on dangerous weapons. To be sure, if the justices also back an individual right to keep and bear arms, that will be harder for legislators to do. But as a matter of historical interpretation, the court would be correct.”

****

The entire Colfax incident that the writer recounts is one proof why people need to keep and bear arms. Then the writer contradicts the entire premiss of the article by the above-quoted statement.

Has human nature somehow changed or improved since the Colfax massacre? The massacred blacks had no access to police promptly arriving on the scene, but today we do...

What comes to my mind are the images of a local SWAT team waiting outside Columbine High School until the shooting stopped before taking “effective” action...


31 posted on 03/24/2008 1:48:47 PM PDT by kiriath_jearim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Professional Police?

Many departments BARELY require a GED for the police accademy!

Professional Police with one the highest rate of domestic violence of other careers?

Professional Police who are routinely shown to tamper with evidence and manipulate testimony. (ie drop guns, stepping too close to a suspect to induce a trip which causes arms to fling up and the officer can claim self defense, tasering anything that moves, absurd swat overtraining, police who routinely violate civil rights...)

If the police do manage to “get to you” in time, you become expendible as long as they have contained the perpetrator in your house.


32 posted on 03/24/2008 1:53:44 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%; neverdem
Charles Lane is arguing that the 2nd Amendment ought not be read the way it was written, because times have changed. That is always the argument of anyone who wants to ditch a part of the Constitution.

The central dishonesty of this approach is that it steals from the American people our right to control our own Constitution, through the amendment process. The control of our own government is the very first political right stated in the Declaration of Independence. Yet this writer tramples it without even noticing that it is there.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article, "The Uber-Nigerian Scam"

Help a Freeper into Congress.

P.S. I wrote one of the briefs in the Heller case, supporting the opposite conclusion from this guy.

33 posted on 03/24/2008 1:53:54 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob ( www.ArmorforCongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It has always been open season on Black Republicans.


34 posted on 03/24/2008 2:07:56 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~~~***Just say NO to the "O"***~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee; Redcloak
Did you see the story posted here last week, about a Covina CA woman who was killed by burglars, while she was on the phone begging the 911 operator for help?

Redcloak linked it in comment# 3, thanks.

35 posted on 03/24/2008 2:13:16 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ThanhPhero
“reasonable and necessary” is a cover for pretty much unlimited restriction in this case. Don’t grant the WP any Constitutional common sense.

I posted it for the story of the Colfax massacre.

36 posted on 03/24/2008 2:15:36 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

It is the strict scrutiny test which the left fears.

If every piece of gun control has to pass a strict scrutiny test, the same high level of examination which freeom of speech cases have to pass, then many gun laws will go down in massive flames.

Just like in all states where gun ownership leads to lower crime levels, it will eliminate the “government will protect you” taxation gravytrain.


37 posted on 03/24/2008 2:21:10 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"....but they are doing really important work, writing summonses and raising revenue."


And eating donuts....



38 posted on 03/24/2008 2:41:00 PM PDT by Emperor Palpatine ("There is no civility, only politics.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This guy sounds like a weenie that runs away from a kid holding a squirt gun.


39 posted on 03/24/2008 3:24:32 PM PDT by wastedyears (The US Military is what goes Bump in the night.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Firearms pose threats to modern-day urban dwellers -- crime, suicide, accidents -- that may outweigh any self-defense they provide.

This is one of those cases where some left-wing nutjob is trying to give his argument an advantage by controlling the focus of the debate. In a country where there actually is rule of law, it doesn't matter one damn bit what anyone thinks should be the case. It only matters what the law actually says.

That is even more important when the law in question is the highest law in the land - the Constitution. It doesn't matter in the slightest whether this author's premise is true, that ownership of firearms poses a greater danger to the owners than it provides benefit. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed only when the firearms do not pose a risk to their owners. It says that right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Any argument as to the wisdom of that amendment is MOOT. We have a well-defined process for making changes to the Constitution, and that process does not include the whim of every left-wing freak who finds firearms frightening.

If the 2nd Amendment truly is outdated, then change it. Properly. Otherwise, all of the anti-gun statistics in the world, whether valid or not, have no bearing on the interpretation of the 2nd amendment, or any other amendment for that matter.
40 posted on 03/24/2008 3:39:53 PM PDT by fr_freak (So foul a sky clears not without a storm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson