Interesting how a commoner gets the 2A completely in two simple sentences, while the elites want to argue about it all day.
Posted on 04/01/2008 7:40:16 PM PDT by marktwain
CARVER — Regarding the Scripps Howard column of March 24, 2008: “Is gun ownership really an individual right?”
Ben Boychuck got it right in the column. The Second Amendment protects an individual right.
Mind you, it does not give one a right. It protects a pre-existing, inherent right of self-defense. It is impossible to view it as anything else, given all other individual rights protection guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
To say the Second Amendment is some sort of group right is preposterous. Joel Mathis, on the other hand, made an interesting point bringing up O.W. Holmes’ observation that the First Amendment doesn’t give one the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater.
This is true, but no one is allowed to stuff a rag into your mouth upon entering that theater to prevent you from doing just that. That would amount to prior constraint – a la a handgun ban preventing you from defending yourself.
In fact, one would be obligated to yell if there was a fire. I don’t think Holmes was suggesting you quietly remove yourself from a burning theater leaving there the rest to die without warning anybody.
The D.C. ban on handguns in the home only prevents self-preservation, and it was enacted because of a horrific crime (read: murder) rate. It punished the innocent to get at the guilty, but did nothing but foist a huge increase in homicides on the street.
So this is how the politicos have fixed the problem. To them it would seem that winking and nodding at a blind horse really works.
Few cases decided by the “Supremes” are unanimous. In some sort of “woe is me” prediction, Mathis is resigned to a five-to-four vote. I believe the vote will weigh more heavily toward striking down the Washington, D.C., ban.
LAURESS BEAN
Carver
The Patriot Ledger is a Massachusetts rag just to let you know.
How is it that no one seems to understand that the "Bill of Rights" including, the Second Ammendment, was put in place for one purpose, to restrict the Government.
Indeed!
One is told that the very people who insisted on the first 10 ammendments for the restriction against the government and the rights of the individual somehow meant for the 2nd ammendment to be for government rights and duck hunters.
The logic of such people is breath taking.
I’ve been pretty busy. Still, do a search on my screen name and you will find that I’ve been hangin’ out here a bit.
I get tired of hearing that the First Admentment doesn’t give you the right to shout “FIRE” in a theater. Of course it does, and you better do it, if, of course, the theater is on fire.
As politicians, the founders knew and understood the big guy might be or become the government and all citizens were the little guy.
The Second Ammendment guaranteed the little guy had (an already existent) right to life saving defense.
Like all of the Bills of Rights, it says what the Government can’t do. To pick one that is exclusive to the government is a dumbass “government owns you” view. This argument is to easy. Of course children can’t see this.
Indeed, contrary to D.C.'s flunky argument that the 2nd A. protects only militia-related gun rights, John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., included the 2nd A. when he read the first eight amendments as examples of constitutional statutes containing privileges and immunities that the 14th A. applied to the states. So there in no doubt in my mind that the 2nd and 14th Amendments protect the personal right to keep and bear arms from both the federal and state governments as much as any constitutional privilege and immunity protects other personal rights.
The reason that the USSC is actually long overdue for a peaceful overthrow regardless how it decides Heller is as follows. FDR corrupted the USSC when he established his constitutionally unauthorized New Deal federal spending programs. More specifically, since the days of FDR, the corrupt USSC has irresponsibly allowed the federal government to operate more and more outside the restraints of the federal Constitution, particularly where constitutionally unauthorized federal spending and the unconstitutional limiting of our religious freedoms is concerned.
This post (<-click), while addressing a tax-related thread, explains in more detail why Constitution-ignoring federal politicians are foolishly following in the footsteps of FDR's dirty federal spending politics.
And this post (<-click) tells how FDR's constitutionally unauthorized New Deal programs arguably led not only to the USSC's unlawful stifling of our religious freedoms, but also to the Court's scandalous legalization of abortion. Note that the post first references two non-abortion cases in order to show Roe v. Wade in a different, troubling perspective.
Given that corrupt, special-interest justices have been unlawfully limiting our constitutional freedoms for decades, we should heed the following advice should the USSC decide D.C. v. Heller in D.C.'s favor, the straw that breaks the camel's back.
"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln, Political debates between Lincoln and Douglas, 1858.
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out 'that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom' and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces.
Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V. Ch. 1, contains an extended account of the Militia. It is there said: 'Men of republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty.' 'In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character; and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two different species of military force.'
'The American Colonies In The 17th Century', Osgood, Vol. 1, ch. XIII, affirms in reference to the early system of defense in New England-
'In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.' 'The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former.' 'A year later (1632) it was ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms might be put out to service, and this became a permanent part of the legislation of the colony (Massachusetts).'
Also 'Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs. Fines were the penalty for delinquency, whether of towns or individuals. According to the usage of the times, the infantry of Massachusetts consisted of pikemen and musketeers. The law, as enacted in 1649 and thereafter, provided that each of the former should be armed with a pike, corselet, head-piece, sword, and knapsack. The musketeer should carry a 'good fixed musket,' not under bastard musket bore, not less than three feet, nine inches, nor more than four feet three inches in length, a priming wire, scourer, and mould, a sword, rest, bandoleers, one pound of powder, twenty bullets, and two fathoms of match. The law also required that two-thirds of each company should be musketeers.'
The General Court of Massachusetts, January Session 1784 (Laws and Resolves 1784, c. 55, pp. 140, 142), provided for the organization and government of the Militia. It directed that the Train Band should 'contain all able bodied men, from sixteen to forty years of age, and the Alarm List, all other men under sixty years of age, ....' Also, 'That every non-commissioned officer and private soldier of the said militia not under the controul of parents, masters or guardians, and being of sufficient ability therefor in the judgment of the Selectmen of the town in which he shall dwell, shall equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good fire arm, &c.'
By an Act passed April 4, 1786 (Laws 1786, c. 25), the New York Legislature directed: 'That every able-bodied Male Person, being a Citizen of this State, or of any of the United States, and residing in this State, (except such Persons as are herein after excepted) and who are of the Age of Sixteen, and under the Age of Forty-five Years, shall, by the Captain or commanding Officer of the Beat in which such Citizens shall reside, within four Months after the passing of this Act, be enrolled in the Company of such Beat. ... That every Citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within three Months thereafter, provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack; ....'
The General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785 (12 Hening's Statutes c. 1, p. 9 et seq.), declared: 'The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty.'
It further provided for organization and control of the Militia and directed that 'All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years,' with certain exceptions, 'shall be inrolled or formed into companies.' 'There shall be a private muster of every company once in two months.'
But I ALWAYS hated the yelling fire in a theatre analogy.
We are not talking about free speech, we are talking about reckless endangerment.
I could walk into a movie theatre, hold up a hand grenade, and without saying a word, reach for the pin.
Same result. Panic and death. Has nothing at all to do with the first or any other amendment.
Interesting how a commoner gets the 2A completely in two simple sentences, while the elites want to argue about it all day.
I know I’m preaching to the choir here but the elite political ruling class have their OWN agenda vis-a-vis firearms.
WHY THEY WANT OUR GUNS!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j73SsNFgBO4
I know I’m preaching to the choir here but the elite political ruling class have their OWN agenda vis-a-vis firearms.
WHY THEY WANT OUR GUNS!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j73SsNFgBO4
What, 15 posts and no RP comments yet??
IBRPSUTT.
:-))
You got that right.
Jeesh. They all need pocket versions of the Constitution( www.heritage.org ), not that it would do them any good. Living breathing, unitarian sort of folk, ya know.... blech!
Here's another analogy: a ban on the ownership of guns to combat possible crimes that MAY be committed with them is about the same as ripping your tongue out because you might shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.
Of course, we all know that this (you can ban guns as a "reasonable restriction" just like you can outlaw shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater) is a completely false analogy. Why? Because the fact is that neither the theater or the government can prevent you from exercising your 1st Amendment protected right of Freedom of Speech. OTOH, if you use that right in an irresponsible way - when, for example, there is no fire and you know it - then you will have endangered others and can be punished civilly and/or criminally. But you can STILL shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, very contrary to the oft-repeated BS analogy of the leftist, gun-ban crowd.
The difference between punishing someone for irresponsible deeds on the one hand, and preventing someone from even having the the freedom or the liberty to choose whether to act responsbly, irresponsibly or not at all is a simple concept: PRIOR RESTRAINT. Prior restraint is, so far as I know, forbidden with regard to the exercise of basic rights under our Constitution - because the anti-liberty results of such laws is anathema to the fundamental ideas enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Prior restraint laws punish the 99% or more of the law-abiding public that will never committ the allegedly targetted crime or other bad act. Couple that with the fact that most criminals are able to both obtain the tools of their trade and commit crimes even with very tough laws against the same, and you are looking at laws that do virtually nothing to stop crimes, yet substantially diminish or eliminate the ability of ordinary people to exercise their freedoms.
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.