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

Skip to comments.

Gun-Shy Liberals - Who cares about the Second Amendment?
National Review Online ^ | March 30, 2007 | Jonah Goldberg

Posted on 03/30/2007 11:21:52 AM PDT by neverdem







Gun-Shy Liberals
Who cares about the Second Amendment?

By Jonah Goldberg

Considering how badly things have been going for conservatives, right-wingers, Republicans and anyone else whose brain doesn’t explode like one of those guys from the movie Scanners at the thought of another Republican president, it’s worth noting that one of the greatest conservative victories of the last 40 years is quietly unfolding right in front of us. On March 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an epochal ruling. The court found that the Second Amendment actually protects the right to bear arms for individuals.

Now, that in and of itself is huge. For decades, the courts, the legal and academic establishments, the press and all right-thinking people everywhere have been arguing that not only is the Second Amendment a chestnut from a bygone age, but that enlightened judges should just go ahead and void the darn thing like a bad parking ticket.

The high-water mark of anti-gun-rights shabbiness was the 2000 release of Arming America by then-Emory University historian Michael Bellesiles. The book purported to prove that gun ownership was never a major part of American society and that America’s gun culture was a useful myth for the gun-nutters eager to make the Second Amendment mean something it doesn’t. The book received lavish praise from the liberal establishment, including a rave review by Gary Wills in The New York Times, and won Columbia University’s prestigious Bancroft Prize.

The only problem was that the whole thing was an elaborate hoax, perpetrated with faked or nonexistent evidence. Intellectually honest liberals had to recant. The Bancroft Prize was revoked. Wills admitted: “I was took. The book is a fraud.”

Of course, there has always been a minority of liberals who’ve shown a willingness to admit, often reluctantly, that the Constitution can approve of something they disapprove of. Liberal journalist Michael Kinsley famously quoted a colleague as saying, “If liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the rest of the Bill of Rights, there would be law professors arguing that gun ownership is mandatory.” And in 1989, Sanford Levinson penned a Yale Law Review article tellingly titled “The Embarrassing Second Amendment.”

Such honesty has proved contagious. As Brookings Institution scholar Benjamin Wittes chronicles in the current edition of The New Republic, various liberal legal scholars have come to grudgingly accept that the Second Amendment’s meaning and intent include the individual right to own a gun. “(T)he amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification,” writes no less than the dean of liberal legal scholars, Laurence Tribe. Tribe had to update his textbook on the Constitution to account for the growing consensus that — horror! — Americans do have a constitutional right to own a gun. It’s not an absolute right, of course. But no right is.

Now, you might think this is what I have in mind when I say that the Court of Appeals ruling was an epochal victory for conservatives. But it’s not.

No, the real victory is that liberals are starting to accept the fact that the constitution has a meaning separate and distinct from what the most pliant liberal judge wants it to mean. Therefore, writes Wittes, “perhaps it’s time for gun-control supporters to come to grips with the fact that the (Second Amendment) actually means something ... For which reason, I hereby advance a modest proposal: Let’s repeal the damn thing.” Wittes isn’t alone. A number of left-wing commentators have picked up the idea as well.

Personally, I would oppose repeal, and I have problems with many liberal arguments against the Second Amendment. But that liberals are willing to play by the rules is an enormous, monumental victory that transcends the particulars of the gun-control debate.

According to the so-called “living Constitution” championed by liberals from Woodrow Wilson to Al Gore and Bill Clinton, amendments are a waste of time since enlightened jurists can simply “breathe new life” into the meaning of the Constitution. No more, if Wittes and Co. have their way. Now, we’ll have to have an argument.

“It’s true that repealing the Second Amendment is politically impossible right now,” Wittes concedes. “That doesn’t bother me. It should be hard to take away a constitutional right.”

Yes, it should. It should also be hard to mint a new one. And, as conservatives have argued for decades, in both cases the ideal method is democratic debate and legislative deliberation, not judicial whim.

So buck up, my conservative brethren. It’s not all bad news these days.



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist; giuliani; parker; secondamendment
Here's Parker v. Washington D.C. in HTML, courtesy of zeugma.
1 posted on 03/30/2007 11:21:53 AM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: zeugma
BANG!
2 posted on 03/30/2007 11:23:14 AM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j73SsNFgBO4


3 posted on 03/30/2007 11:25:40 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Therefore, writes Wittes, “perhaps it’s time for gun-control supporters to come to grips with the fact that the (Second Amendment) actually means something ... For which reason, I hereby advance a modest proposal: Let’s repeal the damn thing.” Wittes isn’t alone. A number of left-wing commentators have picked up the idea as well.

Exactly why the amendment exists in the first place. If Witless and his liberal co-horts even make an attempt at this, they should face armed resistance.

4 posted on 03/30/2007 11:27:39 AM PDT by pcottraux (Fred Thompson pronounces it "P. Coe-troe"...in 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

and who would seize our guns??schumer,nadler,boxer,feinstein,kennedy,kerry & co.-haha-that would be too good to hope for :))


5 posted on 03/30/2007 11:32:01 AM PDT by steamroller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pcottraux

If a big fan of Goldberg's video segment with Peter Beinhart, which can be viewed over the The New Republic's website and NRO as well, the do a segment entitled "Whats your Problem"-a refreshing change of pace from MSNBC,CNN,FOX News scream your heads off over each other fake debate crap. Those two have real interesting discussions on a wide rang of subjects. Check it out if your a Goldberg fan.


6 posted on 03/30/2007 11:32:15 AM PDT by ChiTownBearFan ("To see the world is to love America all the more"-Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

"The high-water mark of anti-gun-rights shabbiness was the 2000 release of Arming America by then-Emory University historian Michael Bellesiles. The book purported to prove that gun ownership was never a major part of American society and that America’s gun culture was a useful myth for the gun-nutters eager to make the Second Amendment mean something it doesn’t. The book received lavish praise from the liberal establishment, including a rave review by Gary Wills in The New York Times, and won Columbia University’s prestigious Bancroft Prize."


Apparently the people at Columbia and the NY Times are ignorant of American history, particularly the Revolutionary War. Freedom from tyranny (King George III's abuses and usurpations) was the motivation for the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The first amendment is about freedom of speech, petition, assembly and the press. The second amendment about the Right of the People to Keep and Bear arms - "shall not be infringed". The liberal lunatics want to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights will be honored. The founders knew that armed citizens were necessary to defeat the British, and that armed citizens would be the ultimate source of protection from dictators and tyrants (such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro and Kim Jong Il) in the future.

The Second Amendment says the PEOPLE have the right to KEEP and BEAR arms. This language is so straightforward and easy to understand, yet those who would undermine our freedom attempt to distort its meaning.


7 posted on 03/30/2007 11:43:53 AM PDT by pleikumud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steamroller
and who would seize our guns??schumer,nadler,boxer,feinstein,kennedy,kerry & co.-haha-that would be too good to hope for :))

Your friendly local police backed up by the federal gun gestapo ala New Orleans

8 posted on 03/30/2007 11:47:52 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; All

"Gun control" means hitting your target with each and every round & with breath control!


9 posted on 03/30/2007 11:49:49 AM PDT by TMSuchman (American by birth, Rebel by choice, Marine by act of GOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
and who would seize our guns??schumer,nadler,boxer,feinstein,kennedy,kerry & co.-haha-that would be too good to hope for :))

Your friendly local police backed up by the federal gun gestapo ala New Orleans

Right up to the point that they meet the half-million youngsters back from Iraq and Afghanistan. Who've been receiving on-the-job training about urban combat and Improvised Explosives for the last 3½ years.

Try telling them they don't have any rights any more, and it'll get real messy real quick.

10 posted on 03/30/2007 12:01:46 PM PDT by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: archy
Right up to the point that they meet the half-million youngsters back from Iraq and Afghanistan

Optimist. I was thinking that it would have been right up to the point where they met a few old f@rts of my generation who got back from Viet Nam 38 years ago.

You are one of the more well informed who post here, and I'm sure you remember the marine officer quiz of several years ago when they were asked if they would participate in disarming civilians.

11 posted on 03/30/2007 12:07:28 PM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
IMO Goldberg is living in a dream world here.

Serious gun-grabbing socialists know precisely what they're going to do.

12 posted on 03/30/2007 12:08:52 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
'Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges!'


13 posted on 03/30/2007 12:18:17 PM PDT by UnklGene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert

bttt


14 posted on 03/30/2007 12:24:15 PM PDT by aberaussie (Ignorance has a cost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
If I recall, there was a Navy psychologist who was writing his Doctorate thesis, and, like all liberals who like to get freebies, figured that the Marines on base at MCB 29 Palms were put there for his personal research.

He passed around a questionnaire asking if, given an official order from the CinC, they would send troops out, house to house, IN CONUS, to confiscate all guns. The officers said yes, they would, since they were largely Liberal educated. The Enlisted men said no, they wouldn't.

The Brady Bunch started bragging about how the Marines would take all the guns, as soon as Clinton passed the word, and 8th & Eye was asking what the Eff was going on at 29 Palms, denying that the USMC could confiscate ANYTHING, due to the Posse Comitatus laws. The MSM quickly buried it, but it was one of the first times the Net started questioning the Media.

15 posted on 03/30/2007 12:46:26 PM PDT by jonascord ("Don't shoot 'em! Let 'em burn!...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Thanks for the link. Let them try in Darfur.


16 posted on 03/30/2007 1:29:30 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
Optimist. I was thinking that it would have been right up to the point where they met a few old f@rts of my generation who got back from Viet Nam 38 years ago.

Oh there'd be quite enough of us old Vietnam-era f@rts in there to be sure, plus those who've seen how *well* such disarmament has worked in Bosnia and Panama. And elsewhere, here and there, in between.

You are one of the more well informed who post here, and I'm sure you remember the marine officer quiz of several years ago when they were asked if they would participate in disarming civilians.

Indeed I do; in and around Jan 1994, to include Question # 46 "I Would Fire Upon U.S. Citizens..." Only around a quarter of the Marines so interviewed said that they would do so.

And I also remember some of the responses they got when the survey was discussed by Special Forces personnel at Ft Bragg, whose De Oppresso Liber motto approximately translates to Free the Oppressed. The Powers That Be found out just how seriously most of them take that motto. And figured they were better off keeping such surveys among Marines and Navy personnel.


17 posted on 03/30/2007 1:45:44 PM PDT by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jonascord
If I recall, there was a Navy psychologist who was writing his Doctorate thesis, and, like all liberals who like to get freebies, figured that the Marines on base at MCB 29 Palms were put there for his personal research.

Pretty close. The questionaires were devised by a Lt. Cdr. Guy Cunningham, USN as part of the requirements for his Masters Degree program at the Naval Postgraduate School, Montery, California; see the link in my post #17 above for a full copy of the survey questions.

But it did not help still the resulting furore that on May 3, 1994, President Clinton signed a Presidential Decision Directive establishing "U.S. Policy on Reforming Multilateral Peace Operations". For an overview of the unclassified portions of PDD 25 go to the PDD 25 Summary *here*.

18 posted on 03/30/2007 1:56:41 PM PDT by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The only places where a treaty would have any effect are nations under the rule of law, like here.

I'm writing an article on the origins of treaty law in America as regards property rights and gun rights. It's easier to get one of these monstrosities ratified than is commonly understood. Almost no one understands how powerful treaty law really is. Understanding the history is a powerful motivator.

19 posted on 03/30/2007 1:57:25 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: archy; neverdem
President Clinton signed a Presidential Decision Directive establishing "U.S. Policy on Reforming Multilateral Peace Operations".

And then there's Title X, Section 333:

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 15 > § 333

§ 333. Interference with State and Federal law

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

20 posted on 03/30/2007 2:05:35 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: archy

If nothing else good comes from this war, at least we have a fresh bunch of young, combat experienced veterans to keep the Feds from getting too frisky with their 'search and seizure tactics'.

Semper Fidelis


21 posted on 03/30/2007 2:14:33 PM PDT by B4Ranch ("Steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world." -George Washington-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: pleikumud
"The Second Amendment says the PEOPLE have the right to KEEP and BEAR arms. This language is so straightforward and easy to understand"

Ah. Straightforward and easy to understand. In that case, I've found the right person to ask.

When the second amensment was written, who were "the people" they were referring to in the second amendment?

22 posted on 03/30/2007 2:31:04 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

"We the people of the United States..."


23 posted on 03/30/2007 2:35:26 PM PDT by pleikumud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: pleikumud
"We the people of the United States..."

Everyone? In 1791?

Come now. With language that is so straightforward and easy to understand, certainly you can do better than a cryptic "We the people of the United States". Can't you?

24 posted on 03/30/2007 2:43:30 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; pleikumud
When the second amendment was written, who were "the people" they were referring to in the second amendment?

To use the language of the Constitution:
The citizens of the various states.

Basically in 1780 this included most white adults, some blacks (most blacks were considered property, not citizens), and older children (12-13+), but excluded indians, unsupervised children, and others considered a threat to public safety.

25 posted on 03/30/2007 3:08:29 PM PDT by Fraxinus (My opinion worth what you paid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Question: As suggested in the article, if the 2nd amendment were ever to be repealed, why wouldn't the right to keep and bear arms just be moved to the 9th amendment?

If the Bill of Rights is a statement of rights not ceded to the Federal Government, and the 2nd amendment is repealed, the right to arms would still be retained via the 9th, wouldn't it?

It would take more than repealing the 2nd amendment. There would also have to be affirmative language denying the right to arms, too. However, I think that would be out of character with the rest of the Bill of Rights, and most of the rest of the amendments. The Bill of Rights is a list of rights not ceded to the government by the people, it is not a list of infringments on the people. The 18th amendment was an infringment on the people, and that was repealed a few years later.

-PJ

26 posted on 03/30/2007 3:08:54 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

"It’s not an absolute right, of course."

What does "...shall not be infringed" mean? If the 2nd Ammendment means just what it says, the an individual has the right to own a gun, then how can that right be infringed when the Ammendment says it cannot?


27 posted on 03/30/2007 3:17:07 PM PDT by ops33 (Retired USAF Senior Master Sergeant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fraxinus
The second amendment was referring to "the people at large" -- those who were expected to take up arms to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." This would exclude non-whites, women, children, the infirm, non-citizens, Indians, and prisoners.

Perhaps states protected the individual rights of others to own firearms. But the second amendment did not.

28 posted on 03/30/2007 3:35:01 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: All

The Second Amendment - Commentaries
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1016481/posts


29 posted on 03/30/2007 3:35:42 PM PDT by PsyOp (Self-defense is a part of the law of nature - Barclay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Couldn't one argue that the entire Constitution referred to "the people at large" who were citizens of the several states at the time? Wouldn't that make every single right within it a collective right?

-PJ

30 posted on 03/30/2007 3:47:16 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Fraxinus; y'all
To use the language of the Constitution: -- ["the people" referred to in the second amendment were] --
The citizens of the various states.

Don't forget the citizens of the USA residing in territories of the USA.

Basically in 1780 this included most white adults, some blacks (most blacks were considered property, not citizens), and older children (12-13+), but excluded indians, unsupervised children, and others considered a threat to public safety.

Good, detailed answer; -- is this cited somewhere in our founding documents? -- I've never seen quite that list before.

Naturally, the real reason this is even of any interest is ~why~ such a list would exclude some people from constitutional protection of an inalienable right.
-- Majority rule type gun-grabbers claim that the mere fact that there ~are~ exclusions prove that our right to own & carry arms is ~alienable~ & infringeable, -- by the 'will of the people'.

Weird people, socialists..

31 posted on 03/30/2007 4:13:53 PM PDT by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The right of self-defense can't be taken away - EVER. The government is NOT the source of our rights. They are implanted in us by God, the author of human freedom as well as of human life.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

32 posted on 03/30/2007 8:44:33 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
"Couldn't one argue that the entire Constitution referred to "the people at large" who were citizens of the several states at the time? Wouldn't that make every single right within it a collective right?"

The U.S. Constitution referred to human beings using different words, depending on the subject. Look at just the amendments -- in the 1st and 2nd, it's "the people". In the 3rd, "the Owner". The 4th, "the people", "the persons". The 5th, "person". The 6th, "the accused". Etc.

Article I, Section 2 says:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States"

Who were "the people"? All individuals in that state? Hardly. The only ones allowed to vote at that time were white male landowners. So, in Article I Section 2, the people at large were white male landowners. Follow?

33 posted on 03/31/2007 5:40:39 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Yes, I follow, but I don't make the connection to collective rights.

Why would the second amendment only apply to "the people" collectively? Does Article I Section 2 only allow for the "the people" to vote collectively or individually, regardless of the meaning of "the people?"

-PJ

34 posted on 03/31/2007 9:51:33 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
Article I, Section 2, is referring to "the group of people who are allowed to vote and only for the purpose of voting" may do so as individuals.

The first amendment is referring to "the group of people who are allowed to assemble and only for the purpose of assembling" may do so as individuals.

The second amendment is referring to "the group of people who are allowed to keep and bear arms and only for the purpose of forming as a Militia" may do so as individuals.

(By "allowed" I mean their right is protected.)

Using the phrase "the people" allowed the framers to refer to a group of certain individuals, yet not every individual. And, that group could be composed of different people depending on the right being protected.

35 posted on 03/31/2007 10:26:17 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
What about the 9th amendment?

For this discussion, I am saying that the Bill of Rights is not granting rights to the people, it is stating what is not being ceded away to the Federal Government.

If, as you say, the 2nd amendment says that the people do not cede the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a civilian militia, and there isn't anywhere else in the Constitution that forbids the people to have arms, then the 9th amendment still allows the people to keep arms whether or not they are a part of a militia.

Would you agree with that?

-PJ

36 posted on 03/31/2007 10:40:54 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: archy
"The 2nd Amendment protects us from tyranny. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment is our most sacred heirloom from our Founding Fathers. Protect it...indeed, protect it at all costs...even under pain of death...it is that important..."

I have no illusion whatsoever that I would be the only man that would fight to the death to protect the 2nd Amendment...

37 posted on 03/31/2007 11:15:00 AM PDT by JDoutrider (Hunter/Thompson or Thompson/Hunter '08_Either way suits me just fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
Prohibitionists will only agree that gov't might is 'right'. -- The 2nd holds that an armed people are right.


Six Amendments to the Constitution
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1809847/posts


"-- The basic issue here -- between the first two answers (both of which appeal to principles of natural justice) and the third (which denies such principles) -- is the deepest, most long-standing issue in jurisprudence or the philosophy of law: the issue between naturalists, on the one hand, and positivists or legalists, on the other. --"
"-- The positivists hold that might is right. --"

--- The real issue is between those of us who live for the liberty to own & use property as we see fit; --- and those who declare they have the power to prohibit any property they see as 'unfit'.

The prohibitionists hold that gov't might is 'right'. -- The 2nd holds that an armed people are right.

38 posted on 03/31/2007 11:15:18 AM PDT by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
"then the 9th amendment still allows the people to keep arms whether or not they are a part of a militia."

Oh, I suppose you could try. You might find this to be interesting:

BEYOND THE SECOND AMENDMENT: AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO ARMS VIEWED THROUGH THE NINTH AMENDMENT

39 posted on 03/31/2007 12:05:10 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: JDoutrider
I have no illusion whatsoever that I would be the only man that would fight to the death to protect the 2nd Amendment...

That's not precisely my position. In the event of any elimination of the Second Amendment protection of those rights, my position is that the entire constitutional agreement between governed and government is then forfeit, negating the legitimacy of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government as well; if the rights of the people go, it is not only they who suffer that loss, but so too do those who have usurped authority not granted to them by that constitutional contract.

Accordingly: if the Second, or any other amendment goes, so too does every political office and power granted by the constitution; it is thereby moot and abrogated, and no longer applies in any way.

Neither can it be restored with a simple restoration of the portion so insulted; it would then become necessary to again undergo the entire process of constitutional convention and ratification, which I doubt could be accomplished in such a fouled climate.

I also have little doubt that you and I would not find ourselves on opposing sides. So long as the constitution remains in effect, so too is my oath to protect and defend it valid; but that oath does not apply to an edited or altered constitution that does not guarantee the people their rights under that document's authority.

40 posted on 04/02/2007 7:02:29 AM PDT by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: archy
Great take on this. You're right...an Oath is forever...

I also have little doubt that you and I would not find ourselves on opposing sides. So long as the constitution remains in effect, so too is my oath to protect and defend it valid; but that oath does not apply to an edited or altered constitution that does not guarantee the people their rights under that document's authority.

This is the scenario we are watching being played out these days... a powerful assault on the very Constitution/Bill of Rights we both hold dear.

The democrat socialists are binding their time in hopes of regaining the position of P.O.T.U.S. (May God forbid!) which would be the "Hanging of the Red Lantern". A new beginning of their social revolution, and total usurpation of our rights... and that begins with the full frontal assault on the 2nd.

Just scanned your kite on Finlands' Revolution... Will get back to you on that (busy time for me!).

41 posted on 04/03/2007 5:17:50 PM PDT by JDoutrider (Hunter/Thompson or Thompson/Hunter '08_Either way suits me just fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

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