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

Skip to comments.

Ted Cruz, the Times, and Guns
The New York Sun ^ | April 18, 2015 | The Editors

Posted on 04/18/2015 10:01:07 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

The New York Times is taking note of Senator Cruz’s suggestion that the Second Amendment was intended to “serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny — for the protection of liberty.” The Gray Lady calls it among the “ridiculous arguments against gun control.” It suggests the silliest such the idea is that the framers wanted to “preserve the possibility, or even encourage, the idea of armed rebellion against the government.” What arrests us about this note is the absence of any reference to Elbridge Gerry.

Gerry was the representative from Massachusetts who, during the debate over the Second Amendment in the First United States Congress, marked the point to which Senator Cruz refers. The House was considering an early phrasing of what became the Second Amendment. Namely: “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.” Here is what Gerry said:

“This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed.” What bothered him, he went on to note, was the religious exemption, which, he feared, “would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.”(continued)

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Massachusetts; US: New York; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: 2016election; 2ndamendment; banglist; constitution; demagogicparty; elbridgegerry; election2016; elizabethwarren; fauxahontas; lieawatha; massachusetts; media; memebuilding; newyork; newyorkcity; newyorkslimes; newyorktimes; partisanmediashill; partisanmediashills; secondamendment; tedcruz; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 last
To: Georgia Girl 2; All

.” It suggests the silliest such the idea is that the framers wanted to “preserve the possibility, or even encourage, the idea of armed rebellion against the government.”

They do not have a rational argument, so they resort to sarcasm.


41 posted on 04/19/2015 3:40:45 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: exnavy

Ooh rah.


42 posted on 04/19/2015 4:06:41 PM PDT by ez (Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is... - Milton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist
The "subordinate government" Madison refers to here are the governments of the States.

So Madison actually sees Cruz's bet, and raises it: Madison had an expectation that not only would militias deter Federal tyranny, but that the State governments had a duty and obligation to rebel against the Federal government in extremis, and to raise their own militias for doing so.

43 posted on 04/19/2015 9:54:54 PM PDT by FredZarguna (It looks just like a Telefunken U-47 -- with leather.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 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