There are people in America that think the Founders were ignorant and dangerous. They're the ones who think that free speech is vital, but only when they use it. If you use it, it's called "hate speech".
They are also the ones that think there is no excuse for self-defense. Just give the criminal whatever he demands. They think the Founders were crazy, and the 2nd Amendment is for the retarded. They don't trust you with a gun, any kind of gun; and (as in England) if you fight back then you're the bigger criminal; and soon they won't trust you with a kitchen carving knife.
Janet Reno is one of them. Remember her? Clinton's Attorney General. She's filed a "friend of the court" amicus petition in the 2nd Amendment Supreme Court case (D.C. v Heller). She has buddies, too. Lots of them.
They are the guns-only-for-government crowd. They include the American Bar Association. These lawyers don't trust trained law-abiding citizens with a gun. Then there are the University professors -- a bunch of history and linguistics profs; and some criminal justice profs. Then there is the American Academy of Pediatrics. These child doctors doesn't trust you either.
All these groups, and more, are claiming that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it means, and that the government has the right to "infringe" on your right to "keep and bear arms" -- to the extent of keeping you from having a working gun for your own personal inside-the-home self-defense.
You want to know the details? You can find out here. This is a website linking the filed documents in the D.C. v Heller case. D.C. is the "Petitioner". Heller is the good guy, I mean the "Respondent".
Fortunately, Heller has some good company as well. For example, check out the "Retired Military Officers" amicus brief.
Know your enemies. Know your friends.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
No Excuse For Self-Defense?
5 comments:
We reserve the right to delete comments, but the failure to delete any particular comment should not be interpreted as an endorsement thereof.
In general, we expect comments to be relevant to the story, or to a prior comment that is relevant; and we expect some minimal level of civility. Defining that line is inherently subjective, so try to stay clear of insulting remarks. If you respond to a comment that is later deleted, we may take your response with it. Deleting your comment isn't a personal knock on you, so don't take it as such.
We allow a variety of ways for commenters to identify themselves; those who choose not to do so should take extra care. Absent any prior context in which they may be understood, ironic comments may be misinterpreted. Once you've earned a reputation for contributing to a conversation, we are likely to be more tolerant in those gray areas, as we'll understand where you're coming from.
The wording of the original Constitution, and all amendments prior to the 12th, used the word "right" to refer to the moral authority that an individual citizen has to his own life, liberty, and property.
ReplyDeleteThe 12th represents the first use of "right" to describe what is more accurately called a "power": the authority of the House of Representatives to choose a President from the top three vote-getters when no one receives a majority of the Electors' votes. Its language is echoed in the 20th
I contend that the so-called "right to vote" mentioned in Amendments 14, 15, 19, 24, and 26 is another such misnomer, because it is the exercise, not of individual liberty, but of government power.
The argument that the Second Amendment protects only the use of firearms by the National Guard as a "right" would be absurd on its face, were it not for such conflations. The use of firearms by people acting under orders from government officials is as clear an exercise of power as there can be. That authority is already present in the explicit language of the original text establishing the lines of authority over Militias, Armies, and a Navy. There is no need for any additional language to protect that authority.
The Second Amendment was submitted by Congress to the States for ratification along with eleven other Articles of Amendment, so it is reasonable to assume that the words used in any of them have the same meaning in each of the twelve.
The First Amendment refers to "the right of the people peaceably to assemble...."
The Fourth discusses "The right of the people to be secure in their persons...."
The Sixth covers "the right to a speedy and public trial" by jury in criminal cases, and the Seventh reiterates "the right of trial by jury" in civil disputes.
The Ninth says something remarkable: [emphasis mine] "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This language indicates that the members of Congress who passed these twelve Articles and submitted them to the States not only thought of "rights" as adhering to individual citizens; they also made it clear that those rights inhere in those citizens, coming as the Declaration states, from a higher power than government. By contrast, the other "forgotten amendment", the Tenth, refers to powers of the various levels of government, including the United States, the several States, and the people themselves.
Anyone who reads the Bill of Rights as an atomic whole must conclude that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is another individual right, and that the power of the Militia to be armed for the common defense is in addition to the individual right.
I've made this point more times than I can count. To understand the meaning of the 2nd Amendment fully, you have to understand what the words used in it meant to the men who wrote it. In late 18th-Century parlance, "militia" referred to the entire free male population between the ages of 16 and 55 (approximately, according to Thomas Jefferson). "Well-regulated" meant trained in and experienced in the use of whatever was being referred to. So a "well-regulated militia" meant a male population familiar with and comfortable with the use of firearms, not a government-controlled military force.
ReplyDeleteIt's been stated elsewhere, but I believe that there are two different types of people who want to deny the 2A as being an individual Right.
ReplyDeleteOne group is the one that has bought into the pacifistic "property is not worth fighting over" mentality, and does not see that by allowing someone to violate your property, or even your person, just rewards their bad behavior.
The other group tends to be people in some form of power, and have a vested interest in keeping that power. Not only do they see guns as being a threat to their power and control, they see criminals as a fear tool, allowing them to push through more and ever more intrusive regulations, monitoring, and restrictions to, "address the problem" of crime and violence. These people need to be defeated whenever they raise their ugly heads.
I agree with Wayne, but there are more types of "deconstitutionists" than Two. There is an underlying fear alot of people have having to do with their own rights. I contend that they fear their own rights; afterall Owning anything, especially a right, infers an Obligation to at some point defend them, or at least expose yourself in their defense. That means danger, or work, or scorn. These are the most despicable (and anonymous) citizens we have. It is easy to show such a mind set as consistent with nannyism and socialism. It is also an insidious foe, Because it is anonymous and "helpless". Comment?
ReplyDeleteClearly, the Militia basis that most 2nd dissenters use is blatantly false, as Doug has just written.The militia is "construed" by many to mean a "National Guard" obviously the argument is meant to ennable stealing guns from citizens by these maniacs. There was no "National Guard" and Doug's statements are so patently true, a dissent is laughable. But remember, the arguments for gun theft by government don't have to be true, the opponents of our God given right don't care one bit how the arms are taken, just that they are.
ReplyDelete