Thursday, March 26, 2009

Second Amendment - Social Engineering from the White House?

So - Instinct over @ Life in 3D dropped me an email this morning, pointing out an odd bit that he found on the White House website.

Just so that there’s no confusion or question, I’ve left the URL in place – this really is the WH:

Fine – good – the White House website has a section on the Constitution… but here’s the odd bit:

Um,… I’m sorry… “GIVES”?

The Second Amendment “GIVES” citizens the “right to bear arms”?

Nnooo… Let’s take a look at the Second Amendment as it’s actually written:

One of the finest and most straight-forward pieces of legislation in the history of our country, the Second Amendment clearly acknowledges the RIGHT of the American Citizen “to keep and bear arms” as pre-existing – inalienable enough to require no law or writ to “allow” it in the first place – a RIGHT so basic to the citizenry that the only mention of it necessary is that inherent in the explicit statement that it “shall not be infringed.”

Now, my brother (younger brother – but such wisdom) keeps telling me that we should always assume stupidity before actual malfeasance in matters like this...

...but it’s the White House website.

You’d think that they MUST have access to a lawyer there – maybe even one possessing a passing familiarity with the United States Constitution.

…then again, given how a couple of my other posts have turned out lately, maybe they don’t.

And now that I’m done ‘assuming stupidity’...

...maybe they do, and this is a small attempt to 'repeat a lie often enough'.

What do you think?

- MuscleDaddy


  1. I think they are going to revise history to the point that the Constitution never existed in the first place. I'm thinking, because I'm feeling pretty sassy right now, that later on tonight, after I get home from my Pilates class, I'm going to send those fuckers and email about their little faux pas. Maybe I'll send them the actual document, because you know, maybe they think no one knows about it anymore. What a bunch of dickheads.

  2. Either they are dangerously underhanded in this administration, or dangerously stupid. They keep giving plenty of clear-cut evidence of both - and I suppose the two are not mutually exclusive. What remains certain is that they are dangerous either deliberately or by negligence or both. I'm not even sure which of the three options is the scariest...

  3. I saw the same thing and had exactly the same reaction. Look down a bit lower...

    The Ninth Amendment states that the list of rights enumerated in the Constitution is not exhaustive, and that the people retain all rights not enumerated.
    Not a bad restatement of the original:
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    but... (emphasis mine)
    The Tenth Amendment assigns all powers not delegated to the United States, or prohibited to the states, to either the states or to the people.

    The original wording is a bit different:
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Just as there's a difference between the 2nd "giving" a right and recognizing an existing right and declaring that it shall not be infringed, there is a world of difference between "assigning" powers and "reserving" those powers.

    You reserve something you already have, like "the right to refuse service"; it isn't "assigned" to you by someone else (who is free to not assign it to you).

    Dammit, words mean things, and several of these restatements of the Bill of Rights manage to use words that don't mean quite the same thing as the original. How long will it be until people think the version is real, like they think Sarah Palin (rather than Tina Fey) said "I can see Russia from my house!"?

    This is how you boil a frog.

  4. Well, as I said on my post, the first thing to do is to redefine what the constitution means. The First amendment says nothing about separation of church and state, but the left repeated it so often that now many people think that is what it means.

    Now they are off on the second amendment. Redefine it so that it is the government GRANTING us something instead of preventing them from taking it away.

  5. In this case, I don't think its NEW malice, liberals have the exact opposite understanding of most of the constitution. If rights come from our creator, they they dont come from government. Thus to a liberal ALL rights must come from government. They do the same thing with positive "right to education and healthcare" as opposed to negative rights from censorship and disarmament. Its stems from their clever parsing of amendments...

    We see it as "In order to ensure A" (a militia), we must protect B (right to bear arms), similarly, we put up with gangster rap to protect political speech. They see it as govt gives a for b, so if govt can do whatever it wants to a because it still controls b


  6. I think more disturbing is the interpretation listed if you follow the link from to the constitution. I've copied and pasted the text here

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Whether this provision protects the individual's right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia is strongly debated.

    I thought this was settled by the Supreme Court in the DC case. Color me shocked.

  7. You're right John, it was settled - but a Supreme Court decision lacks sufficient basis in reality for the statist left to pay any attention... other than to take another opportunity to undermine individual rights that is...

  8. Obama was allegedly a Constitutional law professor.

    He knows exactly what he's doing.

  9. Yes, Obama knows what he is doing and unless America wakes up real soon he is going to succeed. Also maybe a Constitution Test should be a requirement to pass for being a president.

  10. Yikes, I can't believe you are getting upset about this. Actually, the constitution does give rights, not in the sense of handing out cotton candy, but in the sense of assigning what is permissible or not. Come on guys! People say it this sort of way all the time. It's not a conspiracy.

  11. Anon Said Yikes, I can't believe you are getting upset about this. Actually, the constitution does give rights...

    No the Constitution does not "give" rights to PROTECTS the INALIENABLE RIGHTS, or absolute rights of individuals and so did the courts.

    "The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable." Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356.

    "By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect." People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370


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.