-
Cloudy With a Chance of Weapons and Gold
February 6, 2012 | 48 comments
-
America’s Virginian
April 20, 2011 | 28 comments
-
Poured Concrete for the Soul
February 4, 2011 | 47 comments
-
Blown Away
September 16, 2009 | 37 comments
-
What’s the Big Deal About Intelligent Design?
December 22, 2005 | 1 comment
Feature
A Splendid, Precarious Victory
The Supreme Court has incorporated the Second Amendment. But the party of government power will continue its efforts to disarm the American people.
There is now a class of people in this country who at every turn seek to increase the power of government at the expense of the people’s freedom, who in practice have largely inverted the meaning of the Constitution, who hold in contempt the beliefs on which this country was founded and prospered, and who aim to break and retrain American civil society, with themselves in the saddle.
They have rampaged nearly unchecked since the 2008 elections.
It is a thing of beauty, then, when these forces are thrashed and an emphatic victory is won for constitutionalism and the rights of a free and independent people. The case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, decided by the Supreme Court at the end of June, is such a victory.
In McDonald, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms not only against usurpations by the federal government, but also against infringement by states and localities. Disarming the American people is, of course, a central goal of the party of boundless government power. An armed people, determined to retain their guns in private hands, is a forbidding obstacle to oppressive government. Although this court decision will make it harder for them to disarm us, opponents of our constitutional freedoms will relentlessly continue their efforts to choke off, ban, and criminalize gun ownership.
Throughout most of the history of the republic, the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms was considered clear and uncontroversial. We were free American citizens; of course we had the right to own rifles, pistols, and shotguns; and the Constitution confirmed that right.
Then an odd thing happened. Principally in the latter third of the 20th century, Congress and many states and cities began imposing increasingly stringent regulation on firearms ownership and use. Confronted by such restrictions, and even by outright gun bans, the courts proved to be of surprisingly little use in protecting the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.
There were two main devices by which the courts undermined the Second Amendment’s straightforward command that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” First, the courts sometimes held that the right protected by the Second Amendment was not a right of individuals to own and use firearms. Instead, these courts held it to be an amorphous “collective” right relating to militia service — which in practice meant no right at all. Second, some courts held that the Second Amendment applied only to bar infringements of gun rights by the federal government, and did not prevent similar infringements by states and cities. Thus, the Second Amendment was watered down by many courts to afford little or no protection for gun ownership.
The United States Supreme Court, however, had never squarely addressed either of these theories in recent times. The Supreme Court’s decision in the McDonald case and its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, together have created a revolution in Second Amendment law. Heller involved a challenge to the nearly total ban on handguns imposed by the District of Columbia in the mid-1970s. The District argued that its ban could not be challenged by a private citizen who wanted to own a handgun, because the Second Amendment embraced only a collective right related to militia service. The Supreme Court disagreed, and held for the first time in its history that individuals have a Second Amendment right to own handguns in their homes for purposes of defense.
Because the District of Columbia is a federal enclave, Heller necessarily did not address whether this individual Second Amendment right protects against infringements by states, counties, and municipalities. That’s where the McDonald case comes in.
A LITTLE LEGAL BACKGROUND is necessary to understand the arguments in that case. As originally ratified, the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, limited only the powers of the federal government. After the Civil War, however, the 14th Amendment was adopted. Among other things, that amendment prohibited the states from abridging the “privileges or immunities” of citizens of the United States. In a separate clause, it also denied to states the power to deprive any person of “life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
But what rights, exactly, did these two clauses in the 14th Amendment protect against state invasion? In a series of cases called The Slaughter-House Cases, decided in 1873, the Supreme Court essentially turned the privileges or immunities clause into a dead letter. Beginning in the late 19th century, however, the Court began to examine whether certain provisions of the Bill of Rights should be considered to be “incorporated” into the 14th Amendment’s due process clause, and thus become enforceable against states and localities. By the 1960s, the Court had held that nearly all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights were incorporated by the due process clause.
But there was one conspicuous exception: the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms.
McDonald challenged the almost complete ban on handgun ownership and possession that was imposed by the city of Chicago in 1982. Actually, three lawsuits were filed: one by plaintiff Otis McDonald, the Second Amendment Foundation, and several other plaintiffs against the City of Chicago; and two suits by the National Rifle Association and several private individuals against the City of Chicago and the Village of Oak Park. The trial court entered judgment against the plaintiffs in all cases on grounds that the Second Amendment was not incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus did not apply to the municipal defendants. The federal court of appeals consolidated the cases, and upheld the trial court’s action on similar grounds.
The Supreme Court initially granted review only in the McDonald case, but the NRA parties also appeared and filed briefs on the merits as respondents in support of petitioners. Oral argument time for the pro-gun parties was divided between the two groups. The McDonald parties’ main argument was certainly audacious: that the Slaughter-House Cases ought to be overruled, and that the Second Amendment should be applied to states and cities under the long-defunct privileges or immunities clause. The NRA parties, by contrast, concentrated on urging the Court to extend incorporation to the Second Amendment under its well-established due process jurisprudence.
During oral argument, counsel for the McDonald parties ran into immediate trouble. About a minute into his presentation, he was interrupted by Chief Justice Roberts, who noted that the privileges or immunities argument was “contrary to the Slaughter-House Cases, which have been the law for 140 years….” Three other justices chimed in right away, with Justice Scalia asking the attorney why he would rely on the privileges or immunities clause “unless you’re bucking for [a] place on some law school faculty—.”
Letter to the Editor View all comments (55) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Dan Peterson
More Articles From Feature
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/30/a-splendid-precarious-victory
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ret. Marine| 9.30.10 @ 7:08AM
I have a plaque in my home which states, " The day we lose the second Amendment IS THE DAY The Second Revolution Begins." I am a strong supporter of my rights which the States and the Federal government has no claim. I am a free citizen of a State. I am a God fearing Christian and as the pretender-n-thief, obamas Bin Ly'n states, one of those bitter clinger to my religion and my guns.
The only way way I can only defend myself, my family, and my Country is through the power of force, that force is a gun under the control of a Patriot who believes in gun control, I use both hands and hit what I aim at. I am like others who carries one a daily basis, you will not deter me, you will not have your way with me and you will become a statistic if ever you have the notion, just because I walk with a cane and look harmless that I will back off of your threats because you are holding a weapon of any sort.
As stupid as this may sound, I keep asking what part of "shall not be infringed" do these idiots not understand. I guess some in this world are intelligent enough to understand the sign at my property lines. Warning, private property, violators will be shot, survivors will be shot again.
The concern of this citizen is we have a Supreme Court of the United States with individuals who believe they somehow have a right to dismantle my rights just because there are more of them who would disagree with my rights vrs. those who understand my rights. Evil never sleeps. Semper Fi.
Peter| 10.1.10 @ 10:05AM
Let's just hope one of the 5 American justices do not vacate under Osama's watch.
SFC Simmons, US Army, Retired| 10.1.10 @ 10:39PM
Amen, Brother!
Petronius| 9.30.10 @ 7:32AM
I'm surprised Stevens, Bryer, and Darth Bader didn't quote their Idol, Chairman Mao.
Jim O'Brien| 9.30.10 @ 7:47AM
Everyone who is eligible should buy a gun and learn how to use it. If you already own a gun, buy another and more ammunition. The sales figures alone will send a clear message to the Demo-Socialists and other crooks.
" ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ..." There is nothing ambiguous about that statement in the Second Amendment. And the Second Amendment is not somehow inferior to the First, or # 3 thru 27.
Maxwell| 9.30.10 @ 8:41AM
One of the states that does not believe in the Second Amendment is New Jersey. The hoops one has to jump through to purchase a hand gun is just amazing. Forget CCW and a suppressor, you are not even allowed to have that thought in your head, the thought police will come to arrest you.
I know I will be safe because Chris Christie is for reasonable gun control. As a life member of the NRA that gives me that warm feeling inside, NOT!
Jim| 9.30.10 @ 2:33PM
You might like Florida, where it is easy to buy a gun and get a concealed carry license if you want one. Florida also has the "castle" rule, whereby if someone breaks into your house you can shoot the crook without fear of prosecution. There are some common sense rules that go with it, such as: if someone walks into your garage and starts to run away with a shovel, deadly force is not justified. Or, if someone is running away from your house and no longer a threat to your person, it's not a good idea to start spraying bullets into the street, etc. Florida law assumes people have brains.
BTW, for those who think guns are dangerous, so is a car driven by an incompetent, drunk, criminal, sick person, etc. Hey, let's ban all cars!
Texas Mom 2010| 9.30.10 @ 2:42PM
Ditto for Texas except we can also defend our neighbors property. I once had a state trooper tell me to 'keep shooting till they stop moving' and just remember to tell the police when they arrive that I was in fear for my life, which would be easy as I am handicapped but can shot straight enough with a shotgun. If someone has broken into my home I am sure they do not wish me well, duh!
bob alou| 9.30.10 @ 10:10AM
A fine article. There is no such thing as "reasonable" when it comes to gun control. You can be sure that registration remains at the top of the list, regardless of what ever other restrictions are suggested, simply because it indicates who has firearms and where they are. I have made it clear to my family that I will never register my firearms and you should do the same. Molon labe.
Neanderthal| 9.30.10 @ 10:51AM
Has there ever been a documented instance where strict gun control laws have reduced gun crime? Quite apart from the unconstitutionality of such laws, how do proponents get away with arguing the efficacy of something that is so easily measured? Just askin'.
Albert| 9.30.10 @ 12:17PM
"...how do proponents get away with arguing the efficacy of something that is so easily measured?" The answer to your question is: they lie. Gun control does not even address the issue of crime. Gun control is a tool of tyrants. The purpose of gun control is the complete disarming of free citizens, thus making them unfree and the helpless subjects of an imperial government. Gun control is about power for government, pure and simple.
TSgt B| 9.30.10 @ 11:31AM
To the 4 Stooges on the Supreme Court:
As a retired member of the U. S. Air Force, I remember, and consider myself to still be bound by, my Oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic". I consider you to be traitors, and in violation of your similar Oaths. You enjoy 24/7, taxpayer funded, personal protection while denying the ability of self defense to other American citizens. By taking this course, you continue down the road to irrelevancy. I will DEFEND MY RIGHTS, MY FAMILY, MY LOVED ONES, MY CONSTITUTION, AND MY COUNTRY. Take my guns? Not hardly, and certainly not without a fight, which you won't win. All I demand is that you leave me alone; step on my toes, I'll respond accordingly. MOLOM LABE (translated for the stupid and ignorant: COME AND GET THEM).
Bruce A. Beatty
Technical Sergeant, USAF (Retired)
Oath Keeper
3%er
Albert| 9.30.10 @ 12:25PM
I am all for impeaching and removing from office Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan (thank God John Paul Stevens is gone.) These goons have demonstrated beyond any doubt at all that they disdain the Supreme Law of the Land and they openly and brazenly use the power of their office to violate that Law and the rights of free citizens. They are illegitimate and they deserve no respect.
marcel duranleau| 9.30.10 @ 1:08PM
Warning to USA. Why UN larges convoys trucks in USA? Are you ready for UN troops in our soil?Beware of communist Hillary Clinton is doing right now with UN try to get ours guns away.
Hillary and Bill are looking to run the world?
Check out: oathkeepers.org
CONCENTRATIONS CAMPS?
Check out: youtubefemacamp
Muslim kenyan marxist professor Obama next
Hitler? Never trust a marxist professor.
ww.obamacrimes.com/
Peter| 10.1.10 @ 10:10AM
Foreign troops on American soil ordered by the commander in chief is grounds for charges of sedition and treason.
Peter| 10.1.10 @ 10:08AM
Bruce, what would happen if you and the rest of the BEST MILITARY IN THE WORLD were ordered to disarm the LAW ABIDING AMERICAN public ?
Scary just thinking about it, but I can imagine it would be very ugly. It would make the first civil war look like a cap gun fight.
Booger| 9.30.10 @ 11:54AM
There is no quicker way to lose a right than to fail to exercise. Hence my brand-spanking new Kahr TP45 (with all due apologies to you 1911 purists out there) which performs extraordinarily well at the range and rides VERY comfortably with an Uncle Mike's size 15 IWB.
Cordially,
Booger
MikeN| 9.30.10 @ 12:15PM
How do you reconcile the use of the Privileges and Immunities clause, with Bork's chapter in Tempting of America, that the clause is a dead letter that can never be used?
Kevin Gutzman | 9.30.10 @ 12:49PM
Incorporation of the Second Amendment is not a "splendid victory" if you believe in constitutionalism. The Incorporation Doctrine was invented by mid-20th-century liberals to give federal judges veto power over all laws that the Left dislikes. They used the Incorporation Doctrine to kick prayer out of public schools, strike down state laws against flag burning, keep states from executing people who rape children, make city governments remove crosses from city seals, etc. It isn't based on history, but on raw power.
And now, "conservatives" argue for using the same tactic to strike down gun control ordinances. These "conservatives" are the mirror image of leftists, in that given control over the federal judiciary, they use that control to foist their favored policies off upon us.
All of these questions were reserved to the states for their decision by the Tenth Amendment. Shame on anyone who argues otherwise.
Vern Crisler| 9.30.10 @ 1:17PM
I agree with Kevin. The incorporation doctrine is a vehicle for tyranny. If interested see:
http://vernerable.wordpress.co.....rporation/
In addition, the Slaughterhouse cases make perfectly good sense if you don't adopt a judicial activist interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Recall that the privileges & immunites clause comes from the Articles, not from the Bill of Rights.
Shame on conservatives for adopting judicial activist assumptions.
Cylar| 10.1.10 @ 5:02AM
+++"And now, "conservatives" argue for using the same tactic to strike down gun control ordinances. These "conservatives" are the mirror image of leftists..."+++ No. The Constitution forbids the infringement of certain rights by state governments, just as it forbids them from making treaties, coining money, or revoking habeas corpus. Heller vs DC (2008) addressed this issue at the federal level, McDonald vs Chicago (2010) did so at the state level. All these cases did was push government-imposed "gun control" into the rubbish bin where it belongs. Don't dare accuse conservatives of hypocrisy here; we simply are defending our God-given rights when cheering this verdict.
Patriot58| 9.30.10 @ 1:16PM
"These "conservatives" are the mirror image of leftists, in that given control over the federal judiciary, they use that control to foist their favored policies off upon us.
All of these questions were reserved to the states for their decision by the Tenth Amendment. Shame on anyone who argues otherwise."
I agree, but we have to fight this fight on their terms, because they are in control. Logically, the Constitution, through the 2nd Ammendment, should protect our rights. But since the liberal/progressives have now seized control of the process, we have to fight the fight on their terms. I don't like it, but to do otherwise means we ultimately lose.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.30.10 @ 1:19PM
Men,
buy your wife two long guns... A .22 with spare clips.....and a 4-10 pump shotgun.
Refuse to register any firearm after purchase registration. Get a reciept of sale to...someone.
My Japanese boss years and years ago liked to quote his father:
"We can never invade America. There is an armed American behind every blade of grass."
Maxwell| 9.30.10 @ 2:08PM
Old, my wife prefers my Thunder Ranch and a Bushmaster to my S&W Model 41 and Cooper 57. She does have good taste.
Texas Mom 2010| 9.30.10 @ 2:47PM
Or buy guns from friends that they inherited after someone has died. Puts you another degree away from original purchase... Prefer to be as far away from a list of gun owners as possible after witnessing what happened after Katrina.
Bill| 9.30.10 @ 5:26PM
What firearms? I don't own any firearms, I promise you.
Turnditch| 9.30.10 @ 2:05PM
A powerful video of the real meaning of the Second Amendment:
http://video.google.com/videop.....9675&p r=goog-sl
The only negative thing in this video is the smirking from the grand elitist himself - Chuck Schumer...
Alan Brooks| 9.30.10 @ 4:00PM
Guns are very important: how could the Union have killed so many Confederates from 1861- '65 without them?
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will be free"
Albert| 9.30.10 @ 4:16PM
Can you please tell me the connection between the right of the People to keep and bear arms, and sending in a regular army to stop secession? The issue here is not whether Lincoln should have ended secession by force of arms (he shouldn't have), but rather whether we as free citizens have a right to keep our own firearms (we do). Your comment is as mindless as it is irrelevant.
Alan Brooks| 9.30.10 @ 6:01PM
"The issue here is not whether Lincoln should have ended secession by force of arms (he shouldn't have)
That is YOUR opinion, mine is that Confederates ought to have been treated as we treat jihadists: terminated with extreme prejudice. And I do advocate full gun rights; if another Confederacy is ever formed, I want a powerful firearm loaded with hollow point and cyanide-tipped bullets-- to kill Confederates with.
Alan Brooks| 9.30.10 @ 6:34PM
In case you don't get the inner meaning of the above, the following quote expresses why full gun rights are so important:
"on January 13, 1972, Arthur Bremer went into the Casanova Gun Shop at 1601 West Greenfield Avenue in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and for $90 bought a snub-nosed .38-calibre revolver."
Albert| 9.30.10 @ 7:03PM
So, you want "full gun rights" to practice political assassination?
Albert| 10.2.10 @ 11:18AM
And, would you extend the same courtesy to Mr. Booth?
Albert| 9.30.10 @ 7:00PM
You are truly a sick individual. At no time did the Confederacy ever threaten to overthrow the US government. The South wanted to secede from the Union, just as the Founders wanted to secede from the Crown. To compare this with the world-domination view of Islamic jihadists is just plum crazy.
Albert| 9.30.10 @ 7:25PM
By the way, you still did not explain the connection between sending in a regular army and the right of citizens to be freely armed. One has nothing to do with the other.
Bill| 9.30.10 @ 5:25PM
The problem is not with the second part of the language. The problem is with the first part, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..."
Albert| 9.30.10 @ 5:44PM
There really is no problem with this part either. Simply put, the 2nd Amendment is not a conditional sentence. That is, the second part is not conditioned upon the first part. It does not say "if you are a member of an organized, government recognized and approved militia, then you have a right to keep and bear arms." The first clause is a preamble, a reason for the second clause, and it is also not a complete sentence. But the second clause IS a complete sentence that stands on its own. There really is no controversy over proper and legitimate interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The arguments against an individual right are artificial, contrived, and phony. They have no basis in fact, law, or history. Such arguments exist solely as a means to illegally disarm private citizens, and convince people that what is clearly illegal, is to be understood as "legal." Governments want to disarm private citizens in open violation of the Supreme Law of the Land, and it is up to us to stop them, to defend our rights. Just as an aside, one should note that the very same people who want to disarm innocent citizens, also want to release convicted criminals into our neighborhoods.
George S| 9.30.10 @ 9:08PM
"A well-regulated Militia[,]" is no more of a preamble or introduction to the Second Amendment than "The right of the people to be secure in their persons[,]" is to the Fourth. What it does is the define the rights in their context.
The 4th cannot simply state, for example, that "Search Warrants shall only be issued upon probable cause" because if the government gets to define a cause as 'probable', they will eventually render the protections moot. That's why the language is written to establish that the person and his property are what is protected -- not the "cause".
Same thing with the SA. A well regulated militia is one that works, or functions, as intended. What is the function? To protect the free state by being the last line in the defense of freedom from the tyrant.
How can a militia protect freedom without the deadly force of a firearm? It cannot, therefore it cannot function and therefore it's not well regulated at all (is it?). So the first words establish the right of the people to abolish their government if it turns against them and recognizes that it is not practicable without the People keeping and bearing arms.
Thomas Jefferson would never have written the Declaration of Independence if the Crown had confiscated all guns. Fidel Castro understood that very well, which is why the first thing he did when he got to the ousted Batista's office is go straight for the list of all registered gun owners that Batista created a couple of years prior. The rest is Che.
Concentrate on History. Not English.
azcIII| 10.1.10 @ 4:14AM
The word "State" is capitalized in the original text of the 2A. Because the BoR was insisted on by the STATES, and the Founders capitalized important words/proper nouns, I read that to mean they are not talking about the nation as a whole. They are talking about the several States that composed the Union. Reading the writings and debate records of the ratification of the BoR supports this. At the time, there was no "United States" only several sovereign states interested in forming a voluntary union for the purpose of trade and defense of liberties.
It is also a fact that the word "Militia" did not mean a formal standing army in the 18th century; it meant all able-bodied men. The Founders were mostly against maintaining a standing army, viewing it as a threat to the liberties of the people. Instead, they opted for state militias that were called up in defense of the nation as needed. Most states today (44 or 46 of them, I think) have a formal militia clause in their constitutions. In Arizona, all men between the ages of 18-45 are members of the state militia.
Dirty little secrets the gun-grabbing tyrant wanna-bes desperately want everyone to forget.
Cylar| 10.1.10 @ 5:04AM
"Well regulated" means "disciplined." It doesn't mean "covered by lots of laws." This is precisely where liberals run amok and misunderstand the Founders' intent - they think this part of the statement means the government may do whatever it likes in the area of gun control. They're wrong. http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
Albert| 10.1.10 @ 12:16PM
Excellent point. It is hard to get this across to the gun control nuts. "Regulated" in this sense is the same usage as "regular army". Furthermore, a militia is by definition armed citizens banding together. Without a freely armed citizenry, there can be no militia.
Peter| 10.1.10 @ 10:18AM
I take it as the individual has the right to be armed in order to be able to form a militia when the time comes due, like what is on the books in Vermont. Although Vermont is a liberal state, it is a true liberal state that recognizes the importance of the citizens being armed in order to be available at a moments notice to serve and protect. The brand of liberalism in CA, NY and NJ is "Socialist Progressive-ism ", not to be confused with true liberalism.
2nd fundamentalist| 9.30.10 @ 6:19PM
In both McDonald vs Chicago and D.C. vs Heller, we averted a civil war by 1 vote. What the liberals don't realize is that war will break out if they ever decide to confiscate our weapons.
Cylar| 10.1.10 @ 5:07AM
It is downright frightening that FOUR justices of the SCOTUS tried to take away one of the most fundamental God-given rights. Had Anthony Kennedy's bowels been in a different state that day, we would currently be in terror of an all-out ban on guns.
Osamas Pajamas| 10.1.10 @ 12:08AM
The best reason to have guns and other weapons and ammo is precisely because the Democrats and a few fake Republicans "don't want you to have them." Not coincidentally, these are the same people who aim to overthrow freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion in the USA. These bloodsucking tax-eating censors prefer to plunder disarmed victims. I prefer that we overthrow and destroy these dictators. I do believe in gun control. Disarm the government. Arm the people. And destroy the Democrats and all the other leftists.
Alamitos Bay| 10.1.10 @ 12:11AM
SAM ADAMS IS MORE THAN JUST A GREAT YANKEE BEER!
TAX HATER SAMUEL ADAMS, ON A ROLL AND ARMED TO THE TEETH, AUGUST, 1776……
"You darkeners of counsel, who would make the property, lives and religion of millions depend on the evasive interpretations of musty parchments; who would send us to antiquated charters of uncertain and contradictory meaning, to prove that the present generation are not bound to be victims to cruel and unforgiving despotism, tell us whether our pious and generous ancestors bequeathed to us the miserable privilege of having the rewards of our honesty, industry, the fruits of those fields which they purchased and bled for, wrested from us at the will of men over whom we have no check.
"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, and supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom – go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
“Courage, then, my countrymen, our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty. Dismissing, therefore, the justice of our cause, as incontestable, the only question is, What is best for us to pursue in our present circumstances?”
“It does not take a majority to prevail….but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”
“The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
Albert| 10.1.10 @ 12:22PM
Excellent quote! And reight on target. This single statement put the lie to Stephen Breyer's contention that there never has been a tradition of arms in the colonies or the United States. Stephen Breyer, Supreme Court Justice, is a bald faced liar, a usurper, a violator of the Law, and a tyrant. Stephen Breyer is dirt.
Osamas Pajamas| 10.1.10 @ 12:17AM
Suppose that the Constitution authorized slavery. Would we be obliged to honor ad obey that atrocity --- and to wait until a constitutional convention could be convened to get rid of it, possibly man decades later? Of course not. The correct and moral thing would be to take up our guns and free the slaves and kill the slavemasters wherever possible. They are not subject to reeducation for they know already that they and their slavemastery are evil. Let us now think of how these same ideas to America's # 1 victim class --- the privately-employed tax slaves --- whom the Democrats and some fake Republicans wish to disarm --- and whom these dicators hold in thrall to America's #1 terrorist group --- the IRS which Barak Hushpuppy OhBummer intends to expand by 16,000 more "agents."
Cylar| 10.1.10 @ 5:09AM
This question is precisely why the Civil War was fought - the North believed that slavery could be abolished by fiat; the South believed that individual states should have the right to make this determination themselves. (It is revisionist history to state that the South demanded legal slavery everywhere.) I am beginning to think everything I read or was taught about the war while in grade school, was a complete lie.
Osamas Pajamas| 10.1.10 @ 12:19AM
Suppose that the Constitution authorized slavery. Would we be obliged to honor and to obey that atrocity --- and to wait until a constitutional convention could be convened to get rid of it, possibly many decades later? Of course not. The correct and moral thing would be to take up our guns and free the slaves and kill the slavemasters wherever possible. They are not subject to reeducation for they know already that they and their slavemastery are evil. Let us now think of how these same ideas apply to America's # 1 victim class --- the privately-employed tax slaves --- whom the Democrats and some fake Republicans wish to disarm --- and whom these dictators hold in thrall to America's #1 terrorist group --- the IRS --- which Barak Hushpuppy OhBummer intends to expand by 16,000 more "agents."
Yosemeti Sam| 10.1.10 @ 3:03AM
Now I ask you my fellow Americans - about Amendment II of the Constitution of the United States of America:
The wording is - " 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".
Now, where would the "Arms" - conveniently- be located?
In an irregular radius-distant armory? And who would hold its' keys?
Or, in an expeditiously ready-access-point - within a colonists' home.
Which optimum scenario of accessibilty of defensive weapons to combat Democrat-like Leftist threats would be - wise?
As in the minds of the ' Founding Fathers' where speed of access to security resistance weaponry - would be of considered essence?
Cylar| 10.1.10 @ 5:11AM
There you go being logical again. We can't have that. Not when the Left wants to impose "common sense, reasonable gun control" on us to stop violent crime. You'd think that we'd all learned back during Prohibition - simply passing laws banning something, doesn't banish it from the face of the Earth.
Mike Rogers| 10.1.10 @ 4:08PM
The Second Amendment says the government cannot take your guns, period. Anyone breaking into my home for the purpose of discovering and taking any of my property, including guns, will have to face a gun. If we do not stand up for ourselves the first time such a trick is tried, they can round any of us up at any time, for any reason - the prevention of such tyranny was the entire reason for the bill of rights, with the 2nd as its teeth.
Ruth Vader Ginsburg| 10.3.10 @ 12:36AM
Politicians prefer unarmed peasants. Screw them. November. Kick their liberal asses out of office.
K Myers| 10.4.10 @ 11:21PM
Here's a quote for you:
This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police force more efficient,and the world will follow our lead into the future. Adolf Hitler 1935