Daily Beast: “You Know, The 2nd Amendment Is Really About Gun Control”

Progressives are searching far and wide to make a case to disarm the American public and leave guns only in the hands of Government. Adam Winkler’s whole view is based on quoting Antonin Scalia

(Daily Beast) In 2008 the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment did secure the right of law-abiding, responsible adults to have handguns in their homes for protection. Yet the court went out of its way to acknowledge that most forms of gun regulation remain constitutionally permissible. “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” Justice Antonin Scalia, explained. In a sentence the NRA and many gun-rights extremists apparently missed, Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Let’s say that again: Justice Scalia, hero of the most intransigent conservatives in the country, stated unequivocally that restrictions of Second Amendment rights are constitutional.

I think most of us can agree that The People do not really need to carry machine guns, .50cal sniper rifles, bazookas, and background checks should be performed to attempt to keep guns out of the hands of people with the serious potential for violence. Of course, what Liberals want is everyone (else) disarmed. They want guns banned period.

Indeed, Scalia’s opinion in Heller warned that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt” on a wide range of gun laws, including bars on felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns, restrictions on guns in “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” or laws “imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” These categories capture the vast majority of gun laws in America.

Well, now, that doesn’t seem like he is saying there should be draconian restrictions on gun ownership. And, I think we can see that he’s wrong when it comes to “gun free zones”, also know as places that murderous people can go and kill people without fear of someone firing back.

Here’s where it gets really funny

Gun advocates are right that this language was not designed to limit the right to people serving in military organizations like the National Guard; the framers repeatedly said the “militia” was composed of we the people, ordinary citizens with our own guns. Yet it’s also clear that the framers thought that the people who make up the militia should be “well regulated”—trained, disciplined, and properly instructed by the government to use arms effectively, safely, and properly.

Um, no

In a draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Fellow Virginian George Mason addressed the militia question during a debate by saying, “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”

Even John Adams, in countering this benign view of armed militias, defended in passing the right of citizens to use guns for purposes of “private self-defense.”

The Founders and Framers thought very much of private ownership of guns for home and country defense, since they just went through a time where the British government attempted to take guns away.

In other words, the American right to bear arms has always co-existed with gun regulation. The Founding Fathers had gun laws so restrictive that today’s NRA leaders would never support them: broad bans on possession of firearms by people thought to be untrustworthy; militia laws that required people to appear at musters where the government would inspect their guns; safe-storage laws that made armed self-defense difficult; and even early forms of gun registration. The founders who wrote the Second Amendment did not think it was a libertarian license for anyone to have any gun anytime and anywhere they wanted.

The people that were untrustworthy were those who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution. The requirement for militia’s was for those who were part of a militia, not everyone. Safe storage laws were for those who lived in areas with high Indian activity, to keep them out of their hands. I’m thinking Adam got his info from this Atlantic article, rather than any history books. The Founding Fathers were not banning guns, nor other arms, such as swords and knives. Let’s wrap this up

Judge Ginsburg understands what the Second Amendment extremists don’t. The Second Amendment, while securing an individual right to have guns for personal protection, is not offended by gun laws designed to make it harder for the most dangerous people to obtain the most dangerous weapons.

Except, the vast majority of laws being proposed currently by Democrats at the state and federal levels, along with their un-washed and un-thinking supporters, are aimed at restricting law abiding citizens, not criminals, which show where their minds are at, which is simply disarmament.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

5 Comments

Comment by gitarcarver
2013-02-18 10:40:47

I think most of us can agree that The People do not really need to carry machine guns, .50cal sniper rifles, bazookas, and background checks should be performed to attempt to keep guns out of the hands of people with the serious potential for violence.

In a perfect world, I would agree with you outright. However, we are not in a perfect world: we are in a world with liberals.

The problem is that liberals and the left will say “let’s compromise on gun issues.” They start out with the idea that what we are compromising is from the position of what you already described – that of “reasonable” gun measures. There has already been a “compromise” but they are back wanting more.

I read an article that described this in the terms of a chocolate cake.

A friend of yours sees a cake on your table and says “I want your cake.” You want to keep your cake. He says “I don’t think it is fair for you to have all that cake and for me to have no cake. Let’s compromise.”

In the spirit of compromise, you agree to give him half the cake.

A few weeks later, he comes back and looks at your half of the cake and says “I don’t think it is fair that you have that half a cake.” You say “but you already have half as well.” He responds with “let’s compromise” and he takes half of your remaining half.

By now you can see where this is going.

By demanding that people compromise on a position where there has already been compromises, there is actually more taken away, but the appearance is that there has been a wonderful, kumbaya “compromise.”

In actuality, there has been a further erosion of rights and property far beyond the original compromise.

I am perfectly willing to compromise on the issue of gun ownership. However when discussions start on what that “compromise” should be, it starts with no concessions being already made. We are back to square one.

I, for one, and not willing to see rights and liberties chipped away at through the idea of repetitive “compromise” because in the end, there is nothing left to compromise on as they have taken it all.

 
Comment by 1389AD
2013-02-18 12:00:40
 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2013-02-18 19:16:54

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” Justice Antonin Scalia, explained.

So, let me get this straight. The rights that the PEOPLE have declared unto themselves and have placed outside the control of the government, can be limited by that government?
That inalienable rights given to us by GOD, can be limited by man?

If GOD gave you the right to have cake, why is it up to man to limit how much cake we have?

Our founders meant people to have easy and guaranteed access to the common weapons of war of the day. If people want machine guns, then that is their right to purchase… if they have the money that is. Bazookas I think can be understood to not be a gun, but a missile and explosive device.

Yet it’s also clear that the framers thought that the people who make up the militia should be “well regulated”—trained, disciplined, and properly instructed

HEH. except that’s not what it means at all.

I like how the liberals are turning this issue: “We know we are banning guns, but hey, look at all those other guns that we are still allowing.”

The militia are everyone. Not those who enlist in government military services.

In fact, I’m starting to believe that any limits upon our natural rights that were declared PRIOR to our constitutional republic can not be abridged.

 
Comment by Mark E
2013-02-18 19:43:42

“I think most of us can agree that The People do not really need to carry machine guns, .50cal sniper rifles, bazookas”

— but only because they are difficult to carry concealed.

 
Comment by William O. B'Livion
2013-02-19 20:14:56

I think most of us can agree that The People do not really need to carry machine guns, .50cal sniper rifles, bazookas,

To get all Clintonian on you that’s really going to depend on your definition of “Carry”, and to a lesser degree on your definition of “machine gun”.

There’s been a few times a folding stock MP5 in a backpack would have made me a much more comfortable driver.

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9199 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE