Reality Check: The very politically incorrect truth about the Second Amendment

[MLeake]

Frank, I understand the need for PR, and for convincing Suzy Soccermom.

However, I have no use for revisionist history.

The founders wanted the people to be able to stand up to tyrants; this necessarily required a refusal to allow government to disarm the populace.

Various courts have allowed revisionist history and political leanings to win against what should have been overwhelming arguments. That has left us with very bad case law to overcome.

But just because bad case law was established, and just because Suzy Soccermom may not like it, that is no reason to revise history.

 

[Ghost1958]

Agreed

 

[Frank Ettin]

...However, I have no use for revisionist history.

The founders wanted the people to be able to stand up to tyrants; this necessarily required a refusal to allow government to disarm the populace...

The point still is to further the RKBA. If a particular historical perspective isn't effective to achieve our purposes, then we need to find other approaches to achieving our purposes.

I'm not suggesting that we revise history. But it's entirely possible, and indeed it's the case in this context, that history doesn't necessarily help us.

It might be very interesting as students of the Second Amendment and American history to explore the roots of the Founders' view of the RKBA. But most of the people whose support (or at least neutrality) we must try to win, will find some of that history irrelevant; and attempting to promote the RKBA with those people on the basis of that history will be counterproductive.

By all means, let's not revise history. But also let's not delude ourselves into believing that discoursing on that history will help us achieve our goals.

Telling the story of how the Founders saw the importance of the Second Amendment as assuring the ability of the people to stand up to tyrants, no matter how eloquently you tell that story, will not rally the multitudes to our banner nor will it scatter our enemies.

 

[Ghost1958]

Frank agree with you as a practical matter. However if we point out that if 2A can be legislated or whatever out of existence, then any protection in the constitution can also be similarly done away with, it gets effective.
Non gun folks have other rights they hold as precious as we do 2a. Point out that their favorite sacred cows can also be gored in a different political climate and most will not be as hasty to support the ability of the government or courts to whisk those rights away also is the point some of us are trying to make.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...if we point out that if 2A can be legislated or whatever out of existence,....

Who's point out that the Second Amendment can be legislated out of existence? Indeed our position is, unequivocally, that it can not be.

We have two Supreme Court decisions, Heller and McDonald, confirming that the Second Amendment describes a fundamental, individual right and that the Second Amendment applies against the States as well as the federal government.

We do have to deal with the fact that it is well established law that constitutionally protected rights are subject to limited regulation. That is unavoidable. But with respect to other constitutionally protected rights, regulation must be narrow and will be closely looked at by the courts.

The permissible scope of the regulation of rights protected by the Second Amendment is the subject of considerable, presently ongoing litigation. And our strategy in that litigation has been to find cases presenting an opportunity to try to limit that scope as much as we reasonably can.

It is still likely, however, that some regulation will be sustained by the courts of the rights protected by the Second Amendment. So it's also desirable to attempt to build public support on Second Amendment matters to help promote favorable public policy positions.

 

[Buzzcook]

I remember an argument on an Internet forum at the time of the Columbine shootings.
I was shocked to read that many of the posters on both sides of the argument were ignorant of the revolutionary implications of the 2nd amendment. Some of course grasped the concept as soon as it was pointed out, while others continued to think it was a novel idea.
These were people from many walks of life and of many different ages, and the majority were well educated.

There are lots of reasons why people don't think of the 2nd that way. First of all I would say because the idea is antiquated.
We had a bloody war that was a failure for everybody concerned. While the causus belli was slavery, if there was a constitutional justification for the Civil War it was the 2nd amendment. The 2nd had failed of its promise.

As opposed to the 2nd we have seen citizens making many changes to government by using the 1st amendment , the law, and political organization.
Brown vs the Board of Education was in some ways as important as the Emancipation Proclamation, and it didn't need the use of firearms. In a similar vein it was the sight on TV of people being set upon by dogs and shot with fire hoses that was a good part of bringing about the Civil Rights Act. The political revolutions of 1994 and 2010 were huge sea changes in American politics because of the organization of the Republican party and its supporters.
Just as an aside Thomas Jefferson called the election of 1800 the second American Revolution. He wasn't wrong.

While there was blood shed in some of the above examples, it was mostly done by the oppressive government, not by an armed populace.

There has been a shift of focus from the political/revolutionary to crime when it comes to firearms. Some people argue that can be traced back to advertisements made by Sam Colt.
Be that as it may be, we live in a time where fear of crime is a large part of American life. We are inundated by crime stories in the news and in the entertainment media. Politicians of all stripes preach of the dangers of crime.
Even the gun rights movement is centered around self defense and only gives lip service to revolution.

If both sides of the current debate focus on crime it's little wonder that the 2nd as a curb against government power is forgotten.

Finally the way people think about government has changed, that is if they think about government at all. Too many people depend on government to even think about violent insurrection. By depend I don't mean some X percent, I refer to roads, communications, firemen and police, even the Post Office. Those things and more were not as integral a part of peoples lives in 1789 as they are today. People don't want those things overthrown they just want them to work.

America has a history of violent protest. The early republic was full of violent gatherings including the murders of people that didn't belong to the same party as others. A revolutionary war general was dragged out of protective custody in a jail and lynched because of his politics.

As the century grew political activism by working class people was put down by more and more violent means. Frequently it was the militia that supplied the violence. In many ways the revolutionary spirit of America was beaten out of her citizens.

Armed citizens with guns. If there is one image that stops the average person thinking of the 2nd as a positive revolutionary statement, it is groups of private citizens using firearms as a political tool.
From the Night Riders of Reconstruction to the Anti-Chinese vigilantism of California and all the states in between; the armed citizen has been the hand maiden of oppressive government.
That is when it's not the vulgar comic opera of the modern militia movement.

Just to cap this off, I'm of the opinion that if Madison and his party had controlled government when the Bill of Rights was drafted the 2nd might not have seen the light of day.
Madison may have been an ardent revolutionary, but he was completely intolerant of opposition. Drafting a document that Ok'd rebellion against him and his might not have been written.

 

[Hal]

and virtually every other discussion I have heard in many years about the 2nd Amendment misses one fundamental point.

And that is, that the Amendment is NOT about our right to arms, but about what the goverenment may DO about our right to arms. And that is the key point "shall not be infringed".

The Constitution & Bill of Rights does NOT give us any rights. Our rights, ALL OF THEM come from our Creator, and are God given or if you prefer, Natural Rights. We have them simply because we draw beath in this nation. They do not come from the govt. They are an inalienable part of us, simply because we exist.

The Bill of Rights is just a list of things the government CANNOT DO with, and about our rights.

Its not about hunting, and not about personal protection. The 2nd Amendment isn't even directly about us having that "equal force" to the military, its about the govt not being legally able to prevent us from having that "equal force" while remaining within the boundaries of the Constitution.

Look also at the wording of the First Amendment. It doesn't say we have the right to free speech, religion, & assembly (those were understood). It says "Congress shall make no law...."

It is a check on the power of the government, not a gift of rights to the people. Our founders believed our rights did not come from a government, neither a king, nor a democracy.

Is it important to the current gun control discussion? I don't know. What I do know is that our Constitution is a list of rules for the Government, NOT us, the citizenry. The Founders set it up to control the government, NOT the people. They felt the government should be restricted, and the people should be free.

Seems to me, that hasn't been the case, for far too long. Perhaps, that is part of the reason we are where we are today?

44 AMP,

That is, by far, the best post/explanation I've seen here in many a year.
I believe each and every poster here should read that, reflect on it and do their level best to live it...

Thank you sir.

 

[spacecoast]

I agree with the video that the founding fathers did not want the government to become complacent in its ability to push around the citizenry.

However, I'm not one of those far-right guys who insists on owning full-auto weapons and shoulder-fired missiles to feel like I'm on an even playing field and able to defend myself from government aggression, both foreign and domestic.

For now I'll settle for 3-round burst mode and Claymores, when do those go on sale at Wal-Mart?

 

[44 AMP]

From an earlier post (I don't know how to post a quote)

The Constitution & Bill of Rights does NOT give us any rights. Our rights, ALL OF THEM come from our Creator, and are God given or if you prefer, Natural Rights. We have them simply because we draw beath in this nation. They do not come from the govt. They are an inalienable part of us, simply because we exist.

I disagree that the 2nd amendment would be a God given right. No where in the Bible is there any mention of guns. For good reason...they did not exist then. There is also no real mention of armed response to a threat. In fact, Jesus, and the New Testament in general, teach nothing but pacifism. Anyone who claims that the New Testament gives them justification to kill an attacker is wrong. Jesus Himself said, "If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other."

Therefore, in the case of the 2nd amendment, I think it's safe to say that this "right" comes from the founding fathers, not God.

Ferrarif1fan, I suggest a more careful reading of the Bible. Certainly there is no mention of guns, but there are passages (although I cannot quote you chapter and verse, I know they are there) about "smite the thief that comes in the night" and "he who has no sword, sell his cloak and buy one..." or words to that effect.

While it is the Christian belief to turn the other cheek, it is ALSO a Christian belief that one does not submit meekly to death, nor commit suicide. Both are an abuse of the life that the Creator has given. Guns are what we use today, but the concept of self defense being moral does exist in the Bible, even if I can't personally point to it right now. While pacificism and turning the other cheek is the preferred action, scholars I have spoken with agree that self defense is not a sin.

Firearms are our natural right, as they are the tool of self defense in our modern era, just as the sword, spear, ax, and bow were the tools of earlier times. Again, I point out that the Founding Fathers themselves believed that our rights came from God, who put us on the earth. We have a natural right to defend ourselves, just as all creatures do. They have claws, teeth, and horns, we have what we have made, and today, that means firearms.

 

[Buzzcook]

Our rights, ALL OF THEM come from our Creator, and are God given or if you prefer, Natural Rights.

I do prefer natural rights. If rights are god given then it is a very weak god because human rights are taken from people on a regular basis.
Many religious people are against a variety of what you might consider rights. Several oppose gun ownership as a right and most oppose free speech and freedom of religion.

A natural right by contrast can humans evolved as a means to make social interactions run more soothly or to make individual lives better.
Such a right can be taken away with the result being a break down in social order and individual happiness.

Rights are Darwinian not Deistic.

 

[BlueTrain]

No offense to those who believe otherwise but I rather doubt that those at the convention all believed the same thing on this and all the other issues. After all, it wasn't in the constitution itself in the first place but rather added later. And it wasn't the first place that private ownership of arms was theoritically guaranteed. It makes no sense to argue what the thought or believed since you can only argue what they wrote down and signed.

For that matter, I have doubts about whether they even believed all of that to begin with. There was clearly a liberal camp and a conservative camp even then. Jefferson was on the liberal side, although I don't know what terms he might have used. He may be been the one who wrote that all men are created equal. Do you think he believed it?

 

[Bud Helms]

I do prefer natural rights. If rights are god given then it is a very weak god because human rights are taken from people on a regular basis.

"... a very weak god because human rights are taken from people on a regular basis."

That, my friend, is a step right over the line into religion. That said, constant references to "God-given rights" probably causes no end of tongue-biting (figuratively speaking) here on TFL. I too tire of it. But we recognize some manners of speech as habitual and tolerate them. I take your comment as more than a casual reference. Let's not do that, please.

Many religious people are against a variety of what you might consider rights. Several oppose gun ownership as a right and most oppose free speech and freedom of religion.

Many "religious people" do not understand the dogma of their professed faith. They go about it as they go about other things in their life, like politics and careers. Follow the guy in front of you and do what he does ... just make sure there is something in it for you (me). The closely held dichotomy of daily conduct vs. professed dogmatic beliefs is a human failing. "Religious people" can be wrong too.

A natural right by contrast can humans evolved as a means to make social interactions run more soothly or to make individual lives better.
Such a right can be taken away with the result being a break down in social order and individual happiness.

I got lost on the first sentence in this paragraph.

Rights are Darwinian not Deistic.

I won't argue this one.

[A NOTE TO EVERYONE: It is nearly impossible to discuss the Second without the context of politics and religion. In this small corner of the universe, we have opted for order and civility at the cost of wide-ranging discussions in the fullness of context. Please rememer this when you feel the urge to share your views.

This is a general comment and is not directed at any one member. - Bud]

 

[OEF-Vet]

Posted by 44AMP

Saw the video, but while they are correct, this, and virtually every other discussion I have heard in many years about the 2nd Amendment misses one fundamental point.

And that is, that the Amendment is NOT about our right to arms, but about what the goverenment may DO about our right to arms. And that is the key point "shall not be infringed".

The Constitution & Bill of Rights does NOT give us any rights. Our rights, ALL OF THEM come from our Creator, and are God given or if you prefer, Natural Rights. We have them simply because we draw beath in this nation. They do not come from the govt. They are an inalienable part of us, simply because we exist.

The Bill of Rights is just a list of things the government CANNOT DO with, and about our rights.

Its not about hunting, and not about personal protection. The 2nd Amendment isn't even directly about us having that "equal force" to the military, its about the govt not being legally able to prevent us from having that "equal force" while remaining within the boundaries of the Constitution.

Look also at the wording of the First Amendment. It doesn't say we have the right to free speech, religion, & assembly (those were understood). It says "Congress shall make no law...."

It is a check on the power of the government, not a gift of rights to the people. Our founders believed our rights did not come from a government, neither a king, nor a democracy.

Is it important to the current gun control discussion? I don't know. What I do know is that our Constitution is a list of rules for the Government, NOT us, the citizenry. The Founders set it up to control the government, NOT the people. They felt the government should be restricted, and the people should be free.

Seems to me, that hasn't been the case, for far too long. Perhaps, that is part of the reason we are where we are today?

I have never heard this fact stated more accurately or clearly. Thank you Sir.

 

[Baba Louie]

PT-92 et al,
Besides the recent Heller and MacDonald SCOTUS cases, the public at large does not know about Warren v. D.C. and Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, nor if you bring it up in conversation will they believe you when you tell them the Police have no duty to the individual citizen in way of protection or service.

While the 2nd is supposed to limit Congress from infringing, those wiley legal beagles have found ways over the years to... uh, apply other facets of Constitutional wording and case law to do much the same. We can tax right? Let's try that one. $200 tax in 1934 for a $50 or less weapon? Good to go. Interstate Commerce, sure, that covers a broad spectrum now does it not?

Until an actual decree backed by force occurs from the .gov, ala Katrina (local govt only at that time which is A-OK by the feds as reasonable regulations may apply) the Media will turn askance and even villify the miscreants brought to (ahem) justice. Witness David Koreth circa 92 IIRC (has it been that long???)

So do not ever expect the Media to "get it" until their own ox is thoroughly gored. Do not expect the .gov employees to sympathize or suddenly wake up one day and say, "Oops, we were not quite right in this regard. Sorry" (they are never wrong or it is "still under investigation" and cannot be commented on)

Consider this. In both Heller & MacDonald 4 of the 9 Justices dissented. 1 vote away. Read Breyers dissent in MacDonald. That's what you and I, this community, is up against. How in the good lords name do you sway "educated" people of that ilk, unless they personally go thru some form of hell I would never wish on an enemy or friend and then they might vow, Never Again?!

Don't sell the steak, Sell the Sizzle. Now, how? I suppose via the internet.