Calling it a "radical change in governmental policy", Dan Abrams had a debate on his show, "The Abrams Report" on PMSNBC about the new Federal interpretation of the Second Amendment authored by Ted Olsen recently. Abrams lambasted the decision, basically because it ran counter to a paper he wrote for the Yale Law Review in which he supported th premise that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. His contention, and that of his guest from the Brady Center, is that 2A refers only to the regulation of a militia and arming of same. Larry Pratt made an attempt to refute their position with logic, reason and historical fact and was either cut off, talked over or subjected to rhetorical sarcasm by Abrams. Abrams came off as the ******* that, up until today, I only suspected he may be. Ruined a perfectly good barbeque dinner. Did anyone else see this schmuck? Comments?
RKBA Debate
- Thread starter gburner
- Start date
MP Freeman
New member
You can actually eat and watch television?!?!?! How? The best method of dieting is trying to eat in front of a television.
Dan Abrams was on again last night 'debating' the DOJ's interpretation of the 2nd - just about lept out of his chair and spit on himself tring to label the pro 2nd A. guy a rascist. "If you believe in the 2nd then you don't think blacks should have guns then, RIGHT?!?!"
I thought I'd send him a letter, but before I do - I thought someone might critique it for me. Anyone?
Dear Mr. Abrams:
I was watching your show last night, as I occasionally do and was surprised to see the emotion with which you derided those that would have the framers vision of the Second Amendment and its original intent.
To see you attempt to shame and bully others by declaring that if the Second Amendment were now followed as in the late 1800's, then blacks or the elderly should not be allowed Arms was ridiculous. You want to cast gun owners as insane and if not insane, then racist. That was the real giveaway. I still believe you to be an intelligent person, but you clearly demonstrated that you are also an anti-gun bigot. Your bias is showing. I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever studied law or had the benefit of any higher education for that matter, yet even I know that all civil liberty protections of the original Bill of Rights were not granted to blacks until the ratification of the 14th Amendment on July 9, 1868. I looked that up in case you were wondering, you should try it sometime.
If I may, I would like to give you a short education in common sense that neither Duke nor Columbia Universities seem to have been able to.
Let me start with this:
To assume all articles of the Bill of Rights grant personal rights to the individual with the exception of the Second Amendment is quite hard to believe. It is as if you are saying that the numbers one through nine are all numbers except number two, which is a letter. Do you also propose to alter that saying that all men are created equal, provided they can purchase and produce a government issued permit to prove that are, in fact part of the larger group we now have redefined as men as a whole.
Now, we shall divide, define and clarify it for you.
"A well-regulated”:
The following were taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the Second Amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it." It can, does and has been used to indicate something "of appropriate caliber” or "to be sufficiently armed".
Now let us move on to:
"Militia": mi·li·tia (m-lsh)
n.
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
Courtesy: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Well now, how do you define “ordinary citizens” or “not part of a regular army” perhaps “civilians” is the best term. There you have it, the term Militia does not refer to the National Guard, and the National Guard was not established until The National Defense Act of 1916. Just so we are on the same page here, The National Guard serves both the state and nation in times of need, and soldiers and airmen in the Guard swear an oath to protect and defend not just the Constitution of the United States, but also of the State in which they serve. Remember the Constitution, you know, the one that has that pesky Bill of Rights? Let us not forget that most State Constitutions also guarantee a right to arms. Perhaps we should redefine what the term militia means? Alternatively, maybe define what "is" is.
And then:
"being necessary to the security of a free State":
I do not think even you can twist this to mean anything else other than what it plainly says. Only properly armed men are able defend the State.
And of course:
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”:
This clearly signifies that the people should have access to the same common "Arms" as the organized military. In fact, the security of a free State requires it must be the same “Arms” as the common military arm, by which I mean up to and including the most common of military arm used by the U.S. armed forces; the M16A2 5.56mm rifle or the M4 5.56mm carbine. You must make available the same Arms as the military to truly guarantee a free State.
And finally:
“shall not be infringed”:
No authority can redefine or invalidate that which is reserved to be a right of the people. It is what you and many others are attempting to do. Will you next attack Americans freedom of religion?
In closing, let me say that as an ordinary, uneducated citizen, I believe I have a far firmer grasp of what the realties of this issue are than you ever will. Do you deign to declare the rules as you see fit from your Ivory Tower? You’ve probably never had to walk home from your night job, through the bad part of town because even though you do have a car, you don’t drive much because you are trying to save for a house and gas is just a luxury item really. Or maybe you have had to defend yourself from an armed attacker who would take your paycheck and possibly your life and surely your dignity rendering you unable to provide for your family’s meager needs. I for one am sure glad my future does not reside in your hands. I am very happy however, that you have the individual right to voice any opinion you wish. Please do not forget that if a fledgling nation were to have once been deprived the use of Arms, you would not.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXX
sources:
http://www.ngb.army.mil/downloads/fact_sheets/guard.asp
http://chezjacq.com/well.htm
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Editorials/Mimsy/?ART=21
http://www.ccrkba.org/
http://rkba.org/
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
Well, let me hear from you.. I would like to get this right. Tell me what you think - what is good and what is bad.
I thought I'd send him a letter, but before I do - I thought someone might critique it for me. Anyone?
Dear Mr. Abrams:
I was watching your show last night, as I occasionally do and was surprised to see the emotion with which you derided those that would have the framers vision of the Second Amendment and its original intent.
To see you attempt to shame and bully others by declaring that if the Second Amendment were now followed as in the late 1800's, then blacks or the elderly should not be allowed Arms was ridiculous. You want to cast gun owners as insane and if not insane, then racist. That was the real giveaway. I still believe you to be an intelligent person, but you clearly demonstrated that you are also an anti-gun bigot. Your bias is showing. I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever studied law or had the benefit of any higher education for that matter, yet even I know that all civil liberty protections of the original Bill of Rights were not granted to blacks until the ratification of the 14th Amendment on July 9, 1868. I looked that up in case you were wondering, you should try it sometime.
If I may, I would like to give you a short education in common sense that neither Duke nor Columbia Universities seem to have been able to.
Let me start with this:
To assume all articles of the Bill of Rights grant personal rights to the individual with the exception of the Second Amendment is quite hard to believe. It is as if you are saying that the numbers one through nine are all numbers except number two, which is a letter. Do you also propose to alter that saying that all men are created equal, provided they can purchase and produce a government issued permit to prove that are, in fact part of the larger group we now have redefined as men as a whole.
Now, we shall divide, define and clarify it for you.
"A well-regulated”:
The following were taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the Second Amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it." It can, does and has been used to indicate something "of appropriate caliber” or "to be sufficiently armed".
Now let us move on to:
"Militia": mi·li·tia (m-lsh)
n.
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
Courtesy: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Well now, how do you define “ordinary citizens” or “not part of a regular army” perhaps “civilians” is the best term. There you have it, the term Militia does not refer to the National Guard, and the National Guard was not established until The National Defense Act of 1916. Just so we are on the same page here, The National Guard serves both the state and nation in times of need, and soldiers and airmen in the Guard swear an oath to protect and defend not just the Constitution of the United States, but also of the State in which they serve. Remember the Constitution, you know, the one that has that pesky Bill of Rights? Let us not forget that most State Constitutions also guarantee a right to arms. Perhaps we should redefine what the term militia means? Alternatively, maybe define what "is" is.
And then:
"being necessary to the security of a free State":
I do not think even you can twist this to mean anything else other than what it plainly says. Only properly armed men are able defend the State.
And of course:
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”:
This clearly signifies that the people should have access to the same common "Arms" as the organized military. In fact, the security of a free State requires it must be the same “Arms” as the common military arm, by which I mean up to and including the most common of military arm used by the U.S. armed forces; the M16A2 5.56mm rifle or the M4 5.56mm carbine. You must make available the same Arms as the military to truly guarantee a free State.
And finally:
“shall not be infringed”:
No authority can redefine or invalidate that which is reserved to be a right of the people. It is what you and many others are attempting to do. Will you next attack Americans freedom of religion?
In closing, let me say that as an ordinary, uneducated citizen, I believe I have a far firmer grasp of what the realties of this issue are than you ever will. Do you deign to declare the rules as you see fit from your Ivory Tower? You’ve probably never had to walk home from your night job, through the bad part of town because even though you do have a car, you don’t drive much because you are trying to save for a house and gas is just a luxury item really. Or maybe you have had to defend yourself from an armed attacker who would take your paycheck and possibly your life and surely your dignity rendering you unable to provide for your family’s meager needs. I for one am sure glad my future does not reside in your hands. I am very happy however, that you have the individual right to voice any opinion you wish. Please do not forget that if a fledgling nation were to have once been deprived the use of Arms, you would not.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXX
sources:
http://www.ngb.army.mil/downloads/fact_sheets/guard.asp
http://chezjacq.com/well.htm
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Editorials/Mimsy/?ART=21
http://www.ccrkba.org/
http://rkba.org/
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
Well, let me hear from you.. I would like to get this right. Tell me what you think - what is good and what is bad.
