Google
 
Web rhymeswithright.mu.nu

December 24, 2012

A Silly Anti-Gunnite Argument On Second Amendment Rights That Needs Dismissing

Former Democrat Senator and presidential candidate Gary Hart offers what he thinks is a scholarly basis for keeping guns out of the hands of the common people while still pretending that the Second Amendment is being respected. He -- like many anti-gunnites -- argues that this provision of the Bill of Rights protects no right belonging to the American people at all, but rather one that belngs to states and their National Guard units.

The National Guard, created in the late nineteenth century, is the historically well-established heir of the Constitutional militia. It is professionally trained and equipped, and it is composed of citizen-soldiers as the Founders intended. A number of its members maintain the early American tradition of personal gun ownership. Few if any National Guardsmen and women use those privately-owned weapons against their fellow citizens. Their military weapons are maintained in protected arsenals. We last saw them in public as the National Guard patrolled our airports and public facilities following 9/11. That is exactly their mission and purpose under the U.S. Constitution, not as follow-on forces for the standing military in foreign adventures.

Those who promote wholesale distribution of weapons -- whose only purpose is assault on human targets -- as necessary to protect American citizens against their own democratically-elected government are guilty of the worst kind of fear-mongering. It requires propagation of the pernicious and sinister myth that the president, the Congress, the officers and troops of our military services, all of whom have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution, the National Guard and Reserves, the state patrols and city police forces, all will suddenly decide to form a dictatorship and crush our Republic. It is preposterous beyond the fringes of fantasy.

Wishes for a world without guns are noble, and doomed. At least America's Founders would have thought so. But instead of politicians defending a fictional "right" to bear military weapons, whether out of conviction or fear, it would be more American and humane to spend our time considering and protecting the rights of our children to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To promote the continued unregulated sale of military weapons to nervous, often frightened, and sometimes deranged individuals while advocating armed guards in every schoolhouse door is a cruel, and unconstitutional, delusion.

When grown-ups once again return to government in our nation we will limit military weapons to the military, including the 21st century militia, the National Guard, and make our first priority the long life, safety, and security of America's children.

Of course, Hart has the whole thing precisely wrong. I'll get into the views of the Founders later on in this piece, but for the moment let me just show you how his argument that the Second Amendment applies only to the National Guard is wrong. All one has to do is look at the rest of the Bill of Rights to see where Hart has gone wrong on this one. After all, there are five times that rights are stated to belong to "the people".

If the right guaranteed to "the people" in the Second Amendment is fulfilled by allowing National Guard members to have weapons, then presumably every other instance where "the people" is used in the Bill of Rights is also fulfilled by limiting that right to the members of the National Guard.

And if one instead replaces members of the National Guard with "state government", then the same problem remains, and in the case of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the resulting construction makes no sense at all.

So as you can see, in every other case where a right is mentioned as belonging to "the people", it is granted to the public as a whole rather than some select subset. To argue that a term that consistently meant one thing four other times in the Bill of Rights means something different the fifth time it was used is illogical.

Of course, there is also the argument that the Founders would never have countenanced the idea that "the people" as a whole should have military grade weapons. Setting aside the fact that in the Revolutionary era the people did own such weapons -- most members of the Continental Army fought with their own weapons, not government owned guns -- there are the words of the Founders themselves.

Consider Jefferson.

[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms.

Got that -- the militia is every man in the state able to bear arms. Updated to our day to reflect the equal status of women, EVERY PERSON IN THE STATE ABLE TO BEAR ARMS is a part of the militia, which means that the Second Amendment does confer an individual right.

Similarly, Jefferson clearly supported the right of the people to rise up and throw off a tyrannical government -- as if we did not know that would be the position of the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence, Indeed, he made it clear that he expected it to happen on some regular basis.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Apparently Gary Hart does not consider Thomas Jefferson and those who believe as he clearly did to be "grown-ups" fit to lead our nation. There were Gary harts in Jefferson's day -- they were called "Tories" and they supported the British Crown and opposed American independence. They were expelled from this country at the end of the Revolution -- would that we could do the same today.

And lest there be any question, Jefferson was similarly opposed to what would today be called "gun control" and the disarming of the citizenry.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

One can imagine what he would say about "gun-free zones" like schools like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School, where his point was more than adequately proved.

Or perhaps we could consider Thomas Paine.

"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

And yet Gary Hart would ensure that such horrid mischief as what was seen at Sandy Hook occurs time and again -- and that the people have no way of stopping horrid mischief by the government and its leaders.

How about Samuel Adams?

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress . . . to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms. . . .

Richard Henry Lee, who introduced the resolution for independence in 1776, had the following to say on the matter of an armed citizenry -- and of limiting the bearing of arms (by which he meant military grade weapons) to only a standing militia rather than the citizenry as a whole.

To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.

The whole body of the people must possess arms, not some select group under control of politicians -- and any argument to the contrary is one premised upon undoing the republic established under the Constitution. What would Lee make of Hart's argument? I think that is clear.

It should be clear by now that Hart's argument as to the intent of the Founders is without merit. But let me bring forward one more quote against Hart's position -- that of George Washington, whose position on the matter of an armed citizenry is so clear as to settle the matter.

A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined.

Game, set, and match to the Founders and the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms. You, Senator Hart, and your fellow anti-gunnites, are dismissed as arguing contrary to the Constitution of the United States.





|| Greg, 10:15 AM || Permalink || Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Trackback Information for A Silly Anti-Gunnite Argument On Second Amendment Rights That Needs Dismissing

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/282411
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'A Silly Anti-Gunnite Argument On Second Amendment Rights That Needs Dismissing'.

Comments on A Silly Anti-Gunnite Argument On Second Amendment Rights That Needs Dismissing

I hope you don’t mind if I chime in – this post may be long, but feel free to give it some thought.

The National Guard may have been formally recognized and given federal status whenever Hart wishes to declare, but the National Guard is far older. I know, as I am a full time member of the National Guard. The military organization known today as the National Guard came into existence with a direct declaration on Dec. 13, 1636. Like many statists, Hart thinks that until the state recognized and codified something that it wasn’t legitimate. In short, he’s an idiot – and an ill informed idiot at that.
Here’s a perfect example of said idiocy: “Their military weapons are maintained in protected arsenals.” Yes, he’s correct. But in his correct assertion he proves his idiocy. All National Guard weapons are kept in vaults, secured in our armories. Should an emergency arise and an impromptu gaggle of Guardsmen decide they need to take immediate action, action involving their firearms, they’d be SOL (sh*t out of luck) in trying to obtain said weapons. It would only be by directive of the Governor, or if federalized, through the President, that those firearms would be issued out. Further, Army regulations state that weapons and ammunition are not to be stored together. In most states that ammunition is kept on the nearest federal military installation. **FULL STOP** Think that through. In order for National Guard troops to be able to issue weapons that actually have ammo, to stop tyranny, they’d need the permission and cooperation of the regular Army and federal permission. HELLO!? Clue-By-Four – does anyone think that would happen?

To a statist and top down thinker (and ill-informed idiot to boot) like Hart that’s just fine and dandy. He’d be in a multi-layered defensive ring of armed guards deciding if you or I are to be trusted to have firearms. He’d be in his bubble while the great unwashed masses are just having to fend for themselves.

He misses the most basic premise – in a crisis, be it a one on one situation, a home invasion, a catastrophe (Katrina / Sandy), or even should society (or just a city) descend into chaos then EACH PRIVATE CITIZEN needs the ability to protect themselves.

To Hart, again, who lives in his bubble, the idea that in a natural disaster, in a home invasion scenario, in a case of clear cut tyranny, while he is living in his protected world, we “little people” are going to need to fend for ourselves. Each of us, individually will need the firepower it will take to deter crimes being committed against us. Yes, even to resist crimes committed by the state. ESPECIALLY the state should things get that bad.

Having a National Guard with firearms locked in an armory, with NO AMMO, is not a protection against tyranny, is not protection against looters while we are in our own homes, and is not protection against any aggressor who should so choose to take from me and mine.

Hart asserts: “necessary to protect American citizens against their own democratically-elected government are guilty of the worst kind of fear-mongering”
You mean like Katrina or Sandy? In the case of Sandy, it was the state’s failure to perform maintenance, preparation, and due to neglect that left citizens on their own. In Katrina it was wholesale disarmament of LEGAL gun owners. The cops did not wade into the crowds of looters, nor did they disarm security firms who had been hired by corporations to protect their property. The police followed illegal orders and went to the homes of the orderly and the law abiding and disarmed them – leaving them defenseless. You mean THAT “fear mongering”?

Hart Asserts: “, the state patrols and city police forces, all will suddenly decide to form a dictatorship and crush our Republic. It is preposterous beyond the fringes of fantasy.”

Hey a$$hat – that is exactly what did happen during Katrina.

Hart then sings a song and dance while using “The Children” as human shields for his idiocy. He asserts that Americans don’t need military weapons. What-An-Idiot. A semi-automatic AR-15 or AK-47 does not have the ability to fire like a military assault rifle. And almost no citizens can get their hands on machine guns.

This guy is delusional, an elitist snob, and, I suspect, willfully ignorant/misinformed.

|| Posted by Steven, December 26, 2012 01:48 PM ||
Post a comment

Remember personal info?


 

 





AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg





Winner - 2013 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2012 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2011 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2010 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2009 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Posts by Category

Announcements (posts: 13)
Blogging (posts: 174)
Border Issues & Immigration (posts: 391)
deferred (posts: 4)
Education (posts: 647)
Entertainment & Sports (posts: 476)
Guns & Gun Control (posts: 64)
History (posts: 318)
Humor (posts: 83)
Israel/Middle East (posts: 15)
Medical News (posts: 53)
Military (posts: 269)
News (posts: 1527)
Paid Advertising (posts: 231)
Personal (posts: 103)
Politics (posts: 4890)
Race & Racism (posts: 254)
Religion (posts: 796)
Terrorism (posts: 848)
The Courts (posts: 302)
Watcher's Council (posts: 425)
World Affairs (posts: 338)

Archives

January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
December 0000



MuNuviana



Licensing

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Powered By

Powered by
Movable Type 2.64
AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg

Administrative Stuff

Email Me
Syndicate this site (XML)

Advertising Disclosure

adpolicy.gif

About Me

NAME: Greg
AGE: 50-ish
SEX: Male
MARITAL STATUS: Married
OCCUPATION: Social Studies Teacher
LOCATION: Seabrook, TX
DISCLAIMER: All posts reflect my views alone, and not the view of my wife, my dogs, my employer, or anyone else. All comments reflect the view of the commenter, and permitting a comment to remain on this site in no way indicates my support for the ideas expressed in the comment.

Search This Site


Support This Site




Recent Entries

The Twelfth Doctor Is In The House
Wendy Davis Caught In More Lies?
Bar Admission Absurdity In California
Wendy And Sarah -- A Comparison
Greta Van Susteren -- Female Chauvinist Sow
Obama Advisors Declare That President Will Institute Thugocracy If Republicans Don't Give Him What He Wants
Home Delivery Suckage From The Houston Chronicle
Watcher's Council Results
Hyperbolic Stupidity About Hillary Clinton From Anthony Weiner
Let's Call It What It Is -- SNOW DAY!

Blogroll


Watchers Council
  • Ask Marion
  • Bookworm Room
  • The Colossus of Rhodey
  • The Glittering Eye
  • GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD
  • The Independent Sentinel
  • JoshuaPundit
  • Liberty's Spirit
  • New Zeal
  • Nice Deb
  • The Noisy Room
  • The Razor
  • Rhymes With Right
  • The Right Planet
  • Simply Jews
  • Virginia Right!
  • Watcher Of Weasels

  • Political & Religious Blogs