A Nurse with a Gun

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

The Second Amendment in Perspective

16 Comments:

Blogger Kevin said...

I tried to play this video, but it said "no longer available".

12:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it plays for me kevin.

5:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Xaiver,

I once had coffee with an older gentleman who had spent quite a few years in Russia forced labor. He argued that had the Russian people had the right to bear arms Stalin et. al. could not have made millions disappear. IIRC, he argued that many of the "abductions" took place either in the dead of night or some out of the way place. His point was that if the Polizi came knocking on his door and he had a pistol he could have shot at least a few before he went to the gulag - or was killed. He argued that eventually, police would have begun to count the cost - do I break in this house and take this political dissedent and maybe get shot or do I just move along. Something to think about.

Dr. Joe

8:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Uh, well, some of us may think that many of the reasons for gun ownership are not "absolutely ridiculous."

I liked the "lady in a dangerous city" thing as a reason to permit handgun ownership; no city is "dangerous" until it's you who is attacked, and then it's a bit late to begin the gun procurement process; witness X's recent Wal-Mart experience.

9:29 AM  
Anonymous TJH said...

0:40-0:47 - Sorry, the Second Amendment doesn't give Citizens anything, other than a justification that both the Federalists and Anti-federalists could agree on.

0:50 - The militia is the "whole of the people", something that disarmers neglected to research in their rush to disarm to populace.

0:53 - A "well-armed milita" doesn't appear in the 2A.


Otherwise, I agree with his commentary.

9:50 AM  
Blogger Keith Walker said...

Played for me too and I use an old IE browser (6.0).

11:04 AM  
Anonymous Ditto said...

I don't suppose that the people here fighting against the british didn't feel overwhelmed and out gunned. Just because a potential opponent seems to have the upper hand is not a good reason to roll over and give up your rights.
We beat the british back despite overwhelming odds. I guess that could never happen again!

11:47 AM  
OpenID Ben said...

I can't figure out if he's OK with 2A restrictions in places OTHER than one's home since he doesn't mention self-defense in public places at all.

1:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Worked for me too.

2:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the oxford english dictionary
Militia.
force consisting not of professional or mercenary soldiers but of citizens called out at need.

The men that wrote the u.s. bill of right knew their english well and ment what they said.

A well regulated militia,(armed citizens)bein necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It's the militia part that people misinterpret.

From a subject of the U.K.
to the citizens of the U.S.A.

2:26 PM  
Blogger Last Chance Safari Company said...

gotta problem with this and anyone's argument with the 2A, it is written in English, and not subtitled in whatever we aare hoping becomes our second language, and in English, it says "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" they are not talking about the Army or The Navy, but are saying that "a militia", which is a well armed gathering of individuals that believe they are necessary to maintain the security of a free state, which is my state right here , right now, and if some fool thinks he is going to compromise my freedoms he is going to find there are more than a few people that believe in this country and are willing to die for it. Tons of our young have fought and given the ultimate sacrafice on foreign soils to protect and maintain these freedoms, it's oour obligation to protect their right5s here at home. If some on causes me to become a criminal, by changing the laws that this great land was founded under, it's not my doing, but it is my coice to live by the principles that I believe in.

5:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

tjh:
I not sure I understand your point.

If memory serves, many at the Philidelphia convention initially resisted adopting a BoR because 1)It was not then deemed necessary because congress had only the enumerated powers in Article I-- the president only those enumerated in Article II; 2)It was assumed that the people (the new sovereign) governed by the Constitution had a right to self protection by ordinary and extraordinary means as a long recognized natural right; and 3) The Continental States, who were needed to ratify the Constitution, had their own constitutions which already contained similar language, specifically as it relates to the 2A.

Jefferson (who, I believe was in Paris during the drafting of the BoR) had these views. The Federalist Papers specifically discuss #s 1 and 2, because the anti-federalists asked all the right questions.

It is late. I may not have said this as I would have said it with a clear head, but "shall not be infringed," is the operative clause. The rest is [then] commonly used prefatory language.

Try this exercise: Rewrite the speech clause of the 1A as follows: "A well informed people, being necessary for the success of a free state, the right of the people to free Speech shall not be infringed."

Would any court or legislature or federal executive subsequently argue the means of producing and distributing speech (presses, etc,) invented afterwards are subject to prohibition or registration or licensing or item specific taxation? Or that the limiting clause is no longer relevant because government is benevolent and benign? After adoption of the 14th A, would any state (ditto)?

tjh, you are right that the 2A didn't give the people anything. It prohibited the new government from taking a right the people already had.

Best to all, and forgive me tjh if I read something into your comment you did not intend. The link thingy didn't work for me. My comments may be out of context, and all this is preaching to the choir.

gnholb

4:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

tjh:
I not sure I understand your point.

If memory serves, many at the Philidelphia convention initially resisted adopting a BoR because 1)It was not then deemed necessary because congress had only the enumerated powers in Article I-- the president only those enumerated in Article II; 2)It was assumed that the people (the new sovereign) governed by the Constitution had a right to self protection by ordinary and extraordinary means as a long recognized natural right; and 3) The Continental States, who were needed to ratify the Constitution, had their own constitutions which already contained similar language, specifically as it relates to the 2A.

Jefferson (who, I believe was in Paris during the drafting of the BoR) had these views. The Federalist Papers specifically discuss #s 1 and 2, because the anti-federalists asked all the right questions.

It is late. I may not have said this as I would have said it with a clear head, but "shall not be infringed," is the operative clause. The rest is [then] commonly used prefatory language.

Try this exercise: Rewrite the speech clause of the 1A as follows: "A well informed people, being necessary for the success of a free state, the right of the people to free Speech shall not be infringed."

Would any court or legislature or federal executive subsequently argue the means of producing and distributing speech (presses, etc,) invented afterwards are subject to prohibition or registration or licensing or item specific taxation or special regulations regarding ink? Or that the limiting clause is no longer relevant because government is benevolent and benign? After adoption of the 14th A, would any state (ditto)?

tjh, you are right that the 2A didn't give the people anything. It prohibited the new government from taking a right the people already had.

Best to all, and forgive me tjh if I read something into your comment you did not intend. The link thingy didn't work for me. My comments may be out of context, and all this is preaching to the choir.

gnholb

4:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This guy plays fast and loose with the facts, the text, and the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Also, the U.S. Constitution does not "give" us the right to keep and bear arms--it acknowledges a pre-existing and INALIENABLE RIGHT.

As for defending against tyranny: the citizen militia vastly outnumbers all of the U.S. military and police combined.

There would be quite a lengthy and terrible struggle before this country could be dominated by a military dictatorship, especially since many members of the police and military would not stand with a dictatorial regime.

I'm glad the guy "supports" the Second Amendment, but he is woefully misinformed on many issues.

9:10 AM  
Anonymous TJH said...

gnholb,

We are in agreement.

I feel compelled to point out that the 2A grants nothing, because there is a thinking among the disarmers that removing the Bill of Rights somehow eradicates man's natural rights, and unfortunately that thinking is also pervasive among the "pro-gun" crowd as well -- as recent polls have revealed.

I cannot know the level of understanding of the entire audience here, so I dutifully make my point whenever I hear or read an expert that promotes an inaccuracy, whether willingly or mistakenly.

12:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

tjh: Thank you for responding.

Yes, I now see we are in agreement.

After I (double) posted I was able to make the click thingy on Xav's original post work.

sigh.

Your comments on it then made sense to me in the context of having actually seen what you were commenting on. (Duh)

I had a feeling, after I closed my comment and tried to sleep, I was off base responding in a such a preachy way to someone who may (or may not) have held a position similar to mine; that I might have been over reacting. I was, and I did.

Lets listen in to the Supremes Tuesday when they broadcast (delayed?)arguments in Heller.

Best to all for your patience with an old geezer.

And...Xavier: Thank for your blog. Lil Darlin has a Champion's Heart. She, and we, are blessed to have you as a teacher.

gnholb

6:46 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Links to this post:

Create a Link