[HTML2]

Look past the repetitious (and somewhat cheezy) graphics. Listen to what Whittle has to say. If you’re a gun owner and you’re not a Tea Party supporter, watch the video with an open mind, if you can. You might discover that the Tea Party has an awful lot in common with the principles you believe in, as a gun owner.

Of course, if you’re not a Tea Party guy, you’ll have to free yourself from the distorted picture most everybody else has gotten of the Tea Party, courtesy of the mainstream media. (The selfsame mainstream media, by the by, who’s expending great amounts of effort in NOT reporting on the ATF Gunwalker scandals.)

Agree or disagree with the Tea Party, politically, you’ll have to agree they’ve got a clear and fundamentally correct understanding of the 2nd Amendment. And I think that’s reason enough to celebrate with a party. A Tea Party.

Recommended For You

17 Responses to A Tea Party guy explains the 2nd Amendment.

  1. Brad, They have no better understanding of the 2nd amendment than you and your friends here on the blog. The concepts of “keeping” and “bearing” arms in order to be part of a militia, and to protect against overbearing government or standing armies or invading foreign forces are so far removed from what you guys are into, it’s funny.

    Funny, in that bizarre, shake-yer-head kinda way.

    • OMG. You’re not one of those “2a is for a militia” people are you? That argument was destroyed LONG ago. And even if you are, I thought you were AGAINST militias. Are you?

      • That argument was actually not destroyed long ago. The second amendment WAS created so citizens can assemble into armed militias. The framers didn’t want to keep a standing army in times of peace. The problem with no standing army is that if America was attacked, there would be no army to defend the country. Militias were a way for citizens to quickly assemble and fight off an attack from a foreign nation without a standing army and all the problems that come with it.

        A militia would not be necessary today because we always have a standing army, so therefore there is no need for citizens to be armed to the extent that they are today.

        Also, you tea partiers are always saying that government today has overstepped its bounds and is infringing upon your liberty. Well isn’t that why you have guns? Why don’t you go down and take over the government with your guns? You do realise that no matter how many guns you have you will be crushed. It simply an illusion that your guns will protect the people from the government and you guys know it! Otherwise you all would have taken over Washington DC already.

    • The Supreme Court has already ruled that the “part of a militia” is an incorrect interpretation. Secondly, consult your state’s constitution. Virginia, for example, defines the militia as “the body of the people.” In other words, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, everyone is a militia member.

      With all that said, who has a better understanding of the 2nd Amendment? You?

    • Some people think the Second Amendment is an anachronism. I wonder if the people protesting in the streets of Damascus think so.

    • Eggs being necessary to the creation of omelets, the right to keep chickens shall not be infringed.

      Does this statement require that to keep chickens you must make omelets, and if you do not make omelets, then you may not keep chickens?

      The SA states that the need for a well-regulated militia is sufficient to justify the explicit guarantee that the people be allowed to K&BA. It does not preclude additional justifications, nor does it require that the guarantee be limited to militia members. That stands upon logic. As others have stated, the judiciary has settled on that view as well.

      Mike, do explain your “understanding” of this matter.

      • My understanding, which I thought you guys already knew, is that the 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with modern day gun rights. Its meaning has been bastardized over the last 5 decades or so into something totally unrecognizable.

        The fact that only recently in Heller and McDonald you guys have something to grab on to is also meaningless for the simple reason that the vote of 6 to 5, the slimmest possible margin. It could have easily gone the other way had there been another appointment under Clinton or if one of those old guys kicked the bucket since Obama took office. Then what? You’d be saying the collective argument had been right all along becasue the Supremes said so? No, you’d still be saying the same nonsensical thing you are now.

        I understand that you like guns and you think you need them to protect your families. Fine, but don’t tell me it’s a fundamental god-given right protected by the Constitution. It’s not that any more than it’s justified in the Bible.

        I happen to be a gun control advocate who doesn’t think guns are evil and should be completely eliminated from society. I think they need to be regulated better and controlled in ways they’re not now. So, the way I see it, without the 2nd Amendment argument and without the god-given argument, you’d still be able to own guns just like you can own cars and violins now if you want. It’s a free country and in spite of your ridiculous taking credit for it by the very fact that you’re armed, you and everybody else would be even more free my way.

  2. 1) The Constitution of the United States grants the people nothing — it simply, but definitely and absolutely, prohibits entities of government from restricting inherent, natural, unalterable, and inalienable rights, which are entirely independent of any compacts of society and government. Whittle’s assertion that it “allows guns” is as conspicuously devoid of validity as it is disheartening.

    2) When Whittle analogized firearms to automobiles, he seemed to imply that legal ownership and use of arms somehow inflicts damage upon society. He may have done so unwittingly, but it will always remain a ludicrous assumption.

    • 1) Agree 100% but I’ve watched Whittle before, and I’m pretty sure that he understands this. I think he framed the video this way because most people can’t wrap their heads around the concept that there are more rights than those enumerated in the BoR, even though the 10th Amendment makes it pretty clear. But they don’t teach that in high school. And the 2a does grant specific protection the RtKaBA.

      2) It can be argued that pretty much everything except rainbows and lettuce inflict some kind of damage upon society, but freedom is all about having the choice, and in many (if not most) cases the benefits outweigh the detriments. That’s why he used the automobile comparison. How many thumbs are lost every year to table saws? But boy, cabinets sure are handy. That kind of thing.

      Personally I think someone should point out that there are two very different Tea Parties. Or at least two very different schools of thought within it. But I guess that would just complicate things for undecided voters. And that doesn’t have anything to do with GUNS 🙂

      • Yeah. The consensus in New York City among people (I go there a great deal for work) seems to be that the Constitution GRANTS rights. So much for education.

        And yeah, there’s a quasi-neoconseravative division of the Tea Party, which is pretty troubling.

        • I’m actually going through the rest of the “What We Believe” series of his, and he does actually explain the point that you made about the 2nd Amendment, and the BoR and Constitution in general, in video #4. Covers the basic ideology pretty well. I had to read a couple of the Federalist papers in a college political science class before I realized just how far from the founding principles this country’s gone. The general overtone of personal liberty came through loud and clear, and this was IN FAVOR of a federal govt. (Albeit a small one)

          As for NYC, I know how you feel; I live right across the bay from San Francisco, right next to Berkeley.

      • Barack Obama was a senior lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Bill Whittle is a bore on the Internet. He’s not credentialed to lecture on pie-eating. So what was your point?

        • Obama never taught a class and was given his position as a sinecure.

          Whittle does not need official approval to speak his mind — 1st Amendment, remember it? Argue against the points he makes — or not — rather than making weak attempts to slander the man.

          Or just admit you have nothing but your bigotry, ignorance, and hatred to support your positions.

  3. I’d be more interested in a Second Amendment guy explaining the Tea Party rather than the other way around.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *