Constitutional Idiocy: Calling ‘Em Like I See ‘Em

Everyone thought the Gabby Giffords shooting was just what the anti-gun crowd needed to finally get new gun control legislation enacted. Well, how’d that work out? A few neutered attempts at magazine capacity limits and some crazy talk about making it illegal to carry guns near members of Congress. What did you expect with the same old players uttering the same idiotic soundbites. New York representative Carolyn McCarthy’s spokesman sums up their excruciatingly painful logic: “Running out of bullets is kind of a critical point where the shooting stops. If there are less rounds in a clip, usually you can expect that there will be a lot less casualties.” It doesn’t take a rocket scientist . . .

– hell, it doesn’t even take a model rocket scientist – to figure out that there are plenty of other ways to send lots of lead downrange. Once again, our elected leaders have failed us. No one enacted a damn thing that could keep this from happening again. Which it did.

Another young white male satisfied our country’s statistical need for crazies-per-capita. This time the general news media and blogosphere are ramping up for a battle royal (I won’t go labeling any specific site as left or liberal – many are way past the point of making sense as any one ideology). As always, the tinfoil hat brigade can be ignored; they don’t bring in enough curious readers to make a dent in public opinion.

However, they are not the only cum laude grad of the “How much crazy shit can I make up and get people to believe it” school of web journalism. Major sites like CNN, Forbes and HuffPo (along with the usual NYC rags) are making it a Big Deal to talk about guns as if there’s no one keeping score of fact vs. fiction. And, I’m not talking about calling a magazine a clip.

Yes, it’s stupid, but get over it; there’s not much point in arguing with a guy who calls a power window button a door handle. It only shows their general lack of understanding of a subject. Arguing mags vs. clips or bullets vs. cartridges won’t help maintain our rights. The shit being made up by these denizens of disinformation is of a more sinister nature.

Did you know that anyone can buy an automatic weapon over the Internet? Are you familiar with the huge national market for grenades, “multi-chamber weapons” and rocket launchers? Heard that terrorists and psychopaths buy ammunition online in “stockpile” quantities? Does a first grade teacher have the answer to settle the Second Amendment debate?

These are the types of questions I’m being led to ask by some extremely popular websites. It’s misleading, disingenuous, and dangerous. And it is time to accept their challenge, and expose their vacuous lies and mistruths to the world. Where shall we start?

How ’bout with Flora Nicholas, a writer/producer/director for stage and screen. Flora just penned this lengthy and completely unresearched piece in the Huffington Post about the Second Amendment and the original intent of our Founding Fathers. Her writing appears to be aimed at a readership that thrives on exclamation points and flowery, silly catch-phrases:

“I took it upon myself to hunt down the Second Amendment (without a rifle in tow of course) to see whether it DOES actually grant all the rights claimed by those in possession of guns, machine guns, semi-automatic weapons, hand grenades, rockets and otherwise.

So here directly from the pages of that great legal journal called Wikipedia is the text itself.

The Second Amendment to the constitution, as ratified in 1791 by that real life American super hero, Thomas Jefferson, says this:

“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.”

Now, it must be said that the writings of our 18th century ancestors seem a little clumsy and 18th century-like by modern-day standards. But as any first grade teacher will tell you, and as the anti-gun lobby claim, a sentence is a sentence is a sentence, and the Second Amendment should be read as such and interpreted in its entirety.”

You’re kidding me, right? She hasn’t heard of Heller vs. DC? Oh wait, she has:

However, I know that millions of gun-owning folks vehemently disagree with that interpretation. So let’s put aside everything we learned about comprehension in grade school, and focus our analysis of the Second Amendment on just the latter half of the key sentence, i.e. the bit that says, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Well, yep, that half-a-sentence does actually say, in a half-a-sentence kind of way, that people are entitled to bear arms. So there you have it. The right of every Tom, Dick and James to bear arms is enshrined in the constitution!!

And further more, judges on the highest court in the land totally agree. (Well, by 5-4 republican/democrat margins most of the time, but nevertheless, they agree!)

In just a few “Hey, how ya doin’, yeppers, by golly gee whiz” paragraphs, Flora has given a big middle finger to the Supreme Court (oh, only 4 of them matter, so hey, it’s a handy excuse!), not once giving consideration to the half-dozen other decisions handed down by the Supremes since 1865.

Flora also ignored what her “real American Super Hero,” ol’ TJ had to say about a citizen’s right to self defense. Jefferson wrote quite often about guns and their benefits, offering advice like, “Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.

On the subject of a citizen’s right to own and bear arms, he was quite clear:

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Flora’s constitutional grammar lesson didn’t end there, no sir. She reminds us that there’s no way in hell that the framers of the Constitution could have ever imagined automatic multi-chamber semi-assault black rifles of death.

Well, considering the amendment was written in 1779, the Founding Fathers certainly gave us all the right to bear, er, muskets. Yes, muskets — those long, old fashioned, single shot things that were used to fight the Revolutionary War!

So the question is, does the Second Amendment say, “The right of the people to keep and bear the kind of arms developed hundreds of years after 1779, shall not be infringed”?

Um, no it doesn’t.

Does the Second Amendment say, “The right of the people to keep and bear numerous
multi-chamber, rapid fire assault rifles, shotguns and handguns per individual, and all at the same time (as per the Aurora shooter), shall not be infringed”?

Er, it doesn’t say that either.

And does the Second Amendment say, “The right of the people to keep and bear an entire arsenal of battlefield weapons when they’re not even part of an army, or even a militia, shall not be infringed”?

Well, I just read the amendment again, and I couldn’t find language like that anywhere!

Well butter my butt and call me a biscuit! (Dontcha just love redneck colloquialisms?) Flora, did you really think this one through?  Let’s have some fun, you and me. What do you say we apply your stellar thought process to the First Amendment. Those pesky Founders could never have imagined television, or radio, or the Internet, so constitutional protections on free speech don’t apply to these newfangled technologies.

Or the Fourth: today’s society is different and the original framers could never guess how untrustworthy everyone is. We need National Stop-n-Frisk to keep our children safe. You don’t mind if NYC’s finest give you a pat-down on your stroll through the park, do you Flora?

We won’t even get into the shift in firearms technology that was occurring during the late 18th century. To discount the beliefs of Jefferson and others with regard to the future settings in which their document would be found, well…it’s wholly disingenuous, and frankly insulting to their memories.

She calls for compassion, reaching out to pluck our heartstrings for those “poor souls who died in Aurora.” Flora Nicholas, if you really want your words to have any purpose, why not write about what we can do to dampen the crazy, intrusive thoughts that lead people to kill? Blaming the gun and outlawing sales of online ammo won’t do a damn thing to stop this from happening again.

Even if the Ghost of Thomas Jefferson himself magically turned all the country’s guns into plowshares tomorrow, you’d still have rental trucks overloaded with ANFO, sarin gas in the subway vents, blocked exits while the children burn. Don’t you get it, Flora?

Makes me wonder if another of my favorite redneckisms fits Ms. Flora: “If she were any dumber, we’d have to water her.”

comments

  1. avatar Aynonymous Randian says:

    > “I took it upon myself to hunt down the Second Amendment
    > (without a rifle in tow of course) to see whether it DOES actually grant
    > all the rights claimed by those in possession of guns, machine guns,
    > semi-automatic weapons, hand grenades, rockets and otherwise.

    If the left-wing want to play that stupid semantic game, somebody should call their bluff and demand to see the text of the abortion amendment. You know, the amendment that grants the right to what liberals believe is the foundation of the Constitution.

    Personally, I have no problem with finding rights in the penumbras of the Constitution. But we should demand that they at least take the enumerated rights as seriously as they take the un-enumerated ones.

    1. avatar bontai Joe says:

      Using HER logic, the Second amendment granted us the right to bear the arms EQUAL to what the military was using at the time. That would be flintlock muskets and rifles. So we should be able to currently use the equal of what our military is using today, right? That is how I understand her at any rate. (LOL)

  2. avatar Mike S says:

    The “Well the Founding Fathers couldn’t have envisioned an AR15” argument always indicates one is dealing with a moron.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      It’s nice to see the 2A applies to 18th century technology but the 1A is unlimited in it’s tech application. What if the media had to print papers manually on presses?

      1. avatar Mike S says:

        Yeah or since “arms” doesn’t mean AR15s, then perhaps “effects” doesn’t include laptops. I’m sure this individual would be fine with LEOS having access to look whenever they cared to.

  3. avatar Jay says:

    I thought we don’t have the human right to own “military” rifles. Wait… were muskets used by the military? So which is it can own or can’t own?

    Do I need logic to figure out that question or… AHH… my head… my brain — it just crashed! Oh well, I’m sure the Government will tell me.

  4. avatar Chad says:

    David Liberman: Kudos to you, for an outstanding explanation on what we are all up against. Again, knowing the arguments and responding with facts, not emotions are our saving grace.

    More southern sayings: “These people don’t have sense enough to pour piss out of a boot with the instructions on the toe!”

  5. avatar GS650G says:

    The Founding Fathers didn’t envision half the country freeloading on the other half either. I “hunted” through the Constitution and didn’t see anything about government agencies acting with force of law outside of Congress but we have that too. We could go on for hours and hours.
    We can see the pent up frustration that people are embracing gun ownership at a rapid rate in this country, and the more gun owners we have to greater the number of people affected by gun restrictions. And that counters the demographic of the dependent class at the voting booth.
    So go ahead my liberal buddies, talk about disarming people when we all know cops don’t have to protect us. Ann Romney can keep her horses right outside DC for her morning rides.

    1. avatar karlb says:

      How does half the country freeload? Even if half of US citizens have tax deductions that are more than their federal tax liabilities, do they not pay state taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, gasoline taxes, and so on? Do they not contribute to the general welfare of the nation by being members of society. Yes, there are millions who are unemployed, retired, disabled, or otherwise not working, but that number does not come close to making up fifty percent of Americans.

    2. avatar kalel33 says:

      Yeah, the founding fathers never envisioned all the farmers freeloading with subsidies off of the regular tax payer. See what I did there?

  6. avatar Irock350 says:

    “And does the Second Amendment say, “The right of the people to keep and bear an entire arsenal of battlefield weapons when they’re not even part of an army, or even a militia, shall not be infringed”?

    This part kind of tickles me in a special sort of way because it is the perfect set-up for a modern 2a militia argument. Technically, all males in the united states between the ages of 17 and 45 (or under 64 if they were apart of the U.S. Armed forces, and Females in the National Guard) ARE apart of the militia. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power ” …to raise an army…”, and various Federal laws codifies the process of conscription in the U.S., specifically US code Title 10 Section 312 where it states that all men who are not apart of the US military or the National Guard are apart of the Unorganized U.S. militia.

    Call it conscription, the Selective Service, or the Draft, all able bodied men of a certain age (and some women) are apart of the US military. Now the big question is how do we rectify Article 1 and the Second Amendment. In my view any gun control measure that limits the unorganized militias ability to sufficiently arm itself is a threat to National Security and an impediment to the second amendment’s qualification of well regulated. If there were a real threat on American soil the US military may not be able to arm the incoming conscripted soldiers and would have to rely on the arms the conscripts brought with them. This is not overly far fetched as it was a necessary action taken during the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. However since the late 19th Century military arms have changed significantly and the hardware available to the general populace isn’t quite on par with milspec arms, and this above all else is why the NFA act and similar control measures need to be lifted and prevented from being enacted because they represent a significant threat to US security, and I am sure Flora doesn’t want that.

    So there you have it, James Holmes was member of the unorganized militia of the United states and was legally exercising his right as an American to arm himself and secure the United Sates and to enact legislation that would prevent him, or people like him from doing the same limits America’s ability to protect itself from harmful invaders.

    1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      thank you – I was going to write the same thing. I showed a few antis at work Missouri statute that indicated they were milita members until they turned 64 (and even after if the Commandant determines it necessary). THEY FREAKED OUT! Funny what happens when someone reads before they speak.

      1. avatar Mike in NC says:

        After your previous discussion I looked up the NC statute out of curiosity. The most broad classification in the NC statute 127A is “unorganized militia” which includes almost all able-bodied citizens over 17. As far as I could tell, there is no upper limit on age. Exclusions are made for felons and those with “other than honorable” discharges.

        For those who may think that this is an antiquated relic left on the books from centuries past, it is not. The NC militia statutes were modernized last year (2011) and signed by Dem. Governor Bev Perdue.

      2. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        she is an ugly broad: http://www.brainwaveproductions.com/crew/#flora

        $20 says she is MikeBnumbers wife

    2. avatar jwm says:

      irock, you just pointed out something that i was unaware of. because i’m prior military my militia obligation is to an older age than non veterans. since we’re all part of the militia, and therefore obligated to keep military grade firearms at home, shouldn’t the age limits be the same?

    3. avatar Sanchanim says:

      +1000
      Couldn’t have said it any better.

  7. avatar philthegardner says:

    I am absolutely appalled. You would think she just posted on an internet forum and not write this piece for a “well respected, mainstream media outfit”. Truth, we shall miss thee.

  8. avatar Lt Dave says:

    If more sane people carried guns the crazy ones would get off fewer shots. Period.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      Well said, sir.

  9. avatar DrewR55 says:

    Someone here at Truth (sometime over the past few weeks) pointed out that the civilian owned muzzle-loading muskets, like the Kentucky Long Rifle, were state of the art technology for the time and the equal of any rifle used by the Continental Army and superior to the Brown Bess for range and accuracy. The framers of the constitution did not say, “Private citizens must only have weapons that are inferior or outdated in comparison to the military.”

    Additionally if people, like the simplton gun-grabber above, want to be specific about carrying capacity; Our Fathers did not say civilians can only carry powder horns large enough to hold enough powder for five shots, did they?

  10. avatar JFP says:

    “We need National Stop-n-Frisk to keep our children safe. You don’t mind if NYC’s finest give you a pat-down on your stroll through the park, do you Flora?”

    You mentioned children, thus anything is possible in Flora’s mind. Think of the children. NYC already has laws that prevent Flora from entering parks for kids unless she is there with a child. The opposite of the whole kid can’t enter the bar area of a restaurant without an adult rule. Perhaps if we had more people armed NYC wouldn’t have to have stop and frisk laws or idiotic park laws (in fear of molesters or people taking pictures of their kids on swings who look kinda skeezy).

    Also, everyone knows well regulated meant that the milita had a right to a proper supply of daily fiber supplements. Metamusil for all!

  11. avatar LongPurple says:

    **“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
    Well, yep, that half-a-sentence does actually say, in a half-a-sentence kind of way, that people are entitled to bear arms. **

    Yep, that thar ‘half-a-sentence’ does say that don’t it? And that thar ‘first half-a-sentence’ (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . .”) says, in a ‘half-a-sentence kind of way,’ WHY the Government would be stupid to infringe on that right —- a Constitutional Government can be SECURE and remain FREE with an armed populace prepared to defend the Government they elected from foreign and domestic enemies. Only a Government turned tyranny need fear its people keeping and bearing arms.

    It seems to me the first ‘half-a-sentence’ is really ‘half-a-sentence’ —- an incomplete statement. BUT — there is nothing incomplete about the statement in the second ‘half-a-sentence’ — it is a clear and complete statement , with or without the first ‘half-a-sentence’, that recognizes and guarantees the pre-existing “right of the people”.

  12. avatar Anon in CT says:

    “multi-chamber weapons”

    Revolvers?

    1. Still only one chamber, according to my gun anatomy lessons.

      Maybe she’s referring to a Patriot battery, or a Hellfire rocket system? Wait. I bet it’s that evil double-barreled 1911.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        revolvers have seperate chambers from barrels. a j frame smith has 5 chambers. a k frame smith has 6. semi automatics have barrel and chamber as one piece.

    2. avatar Accur81 says:

      It’s the mini gun you can buy over the Internet without ID! Oh, the children!

    3. avatar DaveL says:

      Derringers, double-barrelled shotguns…

  13. avatar Martin Albright says:

    Since we’re showing off our Southern Colloquialisms, let me share my favorite, which is a perfect description of Nicholas’ article:

    “That’s about as fucked up as a football bat.”

  14. avatar Aharon says:

    I just read through all (currently) 27 follow-up comments at the Huffington Post. The vast majority of the comments were pro 2nd Amendment or asking open neutral-type questions about guns and the 2nd Amendment. Very few were outright in support of the written piece. Several commentators called out the author for her ignorance, silliness, and lack of historical and gun knowledge, etc.

  15. avatar Josh says:

    If we applied the same “logic” that this “slow” individual used on the 2A to generate the laws of the US, we would be living in a police state where individuals dont have rights, and the government is the supreme ruler of the land, and you may not challenge that.

    1. avatar Silver says:

      That’s pretty much the goal of all progressives and their morally-bankrupt drones.

  16. avatar Silver says:

    I’d make a long, detailed comment, but…really, what’s the use anymore? Same shit, different day. Damaged, sub-human intellects like this “person’s” aren’t worth arguing. So I’m going to take the time and try to explain the 2A to my cat. I have a much better chance of succeeding there.

    This is the problem with a free society: when everybody is allowed a voice, so are the morons.

  17. What makes her post even more disgusting is that it’s tagged as comedy and satire. I found nothing in her writing that waxed satirical; is she simply making fun of gun owners in light of the Aurora incident?

  18. avatar Greg Camp says:

    Vitamin C being necessary to the health of sailors, the right of the people to keep and eat lemons shall not be infringed.

    What Nicholas fails to understand in her grammar lesson is that the first clause is dependent. It can be removed from the sentence, and the sentence still stands. A dependent clause offers clarification or extra information, but in a case like this, it doesn’t restrict the independent clause.

    What I wrote above gives a reason for allowing lemons. It doesn’t say that if I want to put a lemon twist in my martini, I have to get special permission to do so. If I just enjoy eating lemons, that’s also not restricted.

    The simple fact is that the Second Amendment identifies the right as belonging to the people. It could have said the state. It could have said the militia. But it doesn’t.

    “The right of the people…” Not hard, that.

    1. avatar Josh says:

      Lemons are a key component in many alcoholic drinks, and we all know how bad alcohol is for you. We need to restrict the sales of lemons, and if a couple people dont have lemons for their iced tea, so be it. This is about the good of the american people.

  19. avatar Ralph says:

    Flora is an advertising writer according to HuffPo, noted for her ability to sell ice to eskimos. Which much mean that eskimos are total idiots, because if Flora had half a brain her head would tilt.

  20. avatar Qajaqon says:

    The 2nd Ammendment is a protector of the right, not a giver of the right.
    The people of the time, and the writters of the 2nd ammendment, were always seeking out, and creating the best arms. They would have loved, relished and been thrilled to have the arms we have today. In turn they would have slapped us silly for our fool activity of not protecting the 2nd ammendment at all costs.

    Nous Defions

  21. avatar Sanchanim says:

    Uhm I hate to point to a non gun related item here, but…..
    Is anyone totally pissed off that this lady is calling one of our founding fathers a clumsy writer???
    “Now, it must be said that the writings of our 18th century ancestors seem a little clumsy and 18th century-like by modern-day standards. But as any first grade teacher will tell you, and as the anti-gun lobby claim, a sentence is a sentence is a sentence, and the Second Amendment should be read as such and interpreted in its entirety.”

    Even though my college major was IT related I enjoyed studying Shakespearean English. I have spent time, when the little lite went on in my head over 2A issues reading the writings of our founding fathers. Letters between Jefferson and Adams, and others. I found them inspirational and timeless in many aspects. It afforded greater insight into why the constitution and bill of writes was written the way it was. The fact she is too stupid to understand Old English is truly sad, and disheartening.

    1. avatar Josh says:

      I agree. In reality those men were truly inspired thinkers. How many people today could write a document which still clearly outlines its intent over 200 years later? Furthermore, who would have the foresight to compose said document in a way which was relevant 200 years later?

      They carefully crafted this document so that the rules of the land could be established, and the rights which the people of the US fought hard to wrest from the clutches of the royal tyrants would not be taken away by any future ruling body. This level of misrepresentation of their intent is an outrage.

    2. avatar Gyufygy says:

      Nitpick, Sanchanim. It’s just archaic modern English. 🙂 Old English is completely incomprehensible to us, probably the same with Middle English. Even Shakespeare and Canterbury Tales count as Modern English, just older version. Old and Middle are different languages, essentially. Nitpick over. 😉

      1. avatar Sanchanim says:

        ok ok you got me man!! 😉
        But I think we can agree that the documents, letters and such produced by the folks like Jefferson, Samuel, Lincoln, all have relevance today. Sure there wasn’t democrats and republicans like today, but when we consider constitutional law and values, I think they are timeless works, which our current government, both sides included seem to have forgotten.

  22. avatar Ben Robbins says:

    My comment on her article was this:

    Flora, would you be willing to apply that same requirement to the 1st Amendment?

    “I mean, the Founding Fathers could have never conceived such inventions as television, radio, and the Internet. Back then, freedom of speech and expression meant actually talking!”

    Of course not! The medium is irrelevant of the right. You have just as much of a right to express your opinions using your voice as you do on a blog. You also have just as much of a right to defend yourself using an AR-15 as you do using a muzzle-loading Kentucky Long Rifle.

    P.S. The scary “multi-chambered” weapon was invented in 1836 by Samuel Colt. It’s known as the revolving pistol, or the revolver.

  23. avatar J- says:

    Saying the 2nd Amendment is no longer valid because the founding fathers couldn’t predict assault rifles is like saying the 1st Amendemnt is no longer vaild because the founding fathers couldn’t predict television.

  24. avatar ThomasR says:

    “Multi- chamber rapid fire assault weapons”, when I saw this woman had actually written this on a major news web site I couldn’t stop laughing!
    The absolute ignorance of these people is astounding!
    And these are the people who truly believe they are the ones who should have total rule over us “useless eaters and breeders”.

  25. avatar Rich says:

    With the Communist Revoluntionary at the helm is is becoming eveident to many that we may soon need arms equal to that of the military and police to remain free Americans.

  26. avatar Jordan says:

    Last time I checked I was a militia member. Illinois constitution states any able bodied person in the state is part of the militia. With how bad our gun laws are never thought they would have that kind of an oversight.

  27. avatar Sugel says:

    These interpretations tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias. Either way, it is a bar to federal action only, because the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states. This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or non-restrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so.

    1. avatar LongPurple says:

      Heller v. Washington, DC — INDIVIDUAL “right of the people to keep and bear arms” defined by SCOTUS.

      McDonald v. Chicago — RKBA ‘incorporated’ by ‘due process clause’ of 14th Amendment. No state may deny the right to a member of “the people”.

  28. avatar Joe NC says:

    I couldn’t help myself, here Flora is the world you need to live in.
    If by your logic, the Constitution requires us to use ONLY those items that were available during its composition, you must live with no;
    automobiles
    electricity
    running water
    organized healthcare
    sanitary surgery
    pasteurization
    vaccines
    antibiotics
    Insulin
    sewage control
    lighting (unless its oil lamps)
    HVAC
    paved streets
    airplanes
    mass transit
    internet
    TV
    safe food production (or fast food, hey that might be good?)
    powered sea transportation ( I personally like sailboats)
    etc………….

    1. avatar LongPurple says:

      Flora could use the leading-edge technology of the time to exercise her freedom of speech and the press. That would be the megaphone and the hand-operated printing press

  29. avatar Luis says:

    Errata: David Liberman, actually the case was D.C. v. Heller, not Heller v. D.C. In SCOTUS cases, the plaintiff is listed first, as it was the loser in the court case preceding the SCOTUS case. When the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 against the District, the District sued Heller before SCOTUS.

    Technically, the United State Air Force is unconstitutional, as the Constitution says that Congress provide for and maintain, an army and navy. Then, there’s the amendment (not sure which one) that provides for lawsuits when the value of an item in dispute exceeds $ 20. That’s a ridiculously low figure today, but $ 20 was big money then. That amendment has never been changed.

    The United States Department of Education is also unconstitutional, given that “education” is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the U.S. Constitution. That’s because it was an item “reserved to the states and the people”.

    Furthermore, Flora Ncholas ignores the writings of Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry and others; that clearly espoused that individuals be armed for self-defense. Even our Neanderthal ancestors, who dwelt in caves, recognized the right to bear arms for self-defense – in those days, rocks, clubs and spears.

    Good article, David, pointing out that a screenwriter for the entertainment world has no business trying to “enlighten” the rest of us, on what we can and cannot do, from a constitutional perspective. Same thing goes for the Michael Moore types.

  30. If you do, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. A poll right here on DU shows the progressive community would oppose such a move by more than 70%. The hurdles to amend the consitutioin, which is how you would repeal the second, are so high there is no way it will ever happen. The second amendment is here to stay, thank goodness! The anti-gun extremists con go insane every time a tragedy happens, but they will not be able to grab the guns.

  31. avatar Evan says:

    “Well, considering the amendment was written in 1779, the Founding Fathers certainly gave us all the right to bear, er, muskets. Yes, muskets — those long, old fashioned, single shot things that were used to fight the Revolutionary War!” They didn’t need to imagine anything. The Giridoni air rifle was invented in the 1780’s. It was a semi automatic firearm ( so to speak) and had a “high capacity” magazine of 22 rounds. It was known in this country as it was taken with Louis and Clark on their expedition. So yeah. The Founders did have access to high capacity semi automatic firearms, seeing as they were invented only a few years after the revolution ended.

  32. avatar peter says:

    Similarly, the Second Amendment does say, “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” not, “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms (baring any advancements in technology) shall not be infringed.” Not to mention the definition of the verb “to infringe.”

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email