Well, well. I just got called stupid on my own blog because someone thought that I choose to vote for a candidate because of one issue.
And in a way, I suppose it is true - but I doubt it is the issue that one might think.
In every election I'd like to vote for the candidate who is most willing to seek out and slay those who would do this country harm. I'd like to vote for the candidate least likely to take the money I have earned and give it to those who have not. But above all, I'd like to be able to vote for freedom.
The Second Amendment is only one part of that freedom. It is freedom's last resort, its guarantee.
Perhaps the commenter also does not understand that if you voted for Obama, you voted anti-gun. Your candidate's record on the issue was very clear, despite all the lies his campaign fed to its media. You chose to be anti-gun and, in my mind, anti-gun is anti-freedom. It's that simple. So sure, perhaps there are liberals who like guns...but I highly doubt that you like them for the same reason that I do.
p.s. I was also reminded by this commenter that "partisanship is retarded." Do liberals always resort to childish insults because it's easier than a debate or, you know...actual thought?
p.p.s. And for all of you who think I should still be taking liberals to the range, let me explain further why I will not.
1.) I do not believe that guns, shooting, or the 2nd Amendment will ever convert a liberal into a thinking, rational person. There needs to be a major event, something to force a revelation. I had my own when I saw Muslim terrorists fly airplanes into skyscrapers, killing thousands of Americans on live television. It was reinforced by the despicable behavior of the Left since that time. My love of shooting and my passion for the Second Amendment came long after.
2.) Guns cost money. Ammunition costs money. A membership at the range costs money. Gun cleaning equipment costs money. And, I dare say my time and effort is worth something too.
I work part-time at a public library for a shockingly low hourly rate.
Democrats have voted for those who will steal from us and future generations to pay for their whims.
You do the math.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
62 comments:
Well, you know what they say...a conservative is a liberal that got mugged.
Hank
This is an excellent demonstration of your obvious bigotry and prejudice- something so close-minded that you couldn't possibly coexist with people who may not think the same way you do. It's not about being right, because there is no "right". It's about being an amazing egomaniac. Your opinion or yourself and your views must be pretty amazing.
Anon - Sorry, but when it comes to guns there's a right and a wrong. Those who are anti-gun are without question on the wrong side of the issue. They are bigots plain and simple.
Why does Breda need to be open-minded among bigots who not only choose to be willfully ignorant of facts and impervious to logic, but also bigoted in their desire to strip others of a fundamental natural right?
To anonymous #2:
Bigotry against what? Prejudice against what? Against those who are opposed to individual liberty? I can't speak for Breda, but I would say that it's a darn honorable thing to be a bigot against anti-freedom collectivist who suppose they have duty to tell us how we should live our lives.
There is no right? So I suppose that we have no business saying that it was "wrong" for those Muslim terrorist Breda mentions in this post to fly those planes into those buildings?
There a right and a wrong. Truth can be harsh, but that'll never make it less true.
Fix your moral compass...it's clearly malfunctioning.
Not to belabor a point but she DOES exist with folks who don't have the same belief system- lots of them at the library- and gets along fine.
One reason Breda is respected by people of character and hardware on the blogosphere is BECAUSE her experience actually shifted her beliefs and world view. She decided her life was worth defending. She decided liberty and law does matter. She learned, she thought and she became more herself.
Two of my favorite bloggers are boiling my blood today, and all because they hold up the little lying liberals for my view. Well, I am going to the prison after my exercises and jogging in the fresh snow fall - so I get to talk to people that buy all their guns in the law enforcement loophole - no cop on the corner where they bought the pistol, drugs or alcohol... not enforced is a loophole. When was the last time any of the anti-gun laws was tacked on to the crimes of the armed criminal?
Anonymous:
There most certainly is "right" and there is "wrong".
Cultural relativism is wrong.
Freedom is right.
That which enhances freedom is right, that which curtails it is wrong.
But you know that, or you wouldn't be hiding behind "Anonymous".
Bigot: someone who is winning an argument with a liberal.
As usual, liberals are allowed to choose who they want to include (and change that choice daily). But, if a conservative makes a stand in their life that may not include everyone, then that conservative is intolerant. Rock on, Breda. Rock on.
All you conservatives and liberals really need to get a grip. As far as the gun debate I believe we should be able to own whatever gun we choose. I have guns and enjoy shooting them. My interpretation of the 2nd amendment means we have the right to own guns. However my interpretation is one of many and I respect others opinions whether I agree or not. If you says it is cut and dry on owning weapons you have never read the constitution because it is not clear.
"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." That to me says people can own guns. However I can see how it could be interpreted that you have to be in a militia or some other kind of state controlled military group to own weapons.
There are 2 sides to every coin just because you don't like the other side doesn't mean its wrong.
People need to learn to LISTEN and respect each other.
Wolff000
Post Heller, it's disingenuous for ANYONE to be trying to play the militia card still.
And I don't have to respect anyone who wants to restrict or eliminate my civil rights.
"However I can see how it could be interpreted that you have to be in a militia or some other kind of state controlled military group to own weapons."
Except that the founders made it pretty damn obvious WHO the militia were and under who's control the "arms" should be. It was "the people" not some state-controlled military group. Even a cursory reading of the Federalist papers bears this out, therefore to claim otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.
I for one refuse to "listen" to such blatant ignorance and will call it out for what it really is. Bigotry.
"There are 2 sides to every coin just because you don't like the other side doesn't mean its wrong."
Except that the other side's argument is WRONG. It is Demonstratably false. To parrot notions that are patently untrue for the express purpose of infringing upon the rights of others IS bigotry. I see no reason why Breda needs to be tolerant of such people.
About the militia...
You have armed citizens so you can have a militia. NOT you have a militia so you can have armed citizens.
Remember, the horse goes IN FRONT of the cart.
However my interpretation is one of many and I respect others opinions whether I agree or not. If you says it is cut and dry on owning weapons you have never read the constitution because it is not clear.
I'm confused. How, specifically, do you "respect" an opinion that you expressly believe to be wrong?
Being respectful of someone with whom you disagree is not the same thing as respecting the opinion with which you disagree.
How is saying that you disagree with someone and explaining why an expression of disrespect?
What IS disrespectful is flinging attacks ad-hominem while failing to address substantive points, all while cowering behind a cloak of anonymity.
And when one displays unequivocally that they are not deserving of respect in such a way, there is nothing dishonorable in granting them the disrespect that they have earned.
Everyone has the right to their opinion. But not all of those opinions are "right".
BTW: Understanding the rationalization that someone uses to (intentionally, in my humble opinion) misunderstand a very clear and concise statement doesn't make them right.
I can respect the individual that holds such an erroneous interpretation as much as I want, but to insist that I must (or even CAN, for that matter) respect their obviously incorrect opinion is a bit silly.
Clint - I remember thinking exactly that during Heller. What good is a militia for defense of tyranny if the .Gov has sole authority to arm/disarm the militia.
It makes the whole Amendment useless if the Gov (or state gov.'s) can simply neglect to arm the militia.
Of course there's also current US code that defines the unorganized militia and the 1792 militia acts which made it clear that citizens were to appear with their own arms.
but hey, those are just silly old facts, and we all know what liberals think of such things.
There may be two sides to every coin - but some coins are more valuable than others. The Totalitarian Socialist coin has Fascism on one side and Communism on the other - both are collectivist driven and equally repugnant.
I just had an epiphany. Looking at this post:
“This is an excellent demonstration of your obvious bigotry and prejudice- something so close-minded that you couldn't possibly coexist with people who may not think the same way you do. “
I realized it translates to :
“It makes me feel bad that people think I not worth their time.”
A lot of people made some very good points.
One person asked how you respect an opinion you don't agree. Well the answer is not an easy one. I am Buddhist and I have very different thoughts about those kinds of things. I can listen to someone and respect what they said without agreeing as long as they said it in a calm respectful manner. I can't really explain how I just do.
Others have stated a few facts I did not know about militias. I looked them up and they are correct.
I still think we should at the least respect people that have different beliefs. I have met many close minded and hateful people that are liberals and just as many that are conservatives.
Breda, I just wanted to let ya know I'm a long time reader of this blog and I love it! Don't let these losers deter ya. I was gonna make an argument too but I think they said them all.
as far as voting reasons go, guns are one of the main voting issues for me, and that's because it's one of the most important issues to me. That's the whole purpose of elections and representation, you pick someone who you believe would represent your voice in regards to the things that matter most to you. For someone to say " you shouldn't vote for just the issues that you care about" is completely stupid, and I can't tell you how sick of it i am after hearing liberal after liberal tell the conservatives that they can't vote for what they want because it's bigotted, and ignorant. THAT'S WHAT OUR COUNTRY IS ABOUT!
anyways, keep it up. vote for whoever ya want. as the saying goes, this is america!
cheers.
-Dan
when i said "that's what our country is about" i meant the ability to vote freely. haha sorry i just read that and found it confusing.
Just to make the point: Human Beings are meant to be free.
They are meant to be free even before the US Bill of Rights enumerated, (not established or granted) a basic laundry list of human rights.
Even if the Bill of Rights is destroyed, humans have the right to be free.
Any human has the right to be free, to think and believe as they wish, to defend their life, to come and go as they please, to own property, to own the fruits of their own labor.
There are other human rights. I wanted to make the point that anyone can sit and make a list of what they are and everyone has them whether a court or government says they do or not.
For years, I voted for a local democrat (state leg) because he was pro-gun and his GOP opponents were not. This last election, he switched to the anti-gunners. His GOP opponent was pro-gun and got my vote.
The dem who betrayed his legacy lost the election. Many others apparently thought as did I.
Breda=100% WIN!
I'll discuss it with folks. I'll take the open minded shooting, the people that during the course of their conversation can admit that one of their beliefs might not be as black and white as they see it. Those are the liberals. They generally mean well but somehow have missed some of the facts before making up their mind.
Then you have the leftists, the lunatics that have been loud, annoying as hell, the "people" who make the inbred cousin humpin' comments everywhere from the web to their ivory towers. They will never get my assistance.
They have no emotional governor, no filter between irrational mind and mouth. They are dangerous true believers in the government. They will be used and thrown away. I have NO desire to arm those opposed to freedom.
If the SHTF tomorrow and a liberal came to me for a gun I'd consider it. If one of the others came, I'd turn them in.
wv=trishing, making guns appeal to women by painting pink.
Breda: I'm cross-posting this from the comments section of another of your posts, but I think it applies here, too:
It's very telling that on the Whitehouse.gov website, when you look at the Bill of Rights section, it says this:
"The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms."
Check again, you power grubbing assholes. The 2nd Amendment doesn't GIVE us anything. It PROTECTS our right to bear arms.
I never in my wildest dreams thought I'd ever actually fear for the future of the Republic. I honestly wonder if we can recover from the damage being done by Obama and his minions.
^ Yup, and Obama was a Constitutional Law professor.....scary huh?
Soap box, ballot box, cartridge box.
As I see it, the campaigning is over, and the election is over. That leaves just one box to be checked.
"Well, you know what they say...a conservative is a liberal that got mugged."
And a Libertarian is a Conservative that's been mugged by the government.
Breda,
You are absolutely correct.
Why should we respect the opinions of people who want to make us slaves?
Best regards and greets from a NH reader,
NMM1AFan
Well, this was going to simply be a bless you Breda, but now let me belabor the point... just a fuzz.
As many have pointed out, the 2nd Amendment protects our right to bear arms. No matter how you read it, it is a right owned by the citizenry, and therefore, by individuals. This, to me, means that we, as individuals, can do as we wish and feel as we wish about it. So, flamers --meaning those who would post and hide-- aside, I am mighty glad to be among those who landed on the "right" side of this. ;)
And for those of you landed somewhere else, may your chains rest lightly upon your shoulders.
"may your chains rest lightly upon your shoulders"
That's part of a great quote from Samuel Adams, which is unfortunately all to appropriate today:
“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may Posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
The founding fathers fought against just such government intrusion into the lives of citizens.
Just sayin'.
Breda, as a free citizen, is free to associate with, befriend, train, assist, educate, and otherwise engage whomever she so desires, whenever she so desires (assuming her intended recipient/target is amenable... or intent on doing her harm, in a self-defense situation). That she is unwilling to provide expensive equipment, time, and training to someone who voted for an individual who would unjustly rob law-abiding citizens fo that equipemtn is not rude, it is not offensive, and it is not unjustified. In fact, it demonstrates a marked consistency in her beliefs.
As for single-issue voting, I will always single-issue vote against someone who is against liberty and freedom. I will not always vote for someone who is a proponent of those two things, depending on his/her stances on other issues, but it is a sure-fire discriminator for me.
As for the meaning of the Second Amendment, time for one of my most-favorite quotes:
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
-- Tenche Cox
Unfortunately for the hoplophobes and anti-rights activists around the country, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to civilian, individual ownership of firearms, whether you adopt the "militia" interpretation, or the "individual" interpretation.
In short, anti-rights folks are made of fail.
Um, I'm almost afraid to comment, lest I be skewered by both sides, but....
I'm a mostly-liberal gun owner who's tired of both the government and the ACLU trying to tell me what I can do, what I can't do, and what I *have* to do whether it makes any kind of sense or not. Respectful disagreement and debate, without knee-jerk responses or name-calling, is the only way we're ever going to find our way to common ground that will benefit all.
And I'm really not quite sure whether that position makes me an optimist or a schizophrenic.
Oh, and Breda? You rock!
Looks like you hit a nerve, kid.
Keep up the good work.
"find our way to common ground that will benefit all."
The question is what is "common ground" on guns? The anti-gun crowd seeks to limit number & availability of firearms in private hands. They want to limit private arms. They want to ban guns and ban carrying of guns. How do you find "common ground" with that?
I'm watching a program on the History Channel right now about FDR....NOT one of my favorite presidents. The thing that struck me was his evaluation of Stalin after he came back from the Yalta Conference. He basically called Stalin a fine man with a good sense of humor. Now we have people calling our newly-minted President similar things, and it scares the daylights out of me.
Breda....just keep doing what you're doing. You have true friends out here who will stand by your RIGHT to free speech, regardless of what some dumbed-down, brian-washed individual may post.
You go, girl!
Jim
My reaction to the recent national election:
Obummer won????
Oh, bummer!!!!
Scott Garten
Breda,
I make the rounds of the gunnie blogs occasionally, as I have several guns, conceal carry, and feel strongly about our freedoms. I feel at heart that I am a conservative, but I just can not support the republican party in it's current form. I think they are as a whole incompetent, not fiscally conservative, and willing to do away with any number of our rights. Please understand that some of us felt a political house cleaning was necessary, and voted for it with misgivings. I don't think those of us that did that are fools, as the gunnie blogs tend to argue, it had to happen, I worry about Obama on gun rights, but I shudder to imagine a McCain/Palin presidency on almost every other issue.
Anon: If that's not good enough for Breda, it's not good enough for me.
Without the first and second amendment, which Obama and his cronies are clearly trying to destroy, everything else is moot.
if you think there is a single thing O is doing that is one whit better than what mcCain would do right now, or for that matter a trained circus monkey, you have clearly lost all contact with reality.
Amen, sister!!
OOPS, in reference to my comment, it was meant for Breda!! ( I am definitely pro gun, pro-liberty)
Let's talk about freedom and values, here. It's Breda's time and money. She has the right to spend it any way she pleases, and Y'ALL DON'T GET A VOTE.
On the larger issue: if I were in the habit of going to the range and of taking people with me, I don't think I'd make the same choice, though I certainly respect Breda's logic. First, guns could become a wedge issue for Bourgeois Marxists (I like that better than "liberal", which was a GOOD thing once upon a time). Second, if tyranny came from the Right (which the Bush admin. showed us was entirely possible), it would be nice to have some of the militia NOT sit on their hands because "he's our guy." OTOH, it could be argued that anyone who has accepted the moral principle that state guns can legitimately be used to take property from others should not have guns themselves. The problem with this is that if we were consistent in application, most of the gun community would be disarmed. (How many of you voted for the "compassionate conservative", because of and not in spite of his socialist nonsense?)
Quote
Anonymous said...
"I worry about Obama on gun rights, but I shudder to imagine a McCain/Palin presidency on almost every other issue."
Well, without our Second Amendment rights, all the others become moot.
Brenda-
Your guns, your money, your time equals your rules.
As to single issue voting; considering the reasons given by some other people I know (including appearance, spouse's status [e.g. deceased] and so forth), voting for an issue that is extremely important to you makes pretty good sense.
"voting for an issue that is extremely important to you makes pretty good sense."
Yup, especially when it's a fundamental right that we're talking about.
Breda doesn't have to justify this choice to anyone here or anywhere else. It's her life and she can take whomever she pleases to the range.
I am not surprised that you are angered at being called bigoted on your own blog. You have the perfect right to associate with whom you want.
But please recall you were once anti gun and were persuaded otherwise by experience and others. Many other people just assume the anti gun rhetoric and you are effective in changing one mind at a time. Remember the power of compounding!
Each mind that is opened is then another potential advocate and will spread the word.
Pick your converts and continue in your good works. If we condemn people due to the poor voting choices we would restrict ourselves to a very small population.
RAH
Breda ~
Stand your ground.
The same people who think they're entitled to take your money, your freedom, and your firearms through the vote appear to think they're also entitled to your free time and discretionary spending too, via a guilt trip. Transparently selfish bastards, ain't they?!
Don't let 'em get you down.
Why should I respect an opinion?
I respect a person's capacity to form an opinion. We all have the opportunity to see things from a different perspective. Different perspectives are what can let us recognize and overcome the blind spots we as individuals have.
I have no duty to respect any particular opinion if after honest evaluation it contradicts that which I have personally experienced, or tested and found to be true.
"I have no duty to respect any particular opinion if after honest evaluation it contradicts that which I have personally experienced, or tested and found to be true."
Exactly. Some opinions are demonstratably false. If an opinion is dead wrong it should be called out as such in the course of debate. In fact, isn't that the whole point of debate?
All your additional arguments notwithstanding, you should still take liberals to the range - in lieu of those paper plates!
(I understand your frustration. A vote for a gun control candidate is a vote against liberty, pure and simple. Funny how those who don't get that gush the mantra "never again" while rolling out the red carpet for tyranny with each and every act...)
This is the proof of a well run blog: someone lurches in and leaves a cow pie of st00pid and the readers slap him/her around without any effort from the BlogMistress.
Heh.
Breda, ur doin it rite!!
51!!!!
Captcha: Jugsdist. A guy who sells Dow Corning products to plastic sturgeons.
Someone else said it, but it bears repeating...
Rock On, Breda, Rock On.
"I worry about Obama on gun rights, but I shudder to imagine a McCain/Palin presidency on almost every other issue."
I know! I mean, if McCain had been elected, we might have to put up with originalist Supreme Court justices who'd strictly apply the Constitution, limiting the powers of the President and Congress to something closer to their Constitutional limits! Can you imagine?
Whew! Glad we dodged _that_ bullet!
Michael, that's some damned fine snark you got there.
SpeakDog said...
"may your chains rest lightly upon your shoulders"
That's part of a great quote from Samuel Adams, which is unfortunately all to appropriate today:
“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may Posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
With all due respect, the quote is from Patrick Henry's "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" speech delivered March 23, 1775 at a meeting of the Virginia colony in St. John's Church, Richmond, VA.
http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/henry.htm
Regardless of who spoke those words, the sentiments expressed fit the Acolytes of the Obamanation quite well.
I think the anonymous #2 comment is a classic case of projection. Replace "you" and "your" with "I", "my" and "mine" and you have the perfect description of the mindset of the left.
Breda,
Now you've done it. I have to add you to my blogroll and proclaim you as the third chick I want to go shootin with along with Tam and Brigid.
To the original idiot who posted the bit that spurred Breda's reply, and those who sail with him/her.
You are entitled to your opinion.
You are NOT entitled to attempt to force others to cater to your opinions.
Breda's choice is not to waste her time and energy on those who made the choice to cause her harm.
When the jack booted thugs come back from wherever they hid after the Clinton administration, and systematically start to dismantle our 2nd Amendment rights, -again- Breda is under no obligation to show her idea of a good time to someone who did the moral equivalent of opening a window on the moon, and causing their fellow humans to die of explosive decompression.
I still don't get it, why provide mere titilation and amusement for people who consider such a Right to be fungible and elastic as their own self-stimulation - and then get all huffy whey you won't fondle them?
Cattle prod to them and their Soviet 5-Stimulus Plan!
Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@lneilsmith.org
Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.
People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.
Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.
If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.
If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.
What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?
If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?
If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with anything?
If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?
Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of.
He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?
And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.
Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?
On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?
Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.
And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.
But it isn't true, is it?
Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author -- provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.
VI. Conclusion
The second amendment to the Constitution had two objectives. The first purpose was to recognize in general terms the importance of a militia to a free state. This recognition derives from the very core of Classical Republican thought; its "constituency" among the Framers was found primarily among conservatives, particularly Virginia's landed gentry. Indeed, prior to Virginia's proposal, no federal ratifying convention had called for such recognition. The second purpose was to guarantee an individual right to own and carry arms. This right stemmed both from the English Declaration of Rights and from Enlightenment sources. Its primary supporters came from the Radical-Democratic movement, whether based among the small farmers of western Pennsylvania or the urban mechanics of Massachusetts. Only by incorporating both provisions (p.60)could the first Congress reconcile the priorities of Sam Adams with those of George Mason, and lessen the "disquietude" both of the Pennsylvania and Massachusetts minorities and those of the Virginia and New York majorities. The dual purpose of the second amendment was recognized by all early constitutional commentators;[264] the assumption that the second amendment had but a single objective is in fact an innovation born of historical ignorance.
The distinction between the second amendment's purposes enables us to avoid the pitfalls of the collective rights view, which would hold that the entire amendment was meant solely to protect a "collective right" to have a militia.[265] The militia component of the second amendment was not meant as a "right", collective or individual, except in the sense that structural provisions (e.g., requirements that money bills originate in the House, or military appropriations not exceed two years) are considered collective "rights." Indeed, the militia component was meant to invoke the exertion of governmental power over the citizen, to inspire it to require citizens to assume the burdens of militia duty. In this respect it differs radically from any other provision of the Bill of Rights. To read what was a recognition of an individual right, the right to arms, as subsumed within the militia recognition is thus not only permitting the tail to wag the dog, but to annihilate what was intended as a right.[266] As the one (p.61)provision of the Bill of Rights which encourages rather than restricts governmental action, the militia component's terms were necessarily vague and its phrasing a reminder rather than a command.[267]
The right to arms portion of the second amendment, in contrast, was meant to be a prohibition, as fully binding as those in the remainder of the Bill of Rights. Madison intended that the second amendment be read as incorporating the individual rights proposals put forward by the Pennsylvania minority and by Sam Adams and the New Hampshire convention. Judging from contemporary discussion in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, he succeeded.[268] If either clause can be accorded primacy, it is the right to arms clause; only in Virginia, at the eleventh hour of the ratification process, was a militia clause appended to a federal bill of rights proposal.
Reading the entirety of the second amendment as militia-related, based upon some contemporary references to the need for constitutional (p.62)recognition of the militia concept, confuses the purpose of one provision with the text of another. The second amendment, in short, cannot be explained simply as a last avowal of the classical ideal, as "the last act of the Renaissance."[269] Rather, it is a bridge between the decline of that ideal and the rise of the liberal democracy. Part of the second amendment looks backward to the worlds of Polybius and Machiavelli; but part looks forward, to the worlds of Jefferson and Jackson. Only a recognition of the dual nature of the second amendment will enable us to give meaning to the aspirations of Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams as well as those of George Mason.[270]
http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardhist.html
SpeakDog said...
"may your chains rest lightly upon your shoulders"
That's part of a great quote from Samuel Adams, which is unfortunately all to appropriate today: ...
brolin1911a1:
With all due respect, the quote is from Patrick Henry's "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" speech...
Seems to be overwhelmingly attributed to Samuel Adams:
google for '"Patrick Henry" "Posterity forget that ye were our countrymen" -Adams' returns 80 results.
google for '"Patrick Henry" "Posterity forget that you were our countrymen" -Adams' returns 2 results.
google for '"Samuel Adams" "Posterity forget that ye were our countrymen" -Henry' returns 61,800 results.
google for '"Samuel Adams" "Posterity forget that you were our countrymen" -Henry' returns 8690 results.
That would be over 70,000 for Adams vs. less than 100 for Henry. When "correcting" someone, you might want to be a little more sure of being correct: the word "Posterity" does not even appear on the page you linked! It appears more correct to say that it is occasionally misattributed to Henry.
Post a Comment