Why Leftists Keep Lying About The Second Amendment
In a world where Democrats can read and understand the plain text of the Heller decision elucidating the fact that the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,” we wouldn’t the following video. Sadly, so powerful is the Democratic Party’s lust for complete civilian disarmament, that doesn’t seem to be the world we live in. Hence this succinct Nick Freitas video.
“Why, in a country founded on the principles of individual liberty and rights, is there such a huge debate over the second amendment?”
“Critics argue that the founding fathers never intended for the Second Amendment to apply to individuals, and today many politicians and political activists try to claim that ‘well-regulated’ means government regulation, and that the word militia means that only those serving in a state militia have the right to keep and bear arms.”
“But when we look back at the debates over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, a few things show up.”
“For starters, the American Revolution was fresh in the minds of the founding fathers. They knew that an armed populace was instrumental in securing America’s Independence.”
“The notion that the Second Amendment was solely about militias doesn’t quite hold up when you dig into the writings of the time. Take James Madison, the father of the Constitution and one of the chief writers of the Federalist Papers. In his own words, he explained that the right to bear arms was an individual right essential for the personal and collective defense of America.”
“And he wasn’t alone. George Mason perhaps said it best when he said ‘Who are the militia? They consist of the whole people, except a few public officers.'”
“And what’s more, there are literally dozens of similar quotes from the men who debated and ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Virtually all of them recognize that the Second Amendment conveyed an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
“The reason for this is actually quite simple: Because the founding fathers recognize that rights are, by their nature, something that only individuals can exercise.”
“Because many of the same politicians who claim that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms also believe that some rights only belong to groups of people. But the concept of group rights runs into some major problems, because it suggests that a group collectively holds rights or privileges that an individual cannot have.”
“But this just begs the question if a group of people can collectively hold rights that an individual doesn’t have any claim to then. Where on Earth did the right come from in the first place?”
“Consider this when we talk about the freedom of speech, religion, or assembly, we don’t frame them as group rights. These rights belong to individuals and their exercise within the law doesn’t infringe on others rights. The Second Amendment should be no different, but still some claim that these rights need to be restricted or even abolished due to the undeniable fact that many have abused these rights.”
“But this begs the question: Are your rights forfeit the moment someone else abuses theirs? If so, we might as well just stop calling them rights and accept the fact that you don’t have rights as much as you do privileges which can be granted or take away as soon as a political elite decides you don’t need them, or it’s too dangerous for you to have them.
“But ironically, that’s exactly what the Second Amendment is supposed to prevent, and maybe that’s why certain politicians would like to see it gone.”
This loses style points for overuse of “begs the question” but is otherwise accurate.
Replacing individual rights with collective is of course precise poison social justice warriors want to force down America’s throats…
“[T]he word militia means that only those serving in a state militia have the right to keep and bear arms.”
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 did not envision the federal government exercising control over the militia. It was not until 1792, as a response to the Whiskey Rebellion, that Congress passed a law giving the President authority to call out the militia to suppress rebellion against the federal government.
It is anachronistic reasoning to argue that the Second Amendment recognizes any authority of Congress to create, organize or regulate the militia.
Just as the printing press existed prior to the Constitutional Convention, so too did the rifle. Congress merely validated their usage as instruments to be owned and controlled by private persons apart from the authority and approbation of Congress.
The security of a free state depends on the existence of a “well-regulated militia”. If We the People cannot be entrusted to keep and bear our own arms, it is indicative that prohibitions are being introduced by agents hostile to the existence of a free state.
Dave Kopel’s tour de force 1998 article in the BYU Law Review (copy available here: https://davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/19thcentury.htm ) absolutely destroys the current liberal narrative that the individual rights view of the 2A is a recent invention of the NRA.
He’s collected and cites to a massive collection of public writings, court decisions, and other primary sources. Makes for an easy list of things to pepper lazy journalists with.
[…] BLOG: Why Leftists Keep Lying About The Second Amendment. “What’s more, there are literally dozens of similar quotes from the men who debated and […]
Not merely overuse of “begs the question,” but misuse: It’s a translation of the Latin petitio principii, meaning a request for a starting point, used by the Scholastics for the fallacy of assuming what you claim to prove or arguing in a circle. It ought to be “raises the question” if it refers to asking an actual question.
“The notion that the Second Amendment was solely about militias doesn’t quite hold up when you dig into the writings of the time. Take James Madison, the father of the Constitution and one of the chief writers of the Federalist Papers. In his own words, he explained that the right to bear arms was an individual right essential for the personal and collective defense of America.”
Can someone give me a citation for the statement above.
fwiw – I am of the opinion that 2A protects two separate and distinct rights
A) the right of the people to form militia’s
B ) the right of the individual to keep and bear arms
“ fwiw – I am of the opinion that 2A protects two separate and distinct rights
A) the right of the people to form militia’s
B ) the right of the individual to keep and bear arms”
Better: the right of the people to bear arms and the right of an armed populace to repel invasions.
That the 2A protects two separate rights (or establishes two separate principles) is quite right, as one of my law review articles points out. The idea that a militia is necessary to a free state, and that individuals have the right to arms, had separate historical origins about three centuries apart, appealed in 1789 to two different constituencies (that is, two different bodies of critics of the 1787 Constitution), and in fact were not conjoined until the 11th hour of our early constitutional history.
The 2nd Amendment needs to be understood in the context of King James II, the Glorious Revolution, and the English Declaration of Rights.
James II was raised as a Catholic and tried to force England to convert. He was able to do this because the common people had been disarmed and and England had reversed its long-standing tradition against having a standing army. The standing army allowed James to force Catholicism on his people.
The English appealed to William and Mary. Both were in the line of succession to the English throne. William led an army to force James to abdicate. It was called the Glorious Revolution because the English Army refused to fight so it was nearly bloodless.
James abdicated and William and Mary were crowned co-equal monarchs.
In the wake of that, the English Declaration of Rights was passed. It affirmed the right of Protestants to bear arms and outlawed keeping a standing army in times of peace. It also had clauses about freedom of speech, freedom to petition the government, outlawing excessive bail and cruel and inhuman punishment.
The Bill of Rights drew heavily on the English Declaration of Rights but rephrased them. The prohibition against a standing army was reduced to a preamble to the right to bear arms. But that’s where it came from and why. The Second Amendment was meant to keep an oppressive government from oppressing the people by giving them the means to resist.
“””Not merely overuse of “begs the question,” but misuse …”””
I do not consider this a misuse, because the phrase “begs the question” also has the natural connotation of suggesting that a statement had just been made that shouldn’t be accepted without asking a natural question.
I would go so far as to suggest that the translation of the Latin phrase as “begs the question” doesn’t make sense, and what’s more, most people using the phrase colloquially means “raising the question” rather than “addressin,g circular reasoning”, which naturally begs the question “why don’t we just come up with a better phrase for circular reasoning, say “‘running in circles’, or even ‘back where we searted’, instead?”
I’m on the fence about whether he overused the phrase: it kindof irritated me that he used it so often, but he used it appropriately each time, to highlight major flaws in gun-grabber arguments.
The left has tried to eliminate the grantor of those rights and replace God with government. Government of men was a concern of our founders having just ended a bloody revolution to remove a tyrant. The further away we get from that understanding the closer we return to other tyrannical regimes . Since God cannot be controlled, it stands to reason the left’s insistence on his removal from our affairs.
“[T]he word militia means that only those serving in a state militia have the right to keep and bear arms.”
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 did not envision the federal government exercising control over the militia. It was not until 1792, as a response to the Whiskey Rebellion, that Congress passed a law giving the President authority to call out the militia to suppress rebellion against the federal government.
It is anachronistic reasoning to argue that the Second Amendment recognizes any authority of Congress to create, organize or regulate the militia.
Just as the printing press existed prior to the Constitutional Convention, so too did the rifle. Congress merely validated their usage as instruments to be owned and controlled by private persons apart from the authority and approbation of Congress.
The security of a free state depends on the existence of a “well-regulated militia”. If We the People cannot be entrusted to keep and bear our own arms, it is indicative that prohibitions are being introduced by agents hostile to the existence of a free state.
Dave Kopel’s tour de force 1998 article in the BYU Law Review (copy available here: https://davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/19thcentury.htm ) absolutely destroys the current liberal narrative that the individual rights view of the 2A is a recent invention of the NRA.
He’s collected and cites to a massive collection of public writings, court decisions, and other primary sources. Makes for an easy list of things to pepper lazy journalists with.
[…] BLOG: Why Leftists Keep Lying About The Second Amendment. “What’s more, there are literally dozens of similar quotes from the men who debated and […]
Not merely overuse of “begs the question,” but misuse: It’s a translation of the Latin petitio principii, meaning a request for a starting point, used by the Scholastics for the fallacy of assuming what you claim to prove or arguing in a circle. It ought to be “raises the question” if it refers to asking an actual question.
All true but please look up proper use of the phrase “begs the question.”
“The notion that the Second Amendment was solely about militias doesn’t quite hold up when you dig into the writings of the time. Take James Madison, the father of the Constitution and one of the chief writers of the Federalist Papers. In his own words, he explained that the right to bear arms was an individual right essential for the personal and collective defense of America.”
Can someone give me a citation for the statement above.
fwiw – I am of the opinion that 2A protects two separate and distinct rights
A) the right of the people to form militia’s
B ) the right of the individual to keep and bear arms
thanks
Rights and Justice are alike, in that they are only and ever individual in nature.
Just as there is no such thing as social/environmental/group justice, there are no social/environmental/group rights.
Kurt
“ fwiw – I am of the opinion that 2A protects two separate and distinct rights
A) the right of the people to form militia’s
B ) the right of the individual to keep and bear arms”
Better: the right of the people to bear arms and the right of an armed populace to repel invasions.
That the 2A protects two separate rights (or establishes two separate principles) is quite right, as one of my law review articles points out. The idea that a militia is necessary to a free state, and that individuals have the right to arms, had separate historical origins about three centuries apart, appealed in 1789 to two different constituencies (that is, two different bodies of critics of the 1787 Constitution), and in fact were not conjoined until the 11th hour of our early constitutional history.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3446841
The 2nd Amendment needs to be understood in the context of King James II, the Glorious Revolution, and the English Declaration of Rights.
James II was raised as a Catholic and tried to force England to convert. He was able to do this because the common people had been disarmed and and England had reversed its long-standing tradition against having a standing army. The standing army allowed James to force Catholicism on his people.
The English appealed to William and Mary. Both were in the line of succession to the English throne. William led an army to force James to abdicate. It was called the Glorious Revolution because the English Army refused to fight so it was nearly bloodless.
James abdicated and William and Mary were crowned co-equal monarchs.
In the wake of that, the English Declaration of Rights was passed. It affirmed the right of Protestants to bear arms and outlawed keeping a standing army in times of peace. It also had clauses about freedom of speech, freedom to petition the government, outlawing excessive bail and cruel and inhuman punishment.
The Bill of Rights drew heavily on the English Declaration of Rights but rephrased them. The prohibition against a standing army was reduced to a preamble to the right to bear arms. But that’s where it came from and why. The Second Amendment was meant to keep an oppressive government from oppressing the people by giving them the means to resist.
Even I read the Federalist Papers in high school. Please do your own research. Blessings.
“””Not merely overuse of “begs the question,” but misuse …”””
I do not consider this a misuse, because the phrase “begs the question” also has the natural connotation of suggesting that a statement had just been made that shouldn’t be accepted without asking a natural question.
I would go so far as to suggest that the translation of the Latin phrase as “begs the question” doesn’t make sense, and what’s more, most people using the phrase colloquially means “raising the question” rather than “addressin,g circular reasoning”, which naturally begs the question “why don’t we just come up with a better phrase for circular reasoning, say “‘running in circles’, or even ‘back where we searted’, instead?”
I’m on the fence about whether he overused the phrase: it kindof irritated me that he used it so often, but he used it appropriately each time, to highlight major flaws in gun-grabber arguments.
The left has tried to eliminate the grantor of those rights and replace God with government. Government of men was a concern of our founders having just ended a bloody revolution to remove a tyrant. The further away we get from that understanding the closer we return to other tyrannical regimes . Since God cannot be controlled, it stands to reason the left’s insistence on his removal from our affairs.