If Gun Controllers Read The Other Amendments Like They Do The 2nd

If Gun Controllers Read The Other Amendments Like They Do The 2nd

Gun control zealots love to get hooked on the semantics of the 2nd Amendment.

Due to the forefathers elegant writing that is more verse than prose, gun control zealots have harped on misinterpreted syntaxes of the 2nd Amendment for years.

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

The gun controllers like to say that since there isn’t an “and” between State and the right of the people that somehow invalidates the intent of founders.   The intent being found in the other writings of the time.

George Mason: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

Sam Adams: “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms”

George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence”

Alexander Hamilton: “The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed”

Thomas Paine: “Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them (arms)”

So even though the founders had just tossed out a tyrant and basically made a bill of rights that all be exclusively dealt with the aforementioned tyranny, somehow the lack of a word is supposed to undercut the intent?

If we were to extend this logic to the other rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights we would have a very different country today.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

By applying gun control “logic” on the 1st Amendment we would have the right of free speech, press and assembly limited to only apply when seeking redress for grievances.  You see, everything before the petition part was an “or”.  You have this right OR this right OR this right, then you can take one of those rights AND petition the government.

Remember, this is gun control “logic”.

So, unless you are petitioning the government for redress of grievances, your right to free speech or assembly or the press or religion would be able to be restricted to the point of prohibition.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law

No mention of apartments in the 3rd Amendment.  Therefore the government has the rights to shack up as many soldiers in your apartment as they want.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces

It only says land, it doesn’t say land forces therefore anyone can be held to answer for a crime without due process if it occurs on land.  Therefore the 5th Amendment only applies to crimes taken while either on an airplane or while falling off a cliff.  And since there weren’t airplanes back in the 1700’s and since gun controllers say at best we have a right to a ball and powder musket then the founding fathers meant to enumerate in the constitution a provision to protect the rights of people accused of committing crimes while falling off a cliff.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

Since the it’s “and” and not “and/or” between cruel and unusual punishments the 8th Amendment allows punishments that can be either cruel or unusual so long as they are not both.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Just like the previous amendment this one has “or” instead of an “and/or” and as such allows for certain rights to be denied AND disparaged against, so long as both are done when you apply the gun controllers logic to the 9th Amendment.

By applying gun control “logic” to other amendments of the Constitution illustrates how ridiculous it is.  Yet gun control zealots still like to argue that somehow, despite the historical evidence of intent, that the founders somehow wanted to limit the right to keep and bear arms to the military.

But back in reality I argue that the intention of the founders was clear and clearest with regards to the 2nd Amendment.  Not only are there the writings of the day that argue for the personal keeping and bearing of arms but also the anecdotal fact that these colonists OVERTHREW A TYRANT.  They didn’t do it by not quartering soldiers, they did it by the use of arms.

They felt so strongly about it that they included in the 2nd the strongest wording they could and a phrase that is not found anywhere else in the Constitution.

Shall not be infringed


17 responses »

    • These types of comments always remind me of… [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#Studies_comparing_religious_belief_and_I.Q.], and the trouble with letting people like you and that author loose on the world. Most of the verses in that article were ripped out of context, as most theologians would agree that the “weapons” Jesus was referring to were spiritual weapons of use against satan, not physical weapons for use against man. For that sentiment, just read Mat. 5:38+, if you are confused enough to think Jesus would actually want people to kill intruders, even in self-defense. Regardless, thank the founders for the 1st amendment, so that we can try and use logic as opposed to antiquated “beliefs”.

      Regarding the 2nd amendment article above… its rife with logical fallacies, just making up BS for other amendments without following any sensible pattern. And for one, we already have gun control, and the type of gun control MOST people support, like mandatory background checks, and longer waiting periods, does nothing to restrict anyone’s right. It only puts logical safeguards in place to owning a powerful deadly weapon. People also forget to put things in context. Weapons were a bit different back then than they are now, and so was the political climate. These were not infallible people, and luckily we haven’t followed their own belief system in everything, as after writing that “all men are created equal” in the DoI, this country continued to be a host to slavery for another 100 years, and segregation for 100 more.

      No, the real problem is that logic no longer matter, as long as you are loud and have money, so congress brushes it off to avoid angering the half-witted interest groups. That being said, gun control itself was upheld as valid in many cases by the supreme court…

      “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.”

      • You seem to be more intelligent than most anti gun fanatics. That is good. But I still disagree with you on this issue. But that aside what I would like to comment on is you statement that the founders were in favor of slaves. Slavery was illegal in most northern colonies and most people in the northern colonies abhorred the practice.Most of the signers of the declaration and constitution were against slavery but in order to get the southern colonies to agree they compromised. It still remained illegal in the northern states. It was therefore left up to the states to determine for themselves.

        We have let the federal government take too much power; authority that was not granted too them by the constitution. We are a republic, and in a republic the states retain many of the powers unto them selves; closer to the people as it should be. It is time for the states to take back their authority from the federal government.

      • “Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”
        If you agree with this statement, you would disagree with your cronies that the document (Declaration of Independence) is an outdated document and should not be applied to todays problems. Not to mention “in common use at the time” would progress with what in use at this time allowing the sale and possession of semi-automatic weapons.

  1. Your coments regarding the 9th amendment are incorrect. In the Aristotlean view of logic, “or” can mean one, or the other, or both. Though I hate that people use word play to twist the clear meaning of anything.

    A bigger issue is what happens when one Amendment or portion of the Constitution contradicts another. Most of the gun control arguments are based on the Commerce Clause. But it seems to me that since the 2nd Amendment was passed after the Constition was ratified, all of the Amendments should overide conflicting portions of the Constitution. Am I missing something there?

      • The commerce clause is what the federal government uses to justify much of its gun control. It is also from that justification that we get the Firearm Freedom Acts popping up that state that weapons built and remain within a state are exempt from federal jurisdiction.

    • From a logical standpoint, the amendments would, by definition and nature, supersede any part of the amended document any place the two conflict. So it would follow that neither the commerce clause, nor any other part of the Constitution, could be used to infringe the right to keep and bear arms. The possible exception being covered in other Amendments, the denial of rights, liberty, or property through due process of law (meaning legal revocation of select rights as a result of trial for criminal behavior).

      • Exactly. I think that few would disagree that the federal government has the power to regulate the sale, manufacture, and possibly movement of firearms between the states as long as the regulation does not go so far that it is considered infringement. In my opinion, any regulation, tax, etc. aimed specifically at firearms or ammunition would be an infringement. But, for instance, the Gun Free School Zone Act, which is extremely problematic, was passed based on the alleged effect that guns in school zones have on interstate commerce. The entire argument is insane. But the effect of the law is a virtual ban on a Hoosier, like myself, being able to travel with a loaded firearm through 30 other states that recognize the Indiana License to Carry a Handgun. That denies me the right of self protection that the second amendment was created to provide. Such travel would be completely legal according to state law in those states.

  2. Pingback: If Gun Controllers Read The Other Amendments Like They Do The 2nd | Bullets First - The Smoking Chamber : The Smoking Chamber

  3. The first day of Constitutional Law, most Law Students are told not to bother reading the Constitution.

    Lawyers are taught how to “creatively interpret” contracts to find their clients a “weasel clause” to violate the terms of the agreement. Judges are lawyers who have refined their craft.

    So is it any wonder that MOST of the legal profession are experts at getting around the Rule of Law?

    BTW… thank you for providing them more ammunition to violate the rest of the bill of rights.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s