Author Topic: Senate website gets the Second Amendment wrong  (Read 869 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,255
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Senate website gets the Second Amendment wrong
« on: September 26, 2013, 08:11:02 AM »
Senate Website Gets Second Amendment Wrong

by AWR Hawkins  26 Sep 2013, 2:58 AM PDT 49  post a comment 
 

A Senate.gov web page covering the Constitution gets the scope of the Second Amendment wrong, telling readers that it is not clear whether the amendment protects an individual right or a collective right.

Here is what the Senate's web page on the Constitution says about the Second Amendment: "Whether this provision protects the individual's right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated."

This is simply not true on at least two levels.

Number one, the scope of the Second Amendment has not been seriously questioned until Alisky-minded radicals isolated it from among the other amendments in the Bill of Rights and began attacking it. Before that it was taken for granted that the scope of the Second Amendment was the same as the scope of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and so on.

Remember, the Bill of Rights protects individual, "unalienable rights" with which we were "endowed" by our Creator.

Secondly, and confirming these things, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right twice in the last five years.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) they ruled: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia." In McDonald v. Chicago (2010) Associate Justice Samuel Alito referenced the Heller decision to make the same point in a different but equally clear manner: "In Heller, we held that individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second Amendment right."

How is that Wikipedia has incorporated the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual right but a U.S. Senate website has not?

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/25/Senate-Website-Gets-Second-Amendment-Wrong


The senate got it "wrong" accidentally on purpose. :woohoo:







« Last Edit: September 26, 2013, 08:11:44 AM by rangerrebew »
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions. John Adams

Online andy58-in-nh

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,562
Re: Senate website gets the Second Amendment wrong
« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2013, 08:22:59 AM »
Neither the plain language of a Constitutional provision nor successive Supreme Court decisions are held to be definitive whenever the Left disagrees with an outcome,
...but ObamaCare is "the law of the land" and must never again be questioned.
Liberalism isn't really about making the world a better place. It's about reassuring the elites that they are good people for wanting to rule over it.

Offline AbaraXas

  • Just a nobody
  • Social Media Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,101
  • Just a nobody
Re: Senate website gets the Second Amendment wrong
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2013, 08:29:13 AM »
Apparently they don't have access to the Federalist Papers. That can be the only excuse for ignorance at this level.

The Federalist Papers clearly outline that the right is an individual right.

The gist is... Because there is a need for a 'well armed militia', the people (individuals) should have the right to also be armed so any standing military force can't tyrannize them. They go on to say it was important the people be 'as well armed as any standing army of Europe' .

The 2nd isn't 'you have the right IN a militia', it is 'you have a right BECAUSE a militia is is necessary'.
Never delude yourself into thinking you're "influencing" or making a difference on the internet. It is an ephemeral pleasure.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,255
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Re: Senate website gets the Second Amendment wrong
« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2013, 08:31:00 AM »
Neither the plain language of a Constitutional provision nor successive Supreme Court decisions are held to be definitive whenever the Left disagrees with an outcome,
...but ObamaCare is "the law of the land" and must never again be questioned.

ObamaCare isn't being questioned by anyone in the District of Corruption.  The only one who is putting his belief on the line is Ted Cruz.  It is, however, being questioned by the majority of Americans which means it has no effect on Washington. :bs:
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions. John Adams

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,255
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Re: Senate website gets the Second Amendment wrong
« Reply #4 on: September 26, 2013, 08:35:27 AM »


The 2nd isn't 'you have the right IN a militia', it is 'you have a right BECAUSE a militia is is necessary'.

It seems the statement "THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is pretty clear cut - unless you are Bile Clinton, in which case you might question the meaning of 'not.' :3:
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions. John Adams

Online andy58-in-nh

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,562
Re: Senate website gets the Second Amendment wrong
« Reply #5 on: September 26, 2013, 09:11:59 AM »
Apparently they don't have access to the Federalist Papers. That can be the only excuse for ignorance at this level.

The Federalist Papers clearly outline that the right is an individual right.

The gist is... Because there is a need for a 'well armed militia', the people (individuals) should have the right to also be armed so any standing military force can't tyrannize them. They go on to say it was important the people be 'as well armed as any standing army of Europe' .

The 2nd isn't 'you have the right IN a militia', it is 'you have a right BECAUSE a militia is is necessary'.

The term "well-regulated militia" meant something specific in the 18th Century. Over time the common usage of every language naturally evolves, which necessitates the reading of older documents with a more discriminating eye.

Anyone who picks up a copy of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales for the first time will be instantly presented with 14th-Century usages and terminology that requires (the oft-accompanying) translation.  It is one's study and comprehension of the translation that makes the text understandable in modern terms.

"Well-regulated" in 18th-Century common parlance did not refer to direction or control by a government entity as it frequently does today, but to control by individuals in the sense of "regular order": predictability, structural soundness, efficacy, timeliness.  The use of "well-regulated" as an adjective modifying the noun "militia" was intended to imply order of form and function - not control by a government entity.

Similarly, the term "militia" was assumed in Colonial America to refer to voluntary local and regional common defense associations, as necessitated by the physical presence of hostile Indian tribes or (in New England, for a time) French raiders. More broadly speaking, the militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers.

In the context of the Second Amendment: "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" is properly read to mean that because the security and freedom of one's State depends upon having an effective and trained voluntary fighting force, the right of individuals to keep armaments in their homes and to carry them inside and out of their homes, shall not be infringed by the government.

As AbaraXas notes, this interpretation is borne out in the Federalist Papers #29 and #46, as well as in other legal citations and commentaries (available upon request).
« Last Edit: September 26, 2013, 01:25:33 PM by andy58-in-nh »
Liberalism isn't really about making the world a better place. It's about reassuring the elites that they are good people for wanting to rule over it.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,255
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Re: Senate website gets the Second Amendment wrong
« Reply #6 on: September 26, 2013, 09:18:49 AM »
 :thumbsup:
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions. John Adams

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Re: Senate website gets the Second Amendment wrong
« Reply #7 on: September 26, 2013, 02:26:07 PM »
Apparently they don't have access to the Federalist Papers. That can be the only excuse for ignorance at this level.

The Federalist Papers clearly outline that the right is an individual right.

The gist is... Because there is a need for a 'well armed militia', the people (individuals) should have the right to also be armed so any standing military force can't tyrannize them. They go on to say it was important the people be 'as well armed as any standing army of Europe' .

The 2nd isn't 'you have the right IN a militia', it is 'you have a right BECAUSE a militia is is necessary'.

Maybe they could talk to Mike Lee. He can repeat the Federalist Papers back to you from memory - no teleprompter needed, even when he is dead tired.
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Online NavyCanDo

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,473
Re: Senate website gets the Second Amendment wrong
« Reply #8 on: September 26, 2013, 02:31:06 PM »
No doubt that the Liberals want to return to the aggressive gun control program of King George III.
A nation that turns away from prayer will ultimately find itself in desperate need of it. :Jonathan Cahn

Online andy58-in-nh

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,562
Re: Senate website gets the Second Amendment wrong
« Reply #9 on: September 26, 2013, 02:58:37 PM »
No doubt that the Liberals want to return to the aggressive gun control program of King George III.

His Majesty's efforts to ban assault muskets was thankfully unavailing.
Liberalism isn't really about making the world a better place. It's about reassuring the elites that they are good people for wanting to rule over it.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,255
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Re: Senate website gets the Second Amendment wrong
« Reply #10 on: September 26, 2013, 03:59:48 PM »
His Majesty's efforts to ban assault muskets was thankfully unavailing.

Maybe the republicans should "cave" and give the president a bill that bans assault muskets and then brag about how they are compromising on the issue.  If the democrats did the same, they would brag about their compromise so why not republicans? :beer:
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions. John Adams

Online andy58-in-nh

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,562
Re: Senate website gets the Second Amendment wrong
« Reply #11 on: September 26, 2013, 04:16:12 PM »
Maybe the republicans should "cave" and give the president a bill that bans assault muskets and then brag about how they are compromising on the issue.  If the democrats did the same, they would brag about their compromise so why not republicans? :beer:

Actually, placed in a time warp, today's "moderate" and "pragmatic" Republicans would propose a seven-day waiting period for muskets as a "reasonable compromise"; reaching across the Atlantic, as it were, to display for the Sovereign their "willingness to work together", while avoiding a most unwelcome appearance of ideological rigidity or, Heaven forbid: of "partisanship".

Because they were elected to "get things done", you see.

Not like those crazy Tea Partiers. 
Liberalism isn't really about making the world a better place. It's about reassuring the elites that they are good people for wanting to rule over it.

Offline Cincinnatus

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,514
Re: Senate website gets the Second Amendment wrong
« Reply #12 on: September 26, 2013, 04:18:46 PM »
Maybe the republicans should "cave" and give the president a bill that bans assault muskets and then brag about how they are compromising on the issue.

They could even name it the "George III Memorial" bill.
We shall never be abandoned by Heaven while we act worthy of its aid ~~ Samuel Adams


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf