Some of my loyal readers have been taking me to task the last few weeks, ever since I referred to “Rootie” Julieannie in less than glowing terms. Reader Terry Garcia, Moraga CA wanted me to know that she happened to live in NYC (for which she has my sympathies) before, during and after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Now I’ve known Terry for 30 years this year, and I think the world of her and her opinion. When she says that “Rootie” was good for NYC I believe it. But she also makes my point. “Rootie” was good for NEW YORK CITY. That does not make him good for the United States of America. Reader Shaun “Hooter” Daniels, Alameda CA who I’ve known for going on 35 years is another “Rootie” Rooter who asked me if a little gun control was such a bad thing. I see its time for a little history lesson folks.
I attempt this only because I know that most of y’all who drop by here are educated folks who can agree to disagree if necessary but who are open to debate. Not argument like the lib’ruls love to engage in. I’m talking about reasoned debate. With that in mind, I will offer up this history lesson explaining why the Second Amendment does not need “adjustment”, despite the record, writings and utterances of Mr. Julieannie.
By way of background here, I refer my readers to The Federalist Papers. For those of you who are the unfortunate products of public schools, The Federalist Papers is a compilation of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, three of our most prominent Founding Fathers. These essays were directed at the People of New York during the debates on ratification of the Constitution. The essays were arguing in favor of ratification while explaining the history behind and intent of the various features of the Constitution as it was originally drafted. That is before the Bill of Rights was appended after ratification.
Gun control advocates will usually tell us that they don’t mind people possessing weapons for hunting or sport shooting, well ain’t that peachy. The problem for them and one reason why you never see a gun control advocate mention The Federalist Papers or the intent of the Founders in establishing the Second Amendment is that hunting wasn’t a concern of theirs except as it related to huntin’ Redcoats and I can tell you, there was no limit on them. People, the Second Amendment is the MOST IMPORTANT civil right we possess. Stripped of it, the remaining civil rights granted us in our Bill of Rights are meaningless because we would have no power to maintain our rights should the government decide to impose restrictions upon them. Now some of you all are just shaking your heads, writing me off as some grumpy old crank who has had too much time in the Nevada sun. Well then, let’s take the words of our Founding Fathers then. A group of men I presume we can all agree were far more intelligent than either you or I.
Writing in Federalist #46 James Madison stated that a great advantage enjoyed by Americans was that they were armed, and that this acted in concert with the appointment of militia officers by local government as insurance against higher level government abuses. Now this mention of the militia is commonly used by proponents of gun control to argue that the Founders meant that only the militia should be armed. Well, let’s not stop here because that is NOT what they stated at all. In Federalist #28 Alexander Hamilton clearly states that it is the final recourse of the people to take up arms in the event of betrayal by their representatives. Hamilton follows up this thought in Federalist #29 when he asserts that to require the great mass of the citizens to undergo sufficient training to make them a well regulated militia would be too inconvenient to the people. Hamilton does not call for limitations on the availability of arms despite his acknowledgement of the need for rigorous training in order to be characterized as a well drilled militia unit. Obviously the arming of the populace and the drilling of the militia were two separate issues to him and of course, his own words indicate that he felt the final arbiter of any government tyranny must be the ability of the people to rise up in arms against the government.
Another primary argument made by proponents of gun control is that the Second Amendment is a collective and not an individual right. Such reasoning flies in the face of the writings of the Founding Fathers. Every other right which was secured in the first ten amendments to the Constitution is an individual and not a collective right. Clearly the authors of the Federalist Papers considered the arming of the citizenry important and it was often considered in the context of a need for militia. The mission of the militia would be to protect the people from foreign and domestic threats. Reliance upon a militia does not alter the Second Amendments’ guarantee of an individual and not a collective right.
So folks, I simply cannot get excited about a candidate who professes to be a conservative Republican but whose record on gun control and the Second Amendment clearly indicates that he is a statist with no regard for the vision of our Founding Fathers. God forbid, should Julieannie become the Republican nominee for President in 2008 and it is a closely contested effort, then yes I will bite the bullet and vote for him because warts and all, he will still be better than any visible candidate from the Party of Sedition. However, should “Rootie” be well ahead then I shall exercise my franchise on behalf of a third party such as the Constitution Party.
Tune in tomorrow sports fans. I’ve got a killer lamb recipe that is simple and takes only minutes to roast….so reader Sam Ishaq, places unknown CA. can rejoice…
Smilin' Paul Villa U.S. Senate 2010
cyber-Congressman, R-Reno
Proud Member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and 2 SUV Family
I attempt this only because I know that most of y’all who drop by here are educated folks who can agree to disagree if necessary but who are open to debate. Not argument like the lib’ruls love to engage in. I’m talking about reasoned debate. With that in mind, I will offer up this history lesson explaining why the Second Amendment does not need “adjustment”, despite the record, writings and utterances of Mr. Julieannie.
By way of background here, I refer my readers to The Federalist Papers. For those of you who are the unfortunate products of public schools, The Federalist Papers is a compilation of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, three of our most prominent Founding Fathers. These essays were directed at the People of New York during the debates on ratification of the Constitution. The essays were arguing in favor of ratification while explaining the history behind and intent of the various features of the Constitution as it was originally drafted. That is before the Bill of Rights was appended after ratification.
Gun control advocates will usually tell us that they don’t mind people possessing weapons for hunting or sport shooting, well ain’t that peachy. The problem for them and one reason why you never see a gun control advocate mention The Federalist Papers or the intent of the Founders in establishing the Second Amendment is that hunting wasn’t a concern of theirs except as it related to huntin’ Redcoats and I can tell you, there was no limit on them. People, the Second Amendment is the MOST IMPORTANT civil right we possess. Stripped of it, the remaining civil rights granted us in our Bill of Rights are meaningless because we would have no power to maintain our rights should the government decide to impose restrictions upon them. Now some of you all are just shaking your heads, writing me off as some grumpy old crank who has had too much time in the Nevada sun. Well then, let’s take the words of our Founding Fathers then. A group of men I presume we can all agree were far more intelligent than either you or I.
Writing in Federalist #46 James Madison stated that a great advantage enjoyed by Americans was that they were armed, and that this acted in concert with the appointment of militia officers by local government as insurance against higher level government abuses. Now this mention of the militia is commonly used by proponents of gun control to argue that the Founders meant that only the militia should be armed. Well, let’s not stop here because that is NOT what they stated at all. In Federalist #28 Alexander Hamilton clearly states that it is the final recourse of the people to take up arms in the event of betrayal by their representatives. Hamilton follows up this thought in Federalist #29 when he asserts that to require the great mass of the citizens to undergo sufficient training to make them a well regulated militia would be too inconvenient to the people. Hamilton does not call for limitations on the availability of arms despite his acknowledgement of the need for rigorous training in order to be characterized as a well drilled militia unit. Obviously the arming of the populace and the drilling of the militia were two separate issues to him and of course, his own words indicate that he felt the final arbiter of any government tyranny must be the ability of the people to rise up in arms against the government.
Another primary argument made by proponents of gun control is that the Second Amendment is a collective and not an individual right. Such reasoning flies in the face of the writings of the Founding Fathers. Every other right which was secured in the first ten amendments to the Constitution is an individual and not a collective right. Clearly the authors of the Federalist Papers considered the arming of the citizenry important and it was often considered in the context of a need for militia. The mission of the militia would be to protect the people from foreign and domestic threats. Reliance upon a militia does not alter the Second Amendments’ guarantee of an individual and not a collective right.
So folks, I simply cannot get excited about a candidate who professes to be a conservative Republican but whose record on gun control and the Second Amendment clearly indicates that he is a statist with no regard for the vision of our Founding Fathers. God forbid, should Julieannie become the Republican nominee for President in 2008 and it is a closely contested effort, then yes I will bite the bullet and vote for him because warts and all, he will still be better than any visible candidate from the Party of Sedition. However, should “Rootie” be well ahead then I shall exercise my franchise on behalf of a third party such as the Constitution Party.
Tune in tomorrow sports fans. I’ve got a killer lamb recipe that is simple and takes only minutes to roast….so reader Sam Ishaq, places unknown CA. can rejoice…
Smilin' Paul Villa U.S. Senate 2010
cyber-Congressman, R-Reno
Proud Member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and 2 SUV Family
posted by Smilin' Paul Villa | 9:13 PM
1 Comments:
Don't forget, too, that the first clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," should not be read to limit the second, "right-conferring" clause -- "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Constitutional amendments conferring rights on the people are usually given an expansive reading, and an expansive reading of the Second Amendment would give full weight to the second clause without the limitation implied by the first.
Post a Comment
<< Home