Anti-gunner comments making the rounds
Over at No Silence Here, I posted about the second amendment case heading to the court. Some one going by the name Jack Weaver wrote:
The argument of Washington, D.C., on the meaning of the Constitution’s Second Amendment makes sense. That amendment addresses the right of the people to be secure as a political society. It’s the Fourth Amendment that states the right of the people to be secure as individual persons.
If Madison and the First Congress had thought that personal gun use needed protection from interference by the new federal government, they would have explicitly worded an amendment to provide that protection. They could easily have done that by adding words to the Fourth Amendment.
By incorporating the word “arms” the framers could have written the Fourth Amendment to begin, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, arms, houses, papers, and effects…” And at the same time they could have added words to the Fourth along the lines of those in an amendment proposed by New Hampshire’s ratification convention:
“Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.”
The U.S. Supreme Court was no doubt correct when it said in U.S. v. Miller (1939) that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was the continuation and effectiveness of state militia forces. That statement of purpose, it should be noted, says nothing about the individual use of guns for personal purposes.
It’s a rather ridiculous assertion for a variety of reasons but this ain’t a post about that. It’s a post about Jack then coming to here and making a similar comment under a different name. He’s probably leaving the same comment at other blogs. I don’t care that you leave comments but use the same handle. It’s the polite thing to do.
December 14th, 2006 at 10:17 am
Typo second sentence Uncle.
December 14th, 2006 at 10:20 am
When someone writes, “The U.S. Supreme Court was no doubt correct” it might be an indication you are about to step on a cow patty. Sounds like “Jack” could be a politician. Bet his hero is Michael Bloomberg.
December 14th, 2006 at 11:10 am
I read the comments and added my own two cents (FWIW). These internet debates can turn into a Chinese fire drill awfully fast, so I doubt I will respond to any of “Jack’s” further comments . . . .
December 14th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Good catch, Uncle. Sock-puppetting posers are so annoying.
December 14th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
I have always thought that the Second Amendment came about because we fought a revolution to abolish the distinction between a “gentleman” class which has the right to bear arms and a “peasant” class which does not. But what do I know?
December 14th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
Of course, never mind that when the Constitution and first 10 Amendments were ratified, the militia consisted of all able bodied males (the statutue is still written that way, pretty much) and they were expected to provide their own rifles.