Ride the pine. Relegated to the minors. Missed the cut. All of the above. Former sportscaster turned failed progressive political mouthpiece Keith Olbermann took a swing at what the Second Amendment says and means and whiffed so badly he created a wind advisory.
Before last week’s Major League Baseball All-Star game, police arrested four individuals who brought firearms into a Denver hotel nearby, suspecting the possibility of a tragedy during the game. Olbermann, no stranger to moronic Twitter takes, pounced and posted a video to his Twitter account saying with no evidence an All-Star game tragedy was averted.
NEW VIDEO: Whether or not you’re going to watch tonight’s baseball All-Star Game, consider that they may have broken up a planned mass shooting there.
And ask yourself: why doesn’t the 2nd Amendment have the word “own” in it?
The 2nd Amendment does NOT authorize gun OWNERSHIP! pic.twitter.com/4cLrNsCKXy
— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) July 13, 2021
He attempted to mock gun owners and their supporters by posing the question, “Consider again the holy Second Amendment to the Constitution and ask yourself this question. Why doesn’t the 2nd Amendment have the word ‘own’ in it? Why does it not say the right to own guns or a synonym for own?”
The FBI subsequently said there was no All-Star game plot. Olbermann should stick to sports, but that roster’s already full.
Step Into the Swing
It could be said for all the flaws contained in Olbermann’s rant, he’s not wrong. The word “own” doesn’t appear in the Second Amendment. The words “keep and bear arms” are there, however, enshrining the unalienable right of Americans to possess firearms – no ifs, ands or buts about it. Olbermann doesn’t have to look far to find the U.S. Supreme Court recognizing and upholding that right.
2008’s landmark Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, authored by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, removes any doubt. The decision explains the Second Amendment enshrines a pre-existing individual right to keep and bear arms. This right is pre-existing, and yes, in order to keep something, it must be owned.
Bearing Arms’ Cam Edwards caught sight of Olbermann’s tweet and had a field day. “The FBI said that there is no evidence of a mass shooting plot connected to these arrests, and Scalia addressed the inane argument about ‘keep’ vs. ‘own’ in the Heller decision. Starts about halfway down on page 7. Go try to save a dog instead of peddling this nonsense.”
Double Play
Edwards wasn’t the only one calling foul on Olbermann. The Reload’s Stephen Gutowski went to bat against Olbermann’s logic. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” doesn’t refer to people owning guns. Instead, it refers to regulation of state militias? This is the argument you bellowed out with such confidence and condescension?”
Bearing Arms’ Tom Knighton did so too, observing, “This is the dumbest argument I’ve heard since people tried to say the Second Amendment only applied to muskets.”
Chris Loesch, Dana Loesch’s husband and a Second Amendment advocate, chimed in. “This is one of the most idiotic things I have ever listened to. I mean it’s utterly moronic.” There were plenty of additional responses stuffing Olbermann in his locker.
Call Up Relief
Olbermann might fit, but recent polling shows Olbermann is out in left field. Since Olbmann’s a statistics guy, here are some interesting numbers.
Gallup shows support among Americans for more gun control has dropped by at least 10 points to the lowest levels in years. That includes more than five percentage points lower among self-described Democrats. Washington Post/ABC News polling shows similar trends.
These surveys align with what’s going on now. Americans in historic numbers have purchased (that’s “own” for Olbermann, if he’s reading this) firearms in record numbers over the past 18 months, and are continuing.
Talking heads like Olbermann can keep barking from the cheap seats about firearms and their flawed and utterly discredited understanding of the Second Amendment. If Olbermann were to ever take a minute to stop adoring himself on Twitter, he’d see that the game has changed and the bases aren’t the only thing that’s loaded.
Americans won’t stand for it and may send them back to the minors. Maybe Olbermann should be sacked for this egregious error. Wait, I’m wildly mixing my sports metaphors. How about Twitter just censor him for spreading misinformation?
Larry Keane is SVP for Government and Public Affairs, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
Is this an example of:
1. Good Sense
2. Common Sense
3. Nonsense
4. ignorence. he simply doesn’t know.
Self imposed cranial rectal inversion. Gonna need a crowbar and a winch to undo that one.
I call it “Rectal Oculitis”. There was a conservative talk show host, can’t recall his name, who always referred to Keith O as “bathtub boy”. He really hated him.
Na, just throw some super glue or JB Weld on it and call it done…………….LOL
Unfortunately, his analysis is superficial.
Webster’s dictionary of 1828 defines keep as:
“KEEP, verb transitive preterit tense and participle passive kept. [Latin habeo, and capio.]
1. To hold; to retain in one’s power or possession; not to lose or part with; as, to keep a house or a farm; to keep any thing in the memory, mind or heart.
2. To have in custody for security or preservation.”
it is possible that the framers utilized the word ‘keep’ rather than ‘own’, because under the militia clause the constitution directs the Congress to arm the militia.
The Definition above would apply to a weapon provided by Congress, and “held or retained in one’s power, having custody for security… “ by the People and “subject to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.
So Keith thinks Congress should just provide everyone with a firearm. I concur, although in my own case it’s a distinction without meaning since I already spent all my COVID money on guns and ammo.
Completely out of context, but I placed “‘”quoties'”” around it so it much be legit…“subject to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.
I told ya’ll before… I will continue to repeat this lie,
again,
and again,
and again,
until someone, somewhere, believes me.
Keith Olbermann has nothing on me!
I love the many facets of miner49er.
“Completely out of context, but I placed “‘”quoties’”” around it so it much be legit…“subject to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.“
“much be legit“? Yes, English as a second language can be rather difficult, but you get an A for effort!
Sad Fake Miner, completely unfamiliar with the subject at hand and the United States Constitution.
Get a grip, the Constitution gives Congress complete authority over the organization, training, discipline, arming and control of the militia, regardless of what you may think.
“…the Constitution gives Congress complete authority over the organization, training, discipline, arming and control of the militia, regardless of what you may think.”
Exactly what militia are you referring to, ‘minor’?
There are two mentioned in the Constitution, the organized, meaning the equivalent of the National Guard, and the unorganized, meaning the whole of the people.
Point out to me where in the Constitution the Congress has power over the people…
Why do I keep answering my own posts?
And why do I keep calling myself sad?
Whatever…I did give myself an A!!!
However, what I really don’t understand is how I can say Congress somehow has “complete” control of the militia (including authority over the organization, training, discipline, and arming) when it is reserved as a right “of the people”.
But then again I am a moron that really loves chickens. And I mean “loves”.
Like my “‘”quoties’”” ?
“There are two mentioned in the Constitution, the organized meaning the equivalent of the National Guard, and the unorganized, meaning the whole of the people.“
Sorry, but apparently you don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to the constitution.
The words organized and unorganized, in reference to the militia, are not in the constitution.
“The Militia Clauses
Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.“
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/58-the-militia-clauses.html
“The power of Congress over the militia “being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering and training them . . . it may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress. . . . The power of the state government to legislate on the same subjects, having existed prior to the formation of the Constitution, and not having been prohibited by that instrument, it remains with the States, subordinate nevertheless to the paramount law of the General Government. . . .”1789
Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1, 16 (1820). Organizing and providing for the militia being constitutionally committed to Congress and statutorily shared with the Executive, the judiciary is precluded from exercising oversight over the process, Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1 (1973), although wrongs committed by troops are subject to judicial relief in damages. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 233 (1974).“
Keith Olbermann couldn’t find his pecker with both hands and a flashlight.
And I think Keith would be surprised at how much you are thinking about his pecker, I think it’s a little weird myself but whatever floats your boat!
Personally, in my boat, I have….chick, chick, chickens!
Lots and lots of chickens.
I haven’t thought about Keithie’s pecker in days now.
O Me said, “Keith Olbermann couldn’t find his pecker with both hands and a flashlight”
If he has one, he better spit it out, it ain’t his!
In his case he has to reach up because it’s sitting on his shoulders.
No kidding. There are a lot of obnoxious, despicable, vial, foot-licking pieces of sh!t in media. Keith Olberman is bottom of the pile.
This utter moron lost any remaining credibility (if there was any to start with) years ago.
Why does he even garner a mention, even on a site like this?
Yeah, I also thought we were finished with this loser. Just because he said something idiotic in a pathetic attempt to get some attention doesn’t mean we have to pay him any mind.
Since Olbermann and his opinions including those on sports are no longer considered of value. He has in an attempt to become relevant again stepped into the political realm of commentary. If not for Mainly 2A sites like this one what he says in the above article has been mostly ignored by the MSM. Only the Washington Times mentions on their site. No one is interested or cares what he has to say. Even Liberal Gun Grabbers find him Non compos mentis.
The 2A’s language does not contain the specific word “own”. Mr. Olbermann is correct about that.
But it also doesn’t contain the work “woke” either.
“The 2nd Amendment does NOT authorize gun OWNERSHIP!”
actually, at the time the 2nd was written, private ownership simply was assumed. in imitation of the greek polis, “the militia” didn’t distribute weapons, it simply was the assembly of all citizens (white males between the ages of 16 and 60) with their own weapons for purposes of local military defense. since the militia was viewed as being necessary to the security of any free state (both militantly and politically) the right of the people/militia (the writers would have made no distinction) was not to be deprecated in any way.
me thinks I found a fatal flaw in Keith Olbermann, stupidity.
That D.B. is playing word semantics because everything else he’s got fails. He doesn’t like the messenger so he’s trying to kill the messenger. Good luck Mr Keith NOBODY.
They’re like raving mental patients shouting in parks looking for anyone who will listen at this point.
Trouble is far too many people are eager to listen and soon become a mob. Mobs pretty much get whatever they want these days. Especially when backed by all the billionaires, media outlets, corporations, major sporting leagues and the CFR/Davos/G6789 cabals of the world.
Olbermann should just shut up and stop letting everyone know how utterly stupid he is. if he actually went to college he did just like he did in high school and didn’t open a book. And why do people like this think anyone really even thinks what they say is relevant.
Wow. You are even slightly less coherent than that traitorous geezer Michael A. Cronagle.
Why is it olberman and bill Nye are never seen in the same room at the same time? If you put a bow tie on olberman you couldn’t tell the difference.
The Second Amendment doesn’t “authorize” people to bear arms either. It was written to prevent the GOVERNMENT from restricting the public’s natural rights.
This seems to be one of those supposed giant insights that someone assumes everyone else missed, that comes back into vogue again every 5 years or so.
This is the kind of sophomoric sophistry, self-aggrandizement and stupidity that was already tedious by high school.
“Keep” is a Synonym of “Own,” at least it is in my old 1970’s Oxford Thesaurus.
Olbermann is a Moron.
That’s something we can all agree upon. If memory serves, Olbermann sucked as a sportscaster too.
All this says to me is that this is an argument in favor of me NOT having to pay to posses any arms I have the right to bear.
Firearms should be free to me. As I will never own it but have the right to keep and bear it.
There have been twice as many comment on this thread as Olbermann has listener/viewers on the average day. WHO CARES what the twit spews?
The push for gun control in the USA is based on an emotional reaction to terrible events. Somebody gets shot, the emotions rise and without thought or reason to guide them, the “CONTROL IT NOW” emotional button gets pressed. Time passes, emotions ease and the number of people demanding thet “Control It!” button be pressed begins to lessen.
Meanwhile, people that retain their ability to reason at these emotional events speak to the sources of the violence. Which is people. Violent people doing bad deeds.
The real mystery is why nobody ever blames eating utensils (tools) for obesity (behaviors and, to be fair, some genetic/evolutionary influences).
Or, there’s the mystery why hammers (tool) are not blamed for sore thumbs among those inclined toward missing the nail (behavior/bad aim)?
Then there’s the problem that once a movement has begun it generates its own inertia.
Which explains things such as Gun Control (emotional reaction), Michael Moore movies (same, plus excessive use of eating utensils), people who believe in “The Steal” and “Trump’s A Genius!” (emotional “BIG LIE” enthrallment), and the general failure of American gun makers to offer pistols with external hammers, a de-cocker and a DA capability on the first round (emotional enthrallment of striker firing mechanisms, aka “Gaston Worship”).
That’s about it.
Oh one more thing,
TDS is a terrible affliction. I was diagnosed 5 years ago, and my life has never been the same.
Since that time, I have given big money to such groups as the Lincoln Project.
Do you know how bad one’s TDS has to be to give a bunch of peddo’s money? Really bad.
And that isn’t even the worst.
I actually voted for a basement dweller, and his crackl’in ho.
That’s sad, and pathetic.
P.S. I know the election was stolen, any fool can see that. The “BIG LIE” is in its denial.
Poor baby … open you feel better soon.
It’s hilarious that you think you have any more credibility here.
Washed up nobody. When you can’t even make it as a sportscaster, which usually aren’t the brightest to start with. Open mouth and prove your an idiot ,just shut up and go away
Because nothing says you’re more in tune with the Democratic Party than talking down to the little people about gun control from the balcony of a high rise overlooking Central Park.
LMAO. My thought exactly when I watched that. 10 TTAG points for noticing.
For even more laughs see Bill Burr’s rant about CNN, he scorches them on their trump love.
My Mother-in-law was as saintly as they come. She loved Keith. Watched his ‘news’ rants every day. Of course, we watched with her when we were visiting. At the end he would toss his notes into the air with a flourish of showmanship and feigned anger. At least, at the time, it seemed feigned, crafted.
Then, he dissapeared for a few years. Eventually, he re-emerged as a foul-mouthed, screaming, far left-wing banshee, devoid of facts, devoid of reason, focused on sound, fury, rabid hate, and offensive language. It seemed impossible to find rational thought in his blackened-soul tirades.
My Mother-in-law has passed a couple of years earlier. She would have been previously disappointed in the carnage Olberman had made of himself. His obscurity, his diminishment is his reward.
Unfortunately, a lot of players in that realm (both left and right) have followed the same path. I agree 90% with the ideologies of the likes of Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Dan Bongino, Alex Jones, et al…even the venerable Rush Limbaugh. But each of them started their careers with a level-headed sanity and presentation of their platforms, gathering their increasing fan bases, until they stepped up to the national level and entered into big $$ contracts.
At that point, ratings become paramount, and they all morphed into professional showmen to gather eyeballs to satisfy their networks’ advertisers and sell their books. Theatrics, faux disgust, and table pounding become the expected norm. I eventually stopped listening to them all.
The only one remaining (in my book) who’s worth listening to is Tucker Carlson. I hope and pray he avoids the Carnival Barker route his predecessors took.
Haz,
Very much so. HOWEVER, I would not equate any of those you mentioned with Keith Olberman. His rhetoric is foul and his viewpoints founded in lies.
I stopped watching Alex Jones because he scares my wife. Whenever she watches him and Mike Adam’s (Natural News) she becomes so agitated that I have to talk her off the ledge.
Still, I purchase many of our supplements and supplies through the Infowars store because I like their mission AND their products.
This asshat is living proof that PT Barnum’s most famous saying was as true now as it was back in the day 🤣.
“The only one remaining (in my book) who’s worth listening to is Tucker Carlson.“
But you know, Tucker himself and his attorneys have stated on the record in federal court that Tucker Carlson is full of shit:
“A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit against Fox News after lawyers for the network argued that no “reasonable viewer” would take the network’s primetime star Tucker Carlson seriously.
The former Playboy model Karen McDougal filed a defamation suit against Fox alleging that Carlson slandered her during a December 2018 episode of his show, “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”
The network asked a judge to dismiss the case, arguing that “Carlson’s statements were not statements of fact and that she failed adequately to allege actual malice.”
The judge agreed with Fox’s premise, adding that the network “persuasively argues” that “given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statements he makes.”
You people are hilarious, you are actually paying actors to recite your delusions back to you as you bask in the glow of your ignorance.
So easily swayed by a troop of carnival barkers…
Truly fascinating.
Can’t believe we actually agree on something… Carlson is a paid shill and for enough money would jump ship back to Clinton News Network in a heart beat…
“You people”?? REALLY, MinorIQ?? So Rachel Madcow, Jim “Dear Diary” Acosta, Brian “Tater” Stelter, Oliver “I’m a conservative” Darcy and Jen “I’m a REAL conservative” Rubin, Ana “Someone please take away my fork” Navarro, and a host of others, are all secretly closet far Right operatives?? Who knew??
Do you ever pay attention to yourself, like . . .when you comment online?? ‘Cause, if you do, you’re even more stupid than I thought.
By “full of shit” you mean entitled to the protection of the 1st Amendment from a baseless legal harassment? Sorry you don’t believe others should be able to voice and opinion like you do. But hey lefties are all about “Rules for thee but not for me.”
Dude just talks smack. He doesn’t know crap from apple butter.
Joe in NC,
I like that phrase…gonna borrow it from time to time.
Here’s one for you:
“If you took the lies out of him, he’d shrink to the size of your hat. If you took the malice out of him, he would disappear altogether.”
Keep and bear arms as opposed to the right to own arms.
We have “the right to bear arms” , bear arms means We have a right to use them.
And Miner49er’s well regulated militia. Well a militia is a group, a group is 3 or more people, it dont take much to find two people who say ” hell yeah” along with me.
Possum,
Came across this, today:
“Unlike most other wild animals, possums are nearly completely immune to contracting rabies or passing it along.
According to Dr. Karen Becker, this is due to their natural body temperature being too low to maintain hosting the virus.”
https://littlethings.com/pets/possum-facts/3226931-2
Yup,
And possum milk cures coronavirus. 😊
Possum milk, from whence derived?
How big a bucket needed?
All leftists are brain damaged due to oxygen deprivation. Olbermann is no exception.
The humane thing would be to give all of them a helicopter ride & drop them off for a swim in the ocean…
Miner49er here it is again but in the entirety. Note that State does not necessarily mean government but a State of being Free. Since the 10 Amendments are directed for the individual it makes no sense to put #2 what rights government has.
Definitions from the 1828 Webster Dictionary
“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.”
A-An adjective, commonly called the indefinite article, and signifying one or any, but less emphatically.
well-Suitably to one’s condition, to the occasion, or to a proposed end or use; suitably; abundantly; fully; adequately; thoroughly
regulated- Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions
Militia- In the widest sense, the whole military force of a nation, including both those engaged in military service as a business, and those competent and available for such service; specifically, the body of citizens enrolled for military instruction and discipline, but not subject to be called into actual service except in emergencies.
being- Since; inasmuch as
necessary-Such as must be; impossible to be otherwise; not to be avoided; inevitable
to-The preposition to primarily indicates approach and arrival, motion made in the direction of a place or thing and attaining it, access; and also, motion or tendency without arrival; movement toward
the- A word placed before nouns to limit or individualize their meaning
security-The condition or quality of being secure; secureness. Specifically: (a) Freedom from apprehension, anxiety, or care; confidence of power of safety; hence, assurance; certainty.
of-In a general sense, from, or out from; proceeding from; belonging to; relating to; concerning;
a- (see above definition)
free-Exempt from subjection to the will of others; not under restraint, control, or compulsion; able to follow one’s own impulses, desires, or inclinations; determining one’s own course of action; not dependent; at liberty.
State-The circumstances or condition of a being or thing at any given time.,
the-(see above definition)
right-Conformed to the constitution of man and the will of God, or to justice and equity; not deviating from the true and just; according with truth and duty; just; true.
of- (see above definition)
the- (see above definition)
people- The body of persons who compose a community, tribe, nation, or race; an aggregate of individuals forming a whole; a community; a nation
to- (see above definition)
keep- To hold; to restrain from departure or removal; not to let go of; to retain in one’s power or possession; not to lose; to retain; to detain.
and- A particle which expresses the relation of connection or addition. It is used to conjoin a word with a word, a clause with a clause, or a sentence with a sentence.
bear- To possess or carry, as a mark of authority or distinction; to wear; as, to bear a sword, badge, or name
Arms-, Instruments or weapons of offense or defense.
shall- To owe; to be under obligation for
not- A word used to express negation, prohibition, denial, or refusal.
be- To exist actually, or in the world of fact; to have existence
infringed- Broken; violated; transgresses.
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary contains the foundation of America’s heritage and principal beliefs. It is contemporary with the American Constitution.
“regulated- Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions“
That is exactly correct, Congress has the power under the constitution to issue “rules or restrictions” on the “well regulated militia”.
If I keep things I don’t own, I’m pretty sure that’s possession of stolen property, and you know the government hates competition. Ask any tribe.
Mr. Tough Guy. He’s a poster child for the reason why leftists are afraid of guns. They know they can’t handle them plus they make it somewhat easier to commit suicide. And we know that most leftists are a tiny step away from a mental break down of some sort. That’s why they don’t want people to have guns because they know they can’t have them. They’d do something dangerous to themselves or others. Why as a matter of fact it’s mostly leftists who have committed the mass shootings and they’re all rampant in any Democrat run city. Shooting themselves the neighbors, their family and friends. yet we never hear about any steps being taken to get those guns away from them or get them the mental help they so desperately need.
Witness Mr. Olbermann. Hasn’t he had a few mental breakdowns? One or two on air in front of an audience?
Histrionic personality disorder:
one of a group of conditions called “Cluster B” or “dramatic” personality disorders. People with these disorders have intense, unstable emotions and distorted self-images. For people with histrionic personality disorder, their self-esteem depends on the approval of others and does not arise from a true feeling of self-worth. They have an overwhelming desire to be noticed, and often behave dramatically or inappropriately to get attention. The word histrionic means “dramatic or theatrical.”
Yea, like anyone should listen to this moron. Did you know that Olbermann he was in his 30’s and still had not obtained a drivers license. Talk about a dipshit, He had to be driven around like a 9th grader. .
“Point out to me where in the Constitution the Congress has power over the people…“
Jeffy, did you miss my post above:
“The Militia Clauses
Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.“
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/58-the-militia-clauses.html
“The power of Congress over the militia “being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering and training them . . . it may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress. . . . The power of the state government to legislate on the same subjects, having existed prior to the formation of the Constitution, and not having been prohibited by that instrument, it remains with the States, subordinate nevertheless to the paramount law of the General Government. . . .”1789
Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1, 16 (1820). Organizing and providing for the militia being constitutionally committed to Congress and statutorily shared with the Executive, the judiciary is precluded from exercising oversight over the process, Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1 (1973), although wrongs committed by troops are subject to judicial relief in damages. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 233 (1974).“
Once again, MinorIQ trots out his stupid lie. MinorIQ, even you have to have sufficient reading ability to actually read THE ACTUAL WORDS of Article One and the so-called “militia clauses”. First, the specific power granted is EXTREMELY limited and conditional – the only purposes for which Congress has the power to “call out” the militia are “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” – this is FAR from “unlimited control” over the militia.
Second, even Congress’ control over the militia is not “absolute”, as you allege, as even Article One makes it subject to specific control of the states, but the EXACT case you cite (which is “precedent” for exactly f***-all) makes it clear that the rights of the States to raise militias pre-existed the Constitution, and continues.
And NOTHING in ANY of that gives Congress control over “the People” – at MOST, it gives Congress limited control over the Militia – which is NOT “the People”. At the time of the Militia Act of 1790, portions of “the People” were expressly EXCLUDED from the Militia by reason of race, sex, age. Whence cometh Congress’ right to regulate THEM (even if your stupid misreading of Article One WERE correct – which it isn’t)??
Please go be an uneducated liar somewhere else – we’re beyond bored with it.
WHY are you such a prevaricating tool??
Lamprey, you should really read more closely and understand that while you have one interpretation, the courts have had 200 years to interpret the meaning of the Second Amendment and the militia clauses.
Here you are, the details with chapter and verse of the court decisions that support these powers:
“The power of Congress over the militia “being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering and training them . . . it may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress. . . . The power of the state government to legislate on the same subjects, having existed prior to the formation of the Constitution, and not having been prohibited by that instrument, it remains with the States, subordinate nevertheless to the paramount law of the General Government. . . .”1789
Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1, 16 (1820). Organizing and providing for the militia being constitutionally committed to Congress and statutorily shared with the Executive, the judiciary is precluded from exercising oversight over the process, Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1 (1973), although wrongs committed by troops are subject to judicial relief in damages. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 233 (1974).“
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/58-the-militia-clauses.html
And here’s a bit more detail in the supreme court decisions that confirm the virtually unlimited control of the militia granted to the Congress by the constitution:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IF10535.pdf
The First Amendment doesn’t include the words “pray”, “think”, “read”, or “speak”. It was generally understood that they were included in the text as written.
Ole Kieth needs to learn how to google the things. It would of cleared up his confusion, or rather lack of knowledge of one of his main made up points. I thought the left were supposed to be the enlightened ones?
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/keep
KEEP, verb transitive preterit tense and participle passive kept. [Latin habeo, and capio.]
1. To hold; to retain in one’s power or possession; not to lose or part with; as, to keep a house or a farm; to keep any thing in the memory, mind or heart.
2. To have in custody for security or preservation.
The crown of Stephanus, first king of Hungary, was always kept in the castle of Vicegrade.
3. To preserve; to retain.
The Lord God, merciful and gracious, keeping mercy for thousands–Exodus 34:18.
4. To preserve from falling or from danger; to protect; to guard or sustain.
And behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee. Genesis 28:15.
Luke 4:10.
5. To hold or restrain from departure; to detain.
–That I may know what keeps me here with you.
6. To tend; to have the care of.
And the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden, to dress it and to keep it. Genesis 2:15.
7. To tend; to feed; to pasture; as, to keep a flock of sheep or a herd of cattle in a yard or in a field. He keeps his horses on oats or on hay.
8. To preserve in any tenor or state. keep a stiff rein.
KEEP the constitution sound.
9. To regard; to attend to.
While the stars and course of heaven I keep–
10. To hold in any state; as, to keep in order.
11. To continue any state, course or action; as, to keep silence; to keep the same road or the same pace; to keep reading or talking; to keep a given distance.
12. To practice; to do or perform; to obey; to observe in practice; not to neglect or violate; as, to keep the laws, statutes or commandments of God.
13. To fulfill; to perform; as, to keep one’s word, promise or covenant.
14. To practice; to use habitually; as, to keep bad hours.
15. To copy carefully.
Her servant’s eyes were fix’d upon her face,
And as she moved or turned, her motions viewed,
Her measures kept, and step by step pursued.
16. To observe or solemnize.
17. To board; to maintain; to supply with necessaries of life. The men are kept at a moderate price per week.
18. To have in the house; to entertain; as, to keep lodgers.
19. To maintain; not to intermit; as, to keep watch or guard.
20. To hold in one’s own bosom; to confine to one’s own knowledge; not to disclose or communicate to others; not to betray; as, to keep a secret; to keep one’s own counsel.
21. To have in pay; as, to keep a servant.
….and to the slow one quoting the militia clause. That simply states the guvmint has control over the militias actions, not its ownership of firearms.
Do you think the militia members asked the guvmint for permission to use their firearms to gather food for their families?
Typical left viewpoint. Gaslight with some quoted articles but never dig down or look at the details. Once the details are addressed as above the conversation is ended by the lib or more gaslighting will occur with 0 solid facts to back it up or invalidate the point made by the other side.
Which will you choose for this one?
The point of my post was that the Constitution gives Congress the authority to “discipline” and “regulate” the militia, which includes passing legislation regarding the militia’s TOE.
And regarding the meaning of “discipline”, here is Webster’s 1828 definition of discipline:
“DISCIPLINE, noun [Latin , to learn.]
1. Education; instruction; cultivation and improvement, comprehending instruction in arts, sciences, correct sentiments, morals and manners, and due subordination to authority.
2. Instruction and government, comprehending the communication of knowledge and the regulation of practice; as military discipline which includes instruction in manual exercise, evolutions and subordination.
3. Rule of government; method of regulating principles and practice; as the discipline prescribed for the church.
4. Subjection to laws, rules, order, precepts or regulations; as, the troops are under excellent discipline; the passions should be kept under strict discipline.”
The part that pertains to governance of the militia would be number 4, which states: “Subjection to laws, rules, order, precepts or regulations; as, the troops are under excellent discipline; the passions should be kept under strict discipline.”
And that’s how it ties in with the 2A, not only does congress have the authority under the constitution to “discipline” the militia, the second amendment also requires that Congress “regulate” the militia.
As I showed you, AGAIN, above, Congress has the power to call out the militia for EXTREMELY limited purposes. It’s “control” of the militia is clearly and expressly limited to “that portion in the employ of the United States”.
F*** right the h*** off, liar.
Lamprey, I understand you disagree with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution, but I must tell you their decisions hold much more weight than some random right wing dude on the inter-webs.
“The power of Congress over the militia “being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering and training them . . . it may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress. . . . “
Houston v. Moore (1820)
Isn’t it interesting how I can provide this information without calling you stupid or a liar… Just another benefit of adulthood that you will hopefully one day grasp.
he should demand his Security to stop carrying guns then.
WELL NOW I ; I FILLED OUT THA PAPER WORK N PAYED THA PRICE WHEN ASKED TO .
SO ; KEEP / OWN , SEE AS THA SAME MEANING .
AS I PLAN TO KEEP / OWN MY WEAPONS . GOD BLESS AMERICA N 2A .
Olberman himself (not any reader) needs to explain why he’s the first person to realize this, and that not even federal judges or the Supremes, any of them in the history of this country have been smart enough to figure this out before and made it the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment. I already know he’s NOT smarter than all of them. Not by a loooooong shot.
Definition of KEEP: (as in “KEEP and bear arms”)
transitive verb
1a: to retain in one’s possession or power
b: to refrain from granting, giving, or allowing
c: to have in control
own (oʊn)
adj.
1. of, pertaining to, or belonging to oneself or itself (usu. used after a possessive to emphasize the idea of ownership, interest, or relation conveyed by the possessive)
2. (used as an intensifier to indicate oneself as the sole agent of some activity or action, prec. by a possessive)
pron.
3. something that belongs to oneself.
Hope that helps the more intellectually impaired…. And ANOTHER FAIL for the great Kieth Olberman, perhaps he should invest in a Thesaurus or at least a pocket dictionary…. Maybe too busy drooling over the cover of the SI Swimsuit editon…
Yes, it’s sort of a red herring from Keith.
He missed the much bigger issue, that the constitution gives Congress virtually unlimited control of the militia, which would include laws regarding their handling of firearms. Or, as some would call it gun control.
See Houston v. Moore, 1820
Keith Olbermann is a blathering idiot.
A couple pf things come to mind re the above story.
1. How did the police happen to arrest the 4 individuals? Were they brandishing the arms, which could be cause for police action. The thing is curious to say the least.
2. As for Olberman’s comments, ridiculous though they are, The U.S. Constitution guarantees, as I understand correct me if I’m in error here, his right to speak. The fact that what he says makes no sense matters not. Additionally, the same constitution recognized a right of the right of people to be armed, should they so choose. Did Olberman skip American history class?
Olbermann is an idiot…
The pre existing right to own property is protected elsewhere in the Constitution. Talk about tunnel vision or being narrow minded.
Read the whole document Keith.
As I’ve said many times, the 2A is in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights protects INDIVIDUAL freedoms. END OF DISCUSSION.
During the writing of the Constitution there was a slave revolt in Haiti. Many Whites took their slaves with them and fled to the U.S. The States were worried the same would happen here and the Federal Government to cajole the States into joining the Federal Government told them they could keep their own independent Militias to slaughter slaves if they revolted. In other words contrary to patriotic legend and pure bullshit 2A was not about the States being able to overthrow the Federal Government to protect freedoms but 2A was a guarantee to commit mass murder of blacks under slavery.
Most Constitutional Scholars agree that 2A had zero to do with the individuals right to own weapons and most of the major militias were already controlled by the States not controlled by rag tag bands of local drunken hillbillies.
It must also be remembered that 2A was deliberately written in the vaguest of terms to fool the hillbillies into believing they had rights to own personal weapons. In reality the criminals who founded the U.S. were the last people on earth that wanted this. They wanted and got absolute power over the people and even barred most white men from voting unless they were extremely rich and a member of the “good old greed monger boys”. They called Democracy “mob rule”. Those Colonial Merchant crooks were no more honest in 1776 than the scum that infest Congress today.
History has shown that both Liberal and Conservator judges view gun ownership as a threat to their absolute power over the people and have consistently blessed just about every anti-gun law ever passed. In the 1930’s the court claimed only military weapons were protected (to uphold a then existing anti-gun law) and when the great anti-gun Satan Pres. Reagan banned machine guns the criminals on the court then reversed themselves and declared only most sporting guns were protected and then later under Clinton blessed the biggest ban on sporting rifles ever passed i.e. the Clinton assault rifle ban.
As one can see 2A has been an absolute joke since it was written and the courts have used smoke and mirrors and outright lies to justify every rape of 2A they have committed.
Vlad-Dacian: How about YOU bring your “fuk the Constitution” (yeah if 2A is “an absolute joke”, the whole Constitution is worthless) ass to MY Hillbilly front door (If you can find your way out of the city) and allow me to expound in much greater detail exactly where you are in error… You spend hours spewing your false narratives which are basically YOUR personal interpretation of things yet you NEVER offer historical proof to back up any of your assertions so I must assume that either YOU expect all of us “Hillbillys” (everyone who is NOT you or your “scholars”?) to be in awe of your superior intellect and accept on blind faith that every word you print is absolute fact, OR YOU are totally full of shit (I choose that one)…. It must really suck to be you…
Comments are closed.