“The founding fathers never intended to empower people to mow each other down. Clearly the Second Amendment has been distorted. It was intended to protect people, not allow them to destroy each other. The presidential candidates are ducking this issue — and that could be considered a political crime — a bi-partisan campaign against the people.” – Gabe Pressman
Man, these guys have the smell of dead-enders like George Wallace or Oval Fabus circa 1967, don’t they?
“Clearly the Second Amendment has been distorted. It was intended to protect people…”
Agreed on both points. It was intended to protect people from their government distorting any of their rights; however that is barely the case anymore with so many regulations imposed on the protective Amendment. We are outgunned by our government pretty much to the point of being ineffectual.
“…not allow them to destroy each other.”
Illogical, unreasonable, and fantastical. No where in the Second Amendment does it say we are “allowed” to destroy one another. That is simply human nature. We would destroy one another with sticks and stones if that is all we had.
#1
Couldn’t agree more. +100.
I fourth the notion.
This joker has no effing idea what the founders meant by the Second Amendment. He should STFU and read “The Founders’ Second Amendment” (available from Amazon) before he speaks. His ignorance is appalling. The primary purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that citizens retained the means by which to overthrow their government should it try to enslave them.
On “The Founder’s Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms” by Steven P. Halbrook; it’s a good book but I wouldn’t say that the author captures the Founder’s intents. That is to say he makes some good points, and the arguments are well presented, but the logic is a bit flawed. He mixes 18th century quotes with modern definitions far to often instead of using contemporaneous definitions and source material. He provides generous quotes to make his argument, but uses modern resources to prove it. I enjoyed the read, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that he speaks for the founders. However, his arguments and his interpretation are spot on for 21st century American jurisprudence.
I wish I could like this comment, like on thefirearmblog.
Government has willfully ignored or forgotten what the Constitution means… interpreting it as they see fit (not as the founders intended) or leaning on it only when convenient. Otherwise it’s just an inconvenient regulation they’ll try to ignore whenever they can get away with it.
Our country is still better than others in freedoms, and for that, I’m thankful.
The Second Amendment was to enable the People to maintain their power against any force.
The primary danger to liberty foreseen by the writers of our Constitution was our own government. That is what they had just experienced. Therefore the writers saw that the People might need to fight, as in shoot and kill, those in their own government who had taken so much power as to be a threat to the liberty of the people. That is what they had just experienced.
The Constitution is the most noble device ever created to limit government without violence; yet provides the People the means to use violence, if necessary, to limit government by maintaining an armed populous.
Thanks for the book rec. Just bought Kindle version.
I understand the original intent of the 2A. But, I’d like to learn more. Thanks again!
The 2A really ain’t that difficult, Gabe.
First, I was surprised to see that ol’ Gabe is still alive. He is almost old enough to remember the ratification of the Constitution. Second, he has been an ultra liberal talking head on New York market TV for so long that most of us have learned to not listen to him. Just my opinion, but ol’ Gabe lost his relevance about 20 years ago.
The truth of the matter: availability of guns are not the problem – it is this country’s insatiable appetite for illegal drugs that fuels the violence. So the next time your enlightened liberal friends snort their next line of coke they love so much, consider them to be part of the problem. Oh, and by the way, if you think for a second that the NYC cops could not stop the violence if they wanted to, you are very naive. Too many of them are on the take to stop the underground economy surrounding drugs.
it is this country’s insatiable appetite for illegal drugs that fuels the violence.
Actually, it’s the government and moral imperialists who feel the need to ban drugs because they abhor people being able to make their own choices that fuel the violence. They did the same thing 90 years ago during prohibition and the same morons and making the same mistake again with our current prohibition of drugs.
Exactly right. A lot of the violence around illegal drugs comes from the fact they’re illegal. If they were legal, a lot of the reasons for the violence we see now would go away.
I call Red-Herring.
Go ahead and make the drugs legal… They’d just find something else instead to be violent about if there was no way to still rule in the drug world. It’s about power and money more than the drugs themselves.
Sorry Will, but history proves you wrong. Gangs and violence sprouted up when people like you banned alcohol 90 years ago and they pretty much vanished when prohibition was repealed. We’ve seen the same thing happen now where the violence exists to protect their supply chain / profits which there would be no need for if drugs were legal.
Also, you’re pointing out that your entire reason for making drugs illegal (that they cause violence) is bullshit by stating that the violence would continue if drugs were legalized.
Will, think of the last time you heard of a whiskey distributor murdering a rival distributor over who gets to supply Chicago? Just doesn’t really happen anymore. Now they run ads or try to compete on price or whatever, but gunning down rivals is definitely not part of the business plan anymore in the liquor business. The businesses involved in the liquor trade are also just ordinary businesses now, run by ordinary business people, not organized crime run by gangsters.
So, what’s the likely outcome if drugs are legalized? What’s most likely is that the cartels are pushed out of the market by the corporations. Take cocaine for example. Pharmaceutical companies are already producing plenty of extremely pure, medical grade cocaine. If it became legal for recreational use, then they could just ramp up production, package it up for retail sale, and push it out to the new distribution channel. It could probably be out on the shelves at Walgreens and 7-Eleven in about three months.
Now, unless you’re a really loyal junkie, why would you continue to buy from a street dealer? The 7-Eleven stuff is probably going to be cheaper, cleaner (because the producers now put all sorts of random crap in drugs), and with all sorts of quality control you’d never see from an illegal producer. Plus you don’t have to go into the bad part of town or deal with that dangerous psycho.
If legalization ever happened on a truly broad scale, the cartels would probably be broke within a year, and big pharma would be raking in more cash than ever.
I always love how they blame the other states…..that do not have the crime issues that NYC city does. Boston (and MA) do the same thing, they blame NH, Maine and VT, and their “weak” gun laws. Well, if the gun laws are so weak, why don’t the criminals just commit crimes in those states? He also says it is sad that people are color are the victims, and it is, but they are also the majority of the perpetrators. It is not the KKK shooting up inner cities, it is gangs, the majority of whom are minorities. Get the gangbangers to stop shooting people because they got bumped into on a scooter, instead of trying to disarm me.
i’ve heard the 2a was written in the time of muskets argument before. technology has changed and so must the 2a. but they never use that reasoning on the other amendments. relevent here is 1a. the founders only had the written and the spoken word. using the changing technology argument, tv, radio, and the interweb were not envisioned and therefore they can be censored or even banned if the government wished it. is changing technology the way we want to qualify the bor?
In zombie movies, the dead can’t speak. In real life, the dead can’t keep their mouths shut.
In real life the dead can’t stop voting.
Does anyone else find it ironic that this clown is making this type of comment and behind him is a black and white picture of Nazis – one horrific tragedy that could have perhaps been prevented or ended sooner had their populous and those of the countries around them been properly armed.
Not going to allow that to happen here in America Gabe.
The 2A is like a Rorschach test; people see what they want in it. Those who truly understand it see the protection of a free people, and the empowerment to resist corrupt government. Cowards see a demand for responsibility that they simply can’t handle, and thus must be stamped out. Tyrants see an obstacle.
The most reprehensible are people like these, the projectors. They fear people mowing each other down and state that it “allows” people to be violent because, deep down, they themselves are violent and despicable people.
Very well said, Silver! That’s quotable stuff there.
It’s ok Gabe. Relax, Obama has your healthcare all sorted so if you get shot everything will be ok. [End Sarcasm]
Actually 2A should stand the test of time. Yes at the time they were muskets and such, maybe a canon or two. I get it.
However………
If you take the time to read what was written by the founding fathers. Not someones interpretation, or thoughts on quotes out of context. Go sit in the library of congress, or look up the writings of our founding fathers online.
Read all of their letters back and forth during the time and understand their philosophies. It is clear as day, and I post their quotes on occasion.
Simply put. Power corrupts. No matter how altruistic the ideals behind it people in power become corrupt. 2A was designed for a purpose. If the government has muskets so should the people. If the government has M-16’s so should the people. It is to keep the government in check. Just like the constitution. It can not be thrown by the way side so that the government can reach it’s objectives, regardless of how good the intention might be. The constitution is in place for a reason, which according to Samuel Adams, is to restrain the government not the people.
So saying that 2A is out of date is a statement from someone who has not read the letters and discussions of our founding fathers to understand why we have our amendments. If you want to interfere with 2A then change it by a 2/3 majority.
On that note states have sovereignty under the tenth amendment, but as we have seen many hinder 2A left right and center. What makes me scratch my head is that the constitution is in many if not all states considered the highest document in the land and supersedes local state laws. Yet they seem to not care if it serves their purpose to ignore it.
The tagline on top of the NYT article says “The right not to be murdered is the most important civil liberty.”
Which is EXACTLY why the individual right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment, is so important. If someone tries to murder you, there’s no better way to keep yourself from being murdered than to be armed. In their twisted interpretation, the 2nd Amendment would amount to nothing more than the “right” to be helpless in the face of lawless aggression.
The first two amendments are the first because they’re the most important — together they guarantee that all the other rights and liberties will continue to exist.
The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States December 15, 1791
PREAMBLE Congress OF THE United States.
“THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution..”
Amendment II “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.”
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
He looks like one of those “Early Bird Special” customers at a diner near me. Shuffleboard later at the home.
Comments are closed.