“The Second Amendment was written for a reason, and the efforts by the NRA and others to divert our attention is a dangerous, unacceptable abuse of history. To neglect the intention of the Constitution is to diminish it to words on a page. Instead of hijacking the political process by propping up politicians who support this faulty interpretation, the NRA should be leading an effort to promote sound gun regulation that allows for recreational use.” – Jess Coleman at HuffPo
‘‘The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.’’
— Patrick Henry
‘‘No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.’’
— Thomas Jefferson
‘‘To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…’’
— Richard Henry Lee
‘‘[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.’’
— James Madison
‘‘The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits. … and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.’’
— St. George Tucker
Mr. Coleman, who is perverting the intended meaning of the 2nd, again?
I’d wager that I could create a profile about Mr. Jess Coleman high school student from NY and arrive at an accurate description.
I always figured that the Bill of Rights was a safeguard of individual liberty against a government, in case said government got too big and powerful since the writers didn’t like the idea of a too large central government. Just like the one that Britain had. Besides the 2nd Amendment says it right there in the Amendment; Shall not be infringed.
Why is it that people cannot understand that the 2A was not written so that people could go hunting. It exists so that the people have the ability to fight back against a tyrannical government.
Exactly. It was written by revolutionaries, for potential revolutionaries.
What kind of utter moron thinks the 2A was written with the intent of securing gun ownership for recreational use? The fact that such people are even allowed to speak about the Constitution proves both the most admirable and most dangerous traits of the 1st Amendment.
I think he’s diminishing the words of the 2nd more than the NRA. Or maybe the founding fathers fought the British over the right to plink…
Well, we all know that really the 2A is so the National Guard and the US Military can have guns. Silly serfs!
Remember, the Soviet right to firearms, is the right to join the Army.
Actually, all of the Bill of Rights applies to the government and not the individual.
Gotta love the dude’s high school yearbook picture. When sonny has a few more years of life experience, then he can offer his opinions in a public. Until then, he should shut the hell up and go back to working on his fake id.
Just another young idealist who is still in High school who only knows what he has read. It is sad he is surrounded by leftist academics filling his head with skewed propaganda. Worse is he absolutely believes it.
The article claims that Coleman is a student at the NYC Lab School. No, that’s not a school for wetland retrievers.
He’s a high school student, which makes him smarter than the average gungrabber, but not by much. Secondly, he’s from New York, the Smug Capitol of the US, where a Manhattan fire hydrant is supposed to be smarter than, say, a Southerner with a PhD in Particle Physics. Finally, the kid’s been well indoctrinated.
Leave him alone with his fantasies. He’s gonna need them.
Yeah, we just called these kids pussies back in the day.
Harrumph!
I have no problem with anyone having fantasies. The problem I have is when people start opening their mouths, particularly when they are so ill informed.
Does anyone with a fully functioning brain actually take the Huffington Joke seriously?
Unfortunately, having a brain is not a prerequisite for expressing your opinion to your elected official or voting. As such, sites like the Huff Po do a tremendous amount of damage to our freedoms by publishing this sort of dreck and giving more support to the moronic anti-2A crowd.
“The right of the military to keep and bear arms for purposes of duck hunting shall not be infringed…”
In the words of another Coleman…”Whatcha talkin bout Willis!!!”
You have to admit he’s right: 2A was written for a reason.
And the Supreme Court has just educated the gun-grabbers as to what that reason was/is.
Gun rights are based on far more concrete grounds than “abortion rights”. What part of the Constitution is that in, by the way? Knowing would help me understand why that section was written.
Perhaps it was “written”, as our erudite high-school indoctrinee suggests re 2A, in the furtherance of recreation.
The young author seems to be articulate and reasonably intelligent. It’s a shame he has no more chance of becoming truly educated than does an equivalent student in North Korea.
I disagree 100%. There should be no regulations, 0 nota. The second amendment is very clear. In my opinion any regulations is a violation of the constitution. The NRA, SAF, and others should be fighting to remove ALL regulations. However this is just my personal opinion.
I concur. If a person is proven to be too dangerous to have a gun (yet they still have access to other weapons? WTF?), then they should be in prison until rehabilitated – and if rehabilitation is not possible, then execute them.
For a constitutional fundamentalist, that seems to go a bit against the 8th.
I see nothing cruel about imprisoning violent criminals until they are no longer a threat. It may however be unusual as I can think of nothing more unusual then the government doing it’s job properly.
I’m sorry, what’s cruel about imprisoning people who’ve proven themselves to be a public danger? Also, what’s unconstitutional about the death penalty if a person is unable to be reformed?
If you read historical documents, you’d see that the “cruel” part did NOT mean “it hurts their feelings” as people try to claim today – it was added because there were several incidences of unusually cruel punishments, such as slowly disemboweling people. The 8th Amendment was not included to protect against hurt feelings or repercussions for your actions.
A bullet behind the ear is a hell of a lot more humane than the electric chair. Ridiculously cheaper too.
Quite true, and I advocate for it all the time.
I don’t know. There are a few folks who I would support seeing disemboweled. Folks who like to blow up schools and buses come to mind.
ok – so buy law, I am part of the Militia. Now will he go away?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
Yet another Ahole elitist smug bastard with the idea his opinion is worth so much more than anyone elses.
This is fundamentally a misunderstanding of the use of the English language.
In firearms, especially in the era wherein the Constitution was written, a firearm was “regulated” to hit what you were aiming at. We gunsmiths still, to this day, talk of “regulating” guns, especially double guns, to hit what they’re being pointed at. “Regulating” a double gun means that both barrels should hit the same point of aim at some distance.
Now, in the historical context, a “well regulated militia” meant “a bunch of guys who can hit what they’re supposed to.” Which, when one considers that the functional equivalent of an AR-15 in those days was the smooth bore Brown Bess musket, took some skill and training.
The salient point here is that the words “well regulated” in the Second Amendment have nothing to do with laws and regulations. They mean training of the militia, specifically that the militia should be trained to actually put rounds on target, not just make noise and smoke.
The anti’s have an obvious aversion to reading the 2nd in the context it was written.
As if the 2nd amendment was created so we could shoot a duck! It’s to protect us from our own government.
Technically speaking the Constitution did intend us to shoot a certain species of bird – specifically the Red Breasted Monarchist.
“The Second Amendment was written for a reason, and the efforts by the left, the Brady bunch, the New Yorker, and others to divert our attention is a dangerous, unacceptable abuse of history. “
+1. Well played!
I was hoping this was suppressor related
Mr. Coleman is a perfect example of it taking a bunch of Greenwich Village idiots to raise a child. Sadly, he is a product of his environment and a he provides us with a textbook example of what any good Stalinist would characterize as a useful idiot.
When he graduates from the Lab School, he can then go on to Columbia, and later work for Mayor for Life Bloomberg. The kid is all set.
The Jess Coleman way to take poop:
“Take a bit of toilet paper and wipe butt crack area. Now take a poop, then, after standing up, pull up your jeans and zip. Done.”
Sheesh how screwed up can you get
I am sure some have of you have seen the PSA ads about how the USA is ranked 25th in the world in math education.
I fear we rank even worse when it comes to the understanding of American history and the sacrifices of those who help form this country and protect it.
I am sure we rank #1 revisionist history and socialist babble. It is no wonder home schooling is growing.
I don’t think when 2A it was written for sporting or that the sporting idea even existed. Given a quote from Thomas Jefferson I would say it was to keep the government in check:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
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
Same old retread arguments:
•Your National Guard is your “well-regulated militia” so, if you want to have a cool army gun, then either join up or get over it.
•Only legit use for a gun is “recreational.”
Mr. Coleman is wrong on both counts. Oh well…
Point…counter-point;
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
-Thomas Jefferson
Very smart man he was!
Anyone who believes the way Coleman does has 1) never had their life threatened or 2) doesn’t know anyone who has ever had their life threatened.
Therefore, because it has never happened to him or anyone he knows, it simply doesn’t happen.
I wonder if Bruce Kraft can jump in here and submit the list of state constitutions ratified around that time period where the right to keep and bear arms is MUCH clearer in terms of defense of life and liberty.
Not the right intent? Abuse of history? The States didn’t seem to think so. I’ll pre-delete my Flame for this guy in advance.
LONG, EXCESSIVE AND HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE FLAME DELETED IN ADVANCE BY USER. …and his picture makes him look like a douche!
Why I don’t get is how states can thumb their nose at the constitution.
California which we all know has some of the most restrictive laws regarding firearms in the country also states the following in their constitution.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the
United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the
supreme law of the land.
So tell me how they can get away with thumbing their nose at the law of the land.
Comments are closed.