A letter to the editor re: the “well-regulated militia ain’t you, you stupid bastard” interpretation of the Second Amendent by one Nancy Fink. Ms. Fink is from Highland Park, which recently had its handgun ban struck down by the United States Supreme Court. The missive was printed in the Chicago Tribune, of course.
I’d like to respond to Emerson Bolen’s recent comment that according to the Second Amendment a well regulated militia is composed of and depends on being able to call up individuals already bearing arms, as these were not supplied to them when a militia was formed. That may have once been so, but our current, well-regulated militia does supply weapons, as well as training in their use. In any case, when guns are used by individuals to commit crimes, any militia they may belong to or are prepared to belong to is not very well-regulated. Guns used for any individual purpose outside of a well-regulated militia don’t seem to be a protected use under the 2nd amendment.
Short answer?
No, it will never die.
Just like the argument that 100 degrees in Phoenix, AZ, isn't as bad as 100 degrees in Arkansas because it's a "dry heat."
Simple answer: No. "Tell a big enough lie, often enough, and it becomes accepted truth." – author unknown but thanked.
Other examples of this are: "Global Warming is caused by mankind" is a lie, "the U.S. is a democracy" is a lie, "the Federal Law trumps state law" is a lie, "the Civil War was fought to end slavery" is a lie, "pay your fair share of taxes" is a lie, ad infinitum.
Leftists/Marxists extremists have an agenda to better mankind. We're just too stupid to see the benefits. The worst kind of tyranny is committed by those who believe they're doing it for our own good. It's the ultimate end of "You can't handle the truth!"
Idiots who do not understand the English language should not write letters to the editor!
The phrase "well regulated" means well trained. It has nothing to do with regulations or rules by which the militia operates.
Therefore, the fact that the US has a well regulated militia in the form of the National Guard has no bearing on the subordinate clause in the 2nd Amendment.
What do we expect from a product of our current “educational” system? Just one more shining example of an ignorant moron with absolutely no clue of her own nation’s history and heritage. I learned a long time ago that you can’t argue with left-wing idiots. They are absolutely intellectually bankrupt, intentionally ignorant, and institutionally arogant, just like waaaaayyyyy too many of our “public servants”. She doesn’t work for Daley, does she?
The Founders' views on gun rights are simple enough to find. Their intent was that the populace have a parity — equality — of lethal force with any government that might inflict tyranny on them. Tenche Coxe said "Every terrible implement of the soldier shall be their birthright." Others agreed "Who are the militia? It is the whole of the People, except for a ew public officials." A well-regulated militia, in 18th-Century parlance, was a well-trained and effective one. It doesn't mean control. I don't understand why people choose to diminish their own liberty by not researching such basic concepts. If you don't like guns, don't own one. The rest of us have the right, by virtue of having been born. 99% of us never misuse them.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joesph Goebbels, Adolph Hilters Minister of Propaganda
To those that hate and fear firearms the Second Amendment is an inconvenient truth. For a number of years they almost had the undiscerning public convinced that the militia clause negated the true focus, ie the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That specious argument is still so attractive they keep bringing it up even though it died a well deserved demise with the Heller Supreme Court ruling in 2008. An additional detail the anti gunners try to gloss over is that while the Heller decision to overturn the Washington D. C. gun ban was split 5/4 the concurrent finding that the Second Amendment applies to an individual right was unanimous.
The purpose of the militia clause in the amendment is to show the government interest in the statement. The government needed to be able to draw on well armed citizens in times of trouble, the unorganized militia. The right of the people to be armed is independent of the government’s interests and in fact overrides any such interest.
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. The bamboozle has captured us. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
— Carl Sagan
Funny how the National Guard in no way, legal or otherwise, replaced the militia. But then again someone surely must have the Bill, Amendment, or law that made that so? We will wait for that response, but realize the Devil will be really angry as to produce such evidence, Hell must surely have frozen over!
Ms. Fink is a true “bitter clinger”.
The Carl Sagan quote from Frank (above) is true and I have a great example. About 15 years ago our real estate company’s attorney sent a letter asking HUD (the feds) if the Fair Housing Act protected the buyer’s right to discriminate. The Act was passed in 1968 at a time when buyer representation in resesidential real estate (what we do) was unheard of.
HUD sent us a letter saying “YES”, big time YES. The real estate industry had never looked at the fair housing law from this point of view. They screamed bloody murder because they (insert Ms. Fink and Mayor Daley, et al.) could not give up the incorrect idea that the purpose of the law was to prevent discrimination. HUD backpeddled and sent out a second letter to soften things up. This was not good enough so a month later they sent out a third letter rescinding the first letter and they concluded the letter by saying they would not discuss the issue futher.
So: #1 the government agrees the purpose of the law is to protect buyers (and renters) from owner discminination, thereby protecting the buyer’s right to discriminate. #2 industry trade group screams like crazy, #3 government changes their mind about what the law actually says and refuses to discuss the matter.
The question I have is will a future Supreme Court be willing to ignore Stari Decisis and overturn Heller? Take a good look at Kagan and decide for yourself.
The letters are available at: http://www.reintel.com/letters.htm
Gotta love it. E. Zach Lee-Wright
yeh, 30,000 Gangbangers, career crminals & other "illegals" who never should-a been out of jail in the first place! HAH. and thats bad, how?
The Second Amendment argument may never die, but every year 30,000 American gunfire victims do.
Hey Leif Rakur, just a little math for you.
Yes, about 30,000 Americans die by gunfire every year.
Typically, at least half of those are suicides. All the reputable psychological stuff I've read says that folks determined to kill themselves will do it, no matter what.
Japan has hardly any civilian gun ownership, yet they manage to have a lot more suicides than the US does.
Okay, so 30K, minus about 15K suicides leaves about 15K.
That 15,000 includes all people who die from gunfire, period.
That includes criminals killed by other criminals (translate gangbangers involved in gang wars, drug trafficking, etc), criminals killed by police, criminals killed by civilians, civilians murdered by criminals, accidents, etc. etc.
That's in a country with 350 million people, and at the most conservative estimate, around 100 million guns.
Let's say that a separate gun is used to kill each and every person who dies from any type of gunfire, accident, crime, shot by police while committing a crime, etc.
Now that is far from the truth, but just for the sake of argument, let's use it as number, shall we?
That means every single year in the United States, .00008571 of the population dies from gunshots that come from .0003 of the guns in the country.
And I'm having to make a leap here, as neither the calculator on my computer, nor the calculator on my desk will let me put enough zeros in to use the numbers 350 million and 100 million.
I'm dividing 30,000 by 350 million for the number killed, and 30,000 by 100 million for the total number of guns used, which is a total stretch, but just to illustrate the point.
“We can contend with the evil that men do in the name of evil, but heaven protect us from what they do in the name of good”.
Richard Boone as “Paladin” quoting Erodius.
The National guard was intended to replace state militias but something happened on the way to the replacement. They didn’t replace them. Deliberately so if I recall the federal statute in question. To say nothing of the Constitutional intents.
But that doesn’t fit their wish list or conform to their desires for the rest of us. We should just let them run everything right now and forevermore!
WHEN! The government inflates the dollar out of existence. The National Guard will not have any money to supply weapons and training to anyone. It will be God fearing families that will form the militia. It will be small groups of patriots that fight back the progressive, Marxists, elitists scum. It will be those of us who love the freedoms that the constitution secured for us who will return this nation back into a constitutional republic. For those of you who hate the constitution. BEWARE! There are more of us than there are of you!
To Roy:
I think you must count all 30,000 yearly American gunfire deaths as real gunfire deaths. No one can know how many would have died anyway, even without the presence of a gun.
Ms Fink and many others, have their sights set on the wrong area. Gun crime is not the issue of gun control. The gun crime rate is higher in stiffly regulated communities than it is in less controlled communities.
It is unfortunate that the bad apples in the basket, give every other gun owner a bad name. It is a matter of interaction with an individual to teach them the proper use and respect of a firearm. Be it for sports or hunting.
I come from a rural community setting. The only time you hear about deaths by a gun are generally from the media, speaking of drive by shootings, etc., etc. The next you will hear, is of someone in such emotional despair over finances or a catastrophic illness, that has decided to end their own life. Usually, the gun is the last resort in a suicidal situation. They have most likely tried other ways first, but have failed or been found. So, they are more determined, to overcome the interruption of what they think, they truly want to do to themselves, by utilizing a firearm. They did it to themselves.
Now, also, coming from a rural setting, I have grown up around guns my entire life. The old saying, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”, is so very correct. Maybe it is because we are outside the big city limits and can look from abroad and see it. When I was a child, I was told “No” for a reason. So, if I was told not to touch a gun unless supervised by an adult, that’s what I did. Guns were used for hunting and sporting events. However, if it meant that the same gun was going to be needed for protection from a home invader, it would be used. The 2nd amendment rights were written for that very purpose. As for Chicago’s crime rate, they are no different than any other metropolitan crime rate. It all boils down to parents interacting with their children. Remaining an active influence on their lives. You have to be a parent for the 1st 18 years of their life, then you can become friends. Too many, try to be friends, rather than guide and teach valuable lessons on many things, including gun saftey and use.
Ms Fink, take a better look at the picture around you. You aren’t seeing the core problem of your need to quelch constitutional rights, that we, and you, were born to. And I have a few questions for you. In all my 50+ years, I have never seen a gun sit up and shoot itself off at someone or something. The only time I have ever seen a gun fire, is when there is another individual at the end of the trigger. Have you? So who are you really trying to control? The guns or the people who shoot people with guns? If you are trying to control the people who shoot people with guns, then the control begins at home with proper parenting and guidance. It doesn’t mean taking the right to own a gun away from the responsible individuals.
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]
I doubt if there ever will be a end to the antigun anti second a,endment arguments as long as the gun ban crowd has the lap dog press and talking dummieheads to listen to them and parrot their minldess drivel
guns are dangerouse, but we need them.
Ms. Fink has delusions of intellect. Her statement, “In any case, when guns are used by individuals to commit crimes, any militia they may belong to or are prepared to belong to is not very well-regulated” conveniently ignores the fact that, by definition, criminals do not obey the law.
Comments are closed.