CNN’s Morgan Thinks Government Will ‘Nuke’ Gun Owners

Piers Morgan has done it again, jumping into his anti-gun, anti-Constitution advocacy with both feet… in his mouth. Once again, Morgan took to Twitter to revel in his “civility,” this time ridiculing gun owners for being wary of the power of tyrannical government, scoffing that the Second Amendment won’t keep us all safe from a nuclear armed United States.

Morgan Tweeted his latest absurdist, misinformed Tweet on January 13: “America has over 5000 nuclear warheads. Quite hard to defend against a ‘tyrannical U.S. government’ with that kind of firepower. #GetReal”

So very vapid. Uninformed, ill thought out, and foolish all at once.

Are we to assume that Piers Morgan thinks that the only way governments ever trample on rights or oppress citizens is to “nuke” them?

Well, who can assail such logic? Certainly if a government is going to be so self destructive as to nuke its own people–and in turn itself–then, well, I guess an AR-15 sure won’t stop that. A sub-machine gun wouldn’t even stop that.

Of course, what Morgan so childishly attacked (again) was the idea that the founders intended the Second Amendment to serve as a check on tyrannical government and so the whole of the people are expected to be armed with military grade arms in order to be that check. The contention is that when the people fear their government there is tyranny, but when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Like most radical leftists, Morgan finds it ludicrous that our government could ever turn on us. But contrary to the left’s Pollyannaish idea that our government must forever remain benign, history is replete with governments using the force of arms to oppress the people and you don’t even have to go back 200 years to the Revolutionary War to find examples of that. Just look throughout the Middle East today.

The historical record, however, is totally bereft of examples of one thing and that is governments “nuking” their own people. Not once has it ever happened.

No, usually they just use boring, ordinary guns, but usually only after they’ve passed Morgan-approved laws to disarm them.

One thing is sure, here, though. For Piers Morgan there really is one thing more dangerous than a gun in the hands of an enemy. That would be his Twitter feed in his own hands.

Shortlink:

Posted by on January 15, 2013.
Filed under Big government, corruption, Culture Of Corruption, Democrats, Gun control, Liberals, Media.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events.He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com"The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Commander_Chico

    Let nobody say that Warner can’t beat a dead horse thoroughly.

    • MartinLandauCalrissian

      Yeah, because trying to destroy the U.S. Constitution es exactly the same as pointing lout the failed logic of a TV News guy.

      • jim_m

        Chico doesn’t mind destroying the Constitution as long as his side is doing it and he thinks he will benefit from it.

  • LiberalNightmare

    I dont think that there is anthing funnier than a brit making fun of the idea that a govt might become tyrannical and have to be removed from power by its citizens.

  • Brian_R_Allen

    Herr Morgan reminds me pretty much of every evil every real American’s, Australian’s and New Zealander’s ancestors ran so hard and so far from as — particularly in the case of the Australasians’ ancestors– to get as far as its possible to get from the bastards without starting back up the other side of the world!

    And he as disgustingly reminds me of every American fascist-by-any-other-name ([il]liberal, [regressive] “progressive” eg) I’ve ever known — and of way too many more recent Euro-peon immigrants. Every one of whom is way too damned much like Herr Piers Joseph Goebbels Morgan!

  • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

    I looked at that and thought – “Does he think, REALLY, that the US government would nuke its own cities to protect Obama’s imperial ass?”

    Then I realized – he doesn’t really think so, he’s just an attention whore. And he’s getting what he wants. The worst thing that could happen for him is to be ignored – and he’s managed to avoid that.

    • Wild_Willie

      JLawson, you have it correct in my opinion. TV news is nothing but ratings and that is what he is after. Especially since a new president is reviewing shows. He is doing what they all do and trying to save their own ass. He cares about the dead children almost as much as he cares about his show. He is standing on the graves of those dead children for profit. ww

      • jim_m

        I believe that any statement goes off the rails when it begins “Piers Morgan thinks…” It requires a significant leap of faith to accept the idea that Morgan has thought of anything before opening his mouth.

    • Vagabond661

      Absolutely. He is the Nancy Grace of CNN.

      • Hank_M

        That is going to leave a mark.
        Well done.

    • Conservachef

      For about a week it was fun to read about Morgan’s latest stupidity, and the way his ideas were refuted. Now it’s getting boring- he isn’t making a good argument, and he’s descending further and further into absurdity.

      And yes, I think he’s doing it to boost his ratings and grab attention.

  • SteveCrickmore075

    Something that isn’t pointed out by the gun nuts, The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery.

    The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the Framers knew the difference – see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that. In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the “slave patrols,” and they were regulated by the states..slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.

    If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband – or even move out of the state – those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse..

    Patrick Henry then bluntly laid it out: “If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia.”

    • jim_m

      Moron.

      Doesn’t take long for an ignorant lefty to accuse their ideological opponents of racism. Never does.

      Historically, gun confiscation and registration have been used to suppress the rights of minority groups. You could ask how the Jews in Germany fared under that rule, but you don’t get good responses from a pile of ashes.

      • SteveCrickmore075

        Preserving slavery that is, slaves as personal property in chains, to be exact, suppressing any (potential) slave revolts from their owners, was the principle and practically only motivation for passage of the hallowed second amendment. Of course, there was nothing racist behind the passage of the second amendment, for today’s conservatives like jim_m who continually harp back to what the counstitutional founders had in mind. Well, this is precisely what they had in mind! It wasn’t about the male citizen protecting his children or his home, it was about him protecting his slaves, from trying to free themselves, as the constitutional debates revealed. But don’t call that racist!

        • jim_m

          That assertion is false on its face. I have never heard it advanced by any opponent of the 2nd amendment before.

          It is clear that in the minds of the founders was the fact that the British had attempted to confiscate arms in the colonies and that they saw the necessity to have arms under the direct control of the people as a necessary condition on preventing a dictatorial state from oppressing the people. The founders were concerned with the creation of a standing federal army and the need to provide a check and balance against one.

          It is fascists like you who bring up false information and smear their opponents with motives that never existed. The context of the second amendment has always been with regard to the security of the state and the security of citizens from the overreach of the state.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            It’s not about facts. It’s about control. The left isn’t concerned about facts that don’t fit the narrative used to control the argument.

            Truth-out’s mission statement:

            Truthout works to spark action by revealing systemic injustice and providing a platform for transformative ideas, through in-depth investigative reporting and critical analysis. With a powerful, independent voice, we will spur the revolution in consciousness and inspire the direct action that is necessary to save the planet and humanity.

            You just don’t get more progressive than that.

            Comments on the article are interesting, too. Like this one…

            All you have established is that “country” vs. “state” is where these southerners wanted the organization of the militia centered. Such that they could control their militias (which also served as slave patrols, but were clearly referenced for invasion as well). There is no question about the right to bear arms at any point. This was not in question and remains in place to guard against a tyrannical government. (in the South perhaps tyranny was freeing “their” slaves, but in the North this surely was not the meaning, see stamp tax limiting speech, taxation without representation, quartering of soldiers during peace time, etc.)

            Calling the second amendment “the slave patrol militia amendment” is disingenuous at best. I would refer you to Walter E. Williams, Thomas Sowell and Condolezza Rice for their views on gun control being a device to disarm blacks in the South against the KKK. Gun control (aka gun law) is used to control, favor and distort.

            No doubt early America was conflicted. Slaves are one aspect. Another is the native people pushed around and relocated (mainly because they were not armed with guns and were vulnerable for this reason, and very early on depopulated by diseases of Europeans). Gun control laws existed to keep Native Americans from arming themselves against the government. Something else to consider.

            No one is advocating murder of children. The government is making it possible by not taking responsibility for the security of the government schools against maniacs. To imagine school attacks will end if you eliminate guns is to ignore all the school stabbings in China & Japan (which have virtually no civilian gun possession).

            Needless to say, the shrieks of ‘You want children to DIEEE!!!!’ and ‘We must do something NOW to save the children!’ drown out any attempt to have a reasonable discussion.

            So Steve’s got an article that’s ‘News Analysis’ – basically an op-ed column, and posting that as a solid historical article pointing to why there’s the 2nd Amendment.

            Because of Racism.

            Man, I’m damn tired of that sort of twisted historical analysis.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            i realize that in the early days of the Republic, parts of the western first 13 colonies/states were also concerned with threats from the indians. This is why I believe it was mandated by two laws from two different Congresses that every able male between certain ages had to have a rifle and gun powder.. Yes, I know the Supreme Court has entrenched the second amendment..in the DC case recently well beyond the militia argument. All I’m saying is that originally the second amendment was passed not so much as a protection of life and liberty, but rather as a protection or coercion against slaves if they tried to take action to obtain their own liberty.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Right. Try using that race card somewhere else – it’s ringing up “No Sale” here.

          • cirby

            That’s pretty much made up out of whole cloth, Crickmore. There was NOTHING about “protecting against slaves” in the documents of the time. It was “protecting against tyranny.” Not that you care about that sort of thing, right?

            If you want racism, look into the history of gun control laws in the United States. There weren’t that many of those until after the Civil War – when groups like the Klan helped push for laws to prevent ex-slaves from carrying firearms to protect themselves against the people who wanted to lynch them. Even in the places where blacks could own firearms, there were laws that made cheap weapons hard to get – the “Saturday Night Special” restrictions. That sort of thing was still going on as late as the 1960s…

            A little trivia: One of the people who applied for a concealed carry permit? Martin Luther King. He was denied.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            I wonder why the FBI denied him a concealed carry permit.. sort of makes my point doesn’t it? Of course he wasn’t under any personal assassination threat or danger from any right wing whackos like James Earl Ray?

          • Conservachef

            The FBI doesn’t issue CCW permits- it is a state document. King was denied one by the local police, which illustrates how gun control/disarming citizens has been used by racists in the past.

          • cirby

            It was because King was a civil rights leader – and black. The Democrats in power in the South didn’t like blacks to have guns, so – ta-daah! Gun control.

            You might also note that James Earl Ray was an escaped felon – and couldn’t legally own or carry a gun. He also was anything BUT a “right-winger.” He was a lifelong felon – who worked on George Wallace’s Presidential campaign in 1968. In his confession, he claimed that he killed King because he wanted to be a “famous criminal” – not for political reasons.

            You remember George Walllace, right? The Democrat? The one who – in 1968 – was calling for increases in Social Security and Medicare, and a fast withdrawal from Vietnam? Aside from being a segregationist and an anti-Communist, he was about as “right wing” as Johnson or Kennedy.

            Funny how so many of the political assassins and wannabes of the 1960s through today have been Democrats…

          • Vagabond661

            Read this and tell me what you think.

            http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm

          • SteveCrickmore075

            That was directed by Alexander Hamilton to the citizens of New York State. The Southern States had other issues like potential insurrections of slaves.

          • Vagabond661

            It had nothing to do with slaves. It had everything to do with the government enslaving us though.

            The slave trade was going on years before the Constitution was written. They didn’t need a piece of paper to help them deal with slaves. Your attempt to make this a slave issue is laughable.

          • jim_m

            Your attempt to make this a slave issue is laughable

            Despicable more like. It requires a certain level of historical ignorance and dishonesty that most people do not stoop to.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            Read my previous link from Mother Jones based on Carl Bogus’s work and his interview in National Review or is that a twisted liberal publication now?

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Mother Jones is a rather twisted magazine. I subscribed in the ’70s, and found them severely lacking in honest reporting. They have an agenda, they serve that agenda, and nothing contradicting what serves that agenda need apply. Somehow, I doubt they’ve changed.

            That you’re pushing the ‘slave owners needed the 2nd amendment to keep the slaves under control’ meme so hard indicates to me you know that the other positions used to control firearms are untenable and are likely to be rejected once the emotional appeals cool.

            You can only scream “If only one life is saved!!!” so many times before someone goes “Wait – so we’ll pass all sorts of laws at who knows what expense, on the premise that one life MIGHT be saved?” – and the premise falls apart, having defined a single life as having infinite value.

            When you do that, of COURSE you’ll be willing to spend billions with no tangible, or even measurable result..

            So with that cooling – you’re throwing out ‘Racism’ as the reason behind the 2nd Amendment. You figure that’s a sure winner.

            Read this.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/on-mlk-holiday-walking-for-civil-rights-and-the-second-amendment/2013/01/15/c00f816c-5f54-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_story.html

            Man, you’re nowhere near as intelligent as you think you are.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            It’s not about facts. It’s about control. The left isn’t concerned about facts that don’t fit the narrative used to control the argument.

            Truth-out’s mission statement:

            Truthout works to spark action by revealing systemic injustice and providing a platform for transformative ideas, through in-depth investigative reporting and critical analysis. With a powerful, independent voice, we will spur the revolution in consciousness and inspire the direct action that is necessary to save the planet and humanity.

            You just don’t get more progressive than that.

            Comments on the article are interesting, too. Like this one…

            All you have established is that “country” vs. “state” is where these southerners wanted the organization of the militia centered. Such that they could control their militias (which also served as slave patrols, but were clearly referenced for invasion as well). There is no question about the right to bear arms at any point. This was not in question and remains in place to guard against a tyrannical government. (in the South perhaps tyranny was freeing “their” slaves, but in the North this surely was not the meaning, see stamp tax limiting speech, taxation without representation, quartering of soldiers during peace time, etc.)

            Calling the second amendment “the slave patrol militia amendment” is disingenuous at best. I would refer you to Walter E. Williams, Thomas Sowell and Condolezza Rice for their views on gun control being a device to disarm blacks in the South against the KKK. Gun control (aka gun law) is used to control, favor and distort.

            No doubt early America was conflicted. Slaves are one aspect. Another is the native people pushed around and relocated (mainly because they were not armed with guns and were vulnerable for this reason, and very early on depopulated by diseases of Europeans). Gun control laws existed to keep Native Americans from arming themselves against the government. Something else to consider.

            No one is advocating murder of children. The government is making it possible by not taking responsibility for the security of the government schools against maniacs. To imagine school attacks will end if you eliminate guns is to ignore all the school stabbings in China & Japan (which have virtually no civilian gun possession).

            Needless to say, the shrieks of ‘You want children to DIEEE!!!!’ and ‘We must do something NOW to save the children!’ drown out any attempt to have a reasonable discussion.

            So Steve’s got an article that’s ‘News Analysis’ – basically an op-ed column, and posting that as a solid historical article pointing to why there’s the 2nd Amendment.

            Because of Racism.

            Man, I’m damn tired of that sort of twisted historical analysis.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            You have never heard it because you only listen to one point of view, the gun lobby’s favorite romantic myth, and even that of Morgan, “that the founders, inspired by the image of the musket in the hands of a minuteman, wrote the Second Amendment to give Americans the right to take up arms to fight government tyranny.”

          • jim_m

            I’ve never heard it because it is leftist revisionist history and a bunch of BS. The fact is that the BS you are pushing is a pack of lies and you are too dim witted to realize it and you are happy to believe it because those lies support your ideology. When facts and ideology disagree you choose ideology. It doesn’t matter what the truth is you believe the lies of the fascists who tell you what to think instead of going out and learning for yourself.

            As to George Mason and Patrick Henry whom you declare wanted the second amendment to oppress the slaves you again are wrong. They did indeed support the 2nd amendment for EXACTLY the reasons I have previously stated.

            Another Antifederalist, George Mason, spoke on the relationship between arms and liberty. Mason asserted that history had demonstrated that the most effective way to enslave a people is to disarm them. Mason suggested that divine providence had given every individual the right of self-defense, clearly including the right to defend one’s political liberty within that term.

            Patrick Henry argued against ratification of the Constitution by Virginia, in part because the Constitution permitted a standing army and gave the federal government some control over the militia. Henry objected to the lack of any clause forbidding disarmament of individual citizens; “the great object is that every man be armed …. Everyone who is able may have a gun.” The Antifederalists believed that governmental tyranny was the primary evil against which the people had to defend in creating a new Constitution. To preserve individual rights against such tyranny, the Antifederalists argued for the addition of a Bill of Rights which included, among other rights, the right to keep and bear arms.

            And James Madison stated that the second Amendment would be for the individual to possess arms

            Similarly, James Madison made clear that, although the proposed Constitution offered sufficient guarantees against despotism by its checks and balances, the real deterrent to governmental abuse was the armed population. To the Antifederalist criticism of the standing army as a threat to liberty, Madison replied: To these [the standing army] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from amongst themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by government possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops …. Besides the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

            Here Madison contrasts a militia composed of citizens vs a stand army of “regular troops”.

            That’s from the Valparaiso University Law Review, and not some uber left wing propagandist.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            “Similarly, Maryland, New Hampshire, and Virginia provided for a militia but not explicitly for the right to bear arms. They also provided for popular revolt by giving the people the right to reform the government and the right to defend their life and liberty[207] and by providing that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power is slavish, absurd, and destructive” from your link.

            I think the irony was lost upon them. I don’t think they could admit that keeping slaves from revolting was the real reason for the maintenance of the second amendment .Historians were quoting from their letters between the founding fathers. We know that Jefferson was having the vapors in his correpondence later what was going on in Haiti and the repercussions of their successful slave revolt in 1805, might have on American slaves. The founding fathers were petrified of what might happen to their slaves. that is their freedom and liberty.

          • Conservachef

            Steve, the 2nd Amendment was partially due to a Haitian revolt in 1805??? Correct me if I’m wrong, but your sentence regarding that is very unclear.

            The doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power is slavish, absurd, and destructive. That sentence means that the 2A authors were worried about a slave uprising?

            I think facts are lost upon you. Your slavish devotion to the idea of gun control is blinding you to facts.

          • jim_m

            We know that Jefferson was having the vapors in his correpondence later what was going on in Haiti and the repercussions of their successful slave revolt in 1805,

            I’m really interested in your explanation of how the Haitian slave revolt of 1805 impacted the discussion on the Bill of Rights in 1789. Did Thomas Jefferson invent time travel perhaps?

            It just goes to show how ignorant and dishonest your whole line of argument is.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            I was giving evidence of his thinking when he was President..in 1789 he was in France as minister to France. You were the one who brought up the civil war which began in..1861..

          • jim_m

            Absolutely irrelevant to a discussion of the second amendment and dishonest to claim that it is in any way relevant.

            You claim that the framers were concerned about oppressing slave and offer comments 16 years later as evidence of their frame of mind. Your argument is BS.

            I brought up post Civil War gun laws as evidence of how gun control was used in a racist way to control minorities and not as evidence of what the second amendment was intended for. You were making an argument for what the framers intended.

        • 914

          Male citizens used primitive guns to keep slaves on the plantation? I thought the slaves were all in chains? Sooner or later the race bug comes out in all you lefty’s.

          Sad really. You were once able to assemble a smidgen of reason in your posts..

          • SteveCrickmore075

            It is not only Truthout but from MotherJones

            the court (in 2008) heard oral arguments in D.C. v. Heller, a case challenging the District of Columbia’s 30-year-old law banning handgun ownership. The case marks the first time the Supreme Court has reviewed the Second Amendment in 70 years, and its interpretation could have far-reaching implications for state gun laws.

            But during oral arguments, Justice Anthony Kennedy and his conservative brethren seemed to fully embrace the gun lobby’s favorite romantic myth that the founders, inspired by the image of the musket in the hands of a minuteman, wrote the Second Amendment to give Americans the right to take up arms to fight government tyranny. But what the founders really had in mind, according to some constitutional-law scholars, was the musket in the hands of a slave owner. That is, these scholars believe the founders enshrined the right to bear arms in the Constitution in part to enforce tyranny, not fight it.

            Last week at an American Constitution Society briefing on the Heller case, NAACP Legal Defense Fund president John Payton explained the ugly history behind the gun lobby’s favorite amendment.

            “That the Second Amendment was the last bulwark against the tyranny of the federal government is false,” he said. Instead, the “well-regulated militias” cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections. Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn’t use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery.

            This is pretty well-documented history, thanks to the work of Roger Williams School of Law professor Carl T. Bogus. In a 1998 law-review article based on a close analysis of James Madison’s original writings, Bogus explained the South’s obsession with militias during the ratification fights over the Constitution. “The militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population,” Bogus writes. “Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats.” He goes on to document how anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and George Mason used the fear of slave rebellions as a way of drumming up opposition to the Constitution and how Madison eventually deployed the promise of the Second the fear of slave rebellions as a way of drumming up opposition to the Constitution and how Madison eventually deployed the promise of the Second Amendment to placate Virginians and win their support for ratification.

            None of this figured into Tuesday’s arguments at the Supreme Court. Instead, a majority of the justices, especially Kennedy, seemed to buy the story that the founders were inordinately concerned with the ability of early settlers to use guns to fend off wild animals and Indians, not rebellious slaves

            Natuarally, no right wing magazine will publish this, even those who talk about the ways and whys of the founders original intents.

            As the main source of these ideas in both publications, truthOut and Mother Jones comes from Carl t. Bogus, I suggest you read a sympathetic interview of him in the National Review which I suppose for some wingnuts these days is considered a lefty publication, but it was not a a year and half ago, when this interview took place.

          • jim_m

            professor Carl T. Bogus

            Aptly named.

            Your argument has no legitimacy. It overlooks the fact that gun control was used to keep blacks disarmed in the south and make them easy to intimidate and control post Civil War. If you think that the NAACP actually represents black interests you are sadly mistaken. Much in the same way that NOW no longer represents women’s rights, both of these organizations only support the left wing agenda, of which gun confiscation is primary dogma. The NAACP would advance any “Bogus” argument to support the anti-gun agenda.

            If you actaully read the article clip you post you would recognize that there is a distinct anti-gun bias and a dismissal without examination of any pro second amendment claims.

            I’m frankly surprised that you haven’t brought up the work of Michael Bellesiles. The fact that his work was entirely fabricated should pose no barrier to your believing it entirely.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            I’m talking about the background behind the Second Amendment adopted by Congress in 1789 and why James Madison wrote it the way he did ! That is ALL! Full stop period!

          • Conservachef

            This George Mason?

            How about some quotes from the founders themselves, instead of articles by left wing gun grabbers?

            <ONE.

            TWO.

            THREE.

            Steve, just stop digging. This whole “2nd Amendment is racist” idea is stupid and pretty much flies in the face of historical fact.

          • jim_m

            Steve is obviously buying in to the whole, America was established by racist white men and is an evil country. This goes along with the left wing meme that the Constitution is an inherently racist document and therefore should be thrown out and ignored as much as possible until such a time as it is replaced by a new socialist constitution.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            from the Carl Bogus link “George Mason refused to sign the Constitution, in part, because it did not give the
            federal government the authority to end the slave trade. He opposed the slave
            trade, however, not slavery itself. As other delegates understood at the time,
            Mason’s rhetoric against slavery was a transparent ruse to bolster credibility
            for his proposal to end the slave trade. His proposal was designed to help, not
            hinder, Virginia’s slave holders. Virginia had a slave surplus. Its slaves were
            an exportable commodity and would increase in value if the competition from
            slave importers were eliminated. Mason, who personally owned three hundred
            slaves, opposed every attempt to end slavery and sponsored state legislation
            making it difficult for slave holders to emancipate their slaves.”

          • Conservachef

            Once again, Steve, look at the quotes from the founders not some Bogus link.

            WHAT WOULD THE FOUNDERS THINK

            …Therein lies the rub. George Mason’s primary objection to the
            Constitution was the absence of a bill of rights. He not only refused to sign the document at the convention, he hotly fought against it during Virginia ratification, despite promises by James Madison and others to add a bill of rights in the first congress.

            Although he believed a bill of rights was mandatory, he had
            additional objections to the Constitution. Among his other concerns, he believed the convention was giving the executive branch (president) too much power. On June 4, he made an angry speech to the federal Convention.

            …As owner of Gunston Hall, Mason was one of the richest planters in Virginia. He owned seventy-five thousand acres and over ninety slaves.

            GUNSTON HALL- home of George Mason.

            There is no declaration of any kind, for preserving the liberty of the press, or the trial by jury in civil causes; nor against the danger of standing armies in time of peace.

            Mason may have opposed the Constitution, but the reason of slavery falls very low on the list of reasons.

          • retired.military

            Gee Mother Jones and NAACP both in the same post. Steve Crickmore hits all the leftist bases doesnt he.

      • Conservachef

        Here’s a good graphic for the race card.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          Very true. Accusations of racism are the last resort of the losing left.

    • Conservachef

      Idiocy.

      The “real reason” the Second Amendment was ratified was to make sure the government didn’t disarm the populace.

      I don’t fully trust wiki, BUT it has a fairly extensive reading of the amendment, including background, prior drafts, and even lists reasons settlers believed in a right to keep & bear arms.

      I’d suggest you read that, instead of some “truth out” article.

      Also, your race card is overdrawn.

    • herddog505

      Tell me: does this really, truly make sense to you, or are you posting it just to wind people up? Do you REALLY think that the Second Amendment was written by people who had just fought for their independence from Britain solely or even primarily to keep slaves?

      • SteveCrickmore075

        No, to maybe. Of the nine American presidents who owned slaves, (some like Jefferson into the hundreds) only Washington freed his, and the principal activities of the south revolved around the owning of slaves, and to maintain that you needed you needed a well policied order.

        • herddog505

          Look, if you want to discuss the laws existing in the South (and much of the rest of the country until abolition became popular), feel free. But please refrain from lumping the Second Amendment in with them, as there is no good factual basis for doing so. You might just as well claim that the Second Amendment was written in response to highwaymen or Indian attacks or fear of the Spaniards.

          The fact is that it is clear from the historical record, which includes the contemporary writings and speeches of the Founding Fathers themselves, both personal and connected with the debate over the proposed federal constitution, that guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms stemmed from fear of a tyrannical central government of the sort that they’d just booted out of our country at the cost of much blood and treasure.

  • http://www.traveLightgame.com/ ljcarolyne

    Idiots aren’t dangerous except to themselves. Morgan is the one that may get nuked!
    Never watch his stupid show or read his twitter – Morgan is a twit alright, just like the idiot arrogant A$$hole Commie Muslim BHO.

  • herddog505

    Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. [emphasis mine - hd505]

    Publius (aka James Madison)
    Federalist No. 46
    http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed46.htm

    The nice thing about the Founding Fathers, aside from their great wisdom in providing us with the Constitution, is that they also were prolific writers who, during the course of writing that magnificent document as well as putting it into operation, documented WHY they did the things they did. Therefore, we haven’t really got to guess, suppose, or theorize why (for example) the Second Amendment was written: we know EXACTLY why: as a final defense against the tyranny of the central government.

    • Brucehenry

      I’m no constitutional scholar, or even much at cutting through the verbosity of 18th century style, but the above snippet sounds to me more of a defense of armed STATE MILITIAS rather than armed individuals.

      If I’m wrong, and you have time, please tell me WHY I’m wrong.

      • jim_m

        If you look at other quotes posted in this thread it becomes clear that the founders were talking about individual ownership of arms.

        • Brucehenry

          Thanks, but it still looks to me like the founders wanted every able-bodied male to own a gun SO HE COULD SERVE IN THE MILITIA.

          Now, I don’t take a stand in this argument except to say that it’s pretty much already settled. Gun rights advocates will largely win, and whatever measures that pass will be modest and mostly ineffective. They’ll still hyperventilate about stolen freedoms and yada yada, but little will change, really.

          I don’t doubt that fears of slave rebellion were part of the reason many of the founders wanted to have these militias, but I do doubt that it was the primary motivation. Nor do I think it’s helpful for gun control advocates to bring it up in this debate. Seems to me it causes unnecessary defensiveness.

          Whatever the founders intended in their heart of hearts, Americans will continue to own guns for the foreseeable future. They may be restricted to 15-round clips rather than 30-round clips, but AR-15s ain’t going anywhere.

          • jim_m

            Seems to me it causes unnecessary defensiveness.

            It seems to satisfy the need that some on the left have to call conservatives racist and to denigrate the United States.

          • Brucehenry

            See?

          • jim_m

            Yes I do. False accusations of racism do generate defensiveness, but that is not unnecessary. Defending one’s self from false accusations is not unnecessary. (sure Jesus did not defend himself, but then I don’t pretend to be him.)

          • Brucehenry

            What I meant was it’s unnecessary to provoke it. Not to mention unhelpful.

            But no, if the accusations are indeed false, and we’re just talking in a blog comment section, defending oneself IS unnecessary, IMO.

          • jim_m

            For those who hold honor cheaply, perhaps.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            .

          • Brucehenry

            Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see anyone impugn your honor. Please enlighten us as to the specific source of your butthurt.

          • jim_m

            I was referring generally to lefty accusations of racism. When Steve throws out this baseless accusation that the 2nd amendment was all about slavery, the extension of his argument is that only racists would still be in favor of a law intended to perpetuate slavery.

          • Brucehenry

            If you say so.

          • herddog505

            If it was up to me, American men would STILL be required to be armed and “in the militia”, and American teenagers would learn rifle marksmanship (the fundamentals can be taught with low-velocity air rifles).

            Consider that Moochelle has declared that pudgy American kids are a “national security issue”; I say that, if she and other lefties are so concerned about whether or not our youngsters can be good soldiers, then a national marksmanship program would be something they’d support.

      • Conservachef

        Bruce,

        This WIKI link speaks to the makeup of militias.

        I think this is a good quote:

        On May 8, 1792, Congress passed “[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States” requiring:

        [E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia…[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.[99]

        So this uniformed militia seems to comprise every able-bodied white male between 18-45. In this act, I should note, each person had to provide for themselves a musket or rifle, with adequate ammunition.

        Also, in the same article, look at the “Conflict and Compromise” section regarding the wording of the amendment. Earlier versions seem to imply that the 2A was created to protect citizen-owned firearms.

        • Brucehenry

          Thank you.

          • Conservachef

            No problem, Bruce. The question about the Militia part of the amendment seems to have been around for a long time. I, for one, certainly wish they’d made the amendment clearer than it is…

          • herddog505

            For them, it WAS clear. Lefties have made it complicated by refusing to understand what “militia”, “arms”, and “free state” mean.

            The Second Amendment is NOT about being able to shoot a deer or a duck.

      • herddog505

        Conservachef nails it.

  • SteveCrickmore075

    Instead of relaying on synopis, this is the whole Law Review article, on which, the the controversial second amendment because of preservation slavery meme is based on THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
    Carl T. Bogus *
    “>. for those of us who have the time..I doubt if some justices in the Supreme Court read it, but there it is.

    “Although the Founders incorporated the terms of the slavery compromise into the Constitution, they did so obliquely. The words “slaves” or “slavery” do not appear anywhere in the document.[307] “The delegates carefully chose language designed to make the Constitution more palatable to the North,”[308] even going so far as to employ “inscrutable language that the people could not readily understand,” Paul Finkleman writes.[309] Indeed, the Founders themselves admitted to this deception.[310]

    The politics over winning Northern support for the Constitution, and later the Bill of Rights, was undoubtedly a large part of the reason slavery is not expressly mentioned in those documents. However, there may have been more to it than that. Bargaining over slavery produced a sense of shame on both sides.[311] Northerners felt shame for becoming complicit in the slave system. For Southerners, the issue was more complex and confused, but even staunch defenders of the system struggled with a sense of disgrace.[312] It seems de rigueur for Southern [Page 374] politicians, even those who were themselves large slave holders, to preface remarks about slavery with statements of how personally repugnant the institution of slavery was to them.[313] Politicians of the time, from both North and South, avoided the subject of slavery as much as possible.[314]”

    • 914

      How much do you get paid to be the thread jester? Whatever it is? It’s not enough.

    • herddog505

      Look up “three fifths clause”. What do you suppose “all other persons” refers to?

  • retired.military

    Bruce

    What amazes me about the left and whole “2nd admendment is for militias” argument is generally the same folks who argue that the 2nd admendment is for militias are mostly the same ones who point to the constitution and claim that it provides for abortion anywhere, anytime, anyhow.

    I didnt get an answer from Carl. Maybe you would be so kind to answer me.

    Why do YOU THiNK that Obama feels so horrified at the death of the children of Sandy Hook that he has to do something on a national level yet he also feels that living breathing children who survive a botched abortion should be denied medical care (he voted for this 4 times)?

    And please dont say the money to save the child who survived the botched abortion attempt.
    Obama today – “if there’s even one life that can be saved, we’ve got an obligation to try.””

    Obviously in the case of a botched abortion no attempt is necessary in Obama’s eyes.

    .

    • Brucehenry

      I don’t speak for Obama.

      • jim_m

        You could speak for yourself instead of copping out. RM didn’t ask for you to speak for obama, he asked for you to tell him what you think.

        • Brucehenry

          No, read his questions again. He wants me to explain why Obama feels this way or that.

          • retired.military

            No Bruce I specifically asked you why you thought Obama feels about the subject.. You could be right, you could be wrong as to your thinking. That is immaterial. I am interested in YOUR OPINION on the matter.

      • retired.military

        As Jim put it I asked for your opinion on why Obama feels this way Bruce.

        I ask that you dont cop out to answering the question. I am not trying to play gotcha Bruce. I am interested in your opinion on the matter.

        • Brucehenry

          You asked me why Obama feels horrified at Sandy Hook but not horrified at the number and type of abortions performed. I can’t speak to that.

          I don’t know anything abut how many “living, breathing children” survive “botched abortion attempts,” but I think gun control and abortion are separate issues. I do understand how and why you ask the question, though.

          Maybe you could ask why so many who had no problem with the precedent set by warrantless wiretaps are freaking out about the precedent set by limiting the capacity of magazines.

          Or why so many who profess horror at abortion have no problem with the death penalty. Even many Catholics, btw. Even though they know many many innocent people have been executed in the past.

          Why do people want to ban abortion but also ban food stamps for the parents of poor children? Or cut Medicaid?

          People have paradoxical and self-contradictory views on a variety of issues, RM, and I am not qualified to explain why they feel as they do on this or that. Neither, btw, are you or Jim, although I’m sure Jim will let us know it’s because of soshalizums or whatnot.

          • retired.military

            Bruce.

            I asked you and I quote

            “Why do YOU THiNK that Obama feels so horrified ”

            Not “why Obama feels horrified at Sandy Hook” as you suggested.

            In other words I am asking what YOU THINK his reasoning is that differentiates the 2.

            “But I think gun control and abortion are separate issues”

            And they could be. But my question did not relate to gun control but to the value of lives of children and what YOU THOUGHT Obama’s reasoning was on the matter. After all that is what the libs like Obama are using in their charade to try to push their gun control agenda.

            Again Bruce. I am asking your opinion on why YOU think someone feels one way or another. We do this all the time.

            Again, I am not trying to start an argument I am interested in YOUR OPINION on how Obama’s mind works in reference to the subjects listed.

          • Brucehenry

            And I’m telling you I don’t know how Obama’s mind works. I don’t understand many things about him, like how he can claim to be a “progressive” on health care but didn’t fight for a public option, much less single-payer.

            So, you see, I just can’t tell you what you want to know, because I don’t know myself. What I DO know is that many people have views that appear contradictory on related subjects.

            Like many Catholics who are horrified by abortion yet support the death penalty. What do YOU think makes them hold such seemingly contradictory positions?

            BTW, “We do this all the time.” I don’t.

          • retired.military

            I think that the children are merely pawns to him. The loss of life either at Sandy Hook or due to abortion means relatively little if any thing at all to him. Obama IMO is a classic narcissist. nothing matters but him to him. LIsten to his speeches, look at his actions, etc. He feels he knows what is best for everyone. He even said this about Israel. He is trying to push his agenda and chafes at the restrictions placed on him by the constitution. he has said as much on more than one occasion.

            Thank you for explaining why you dont feel you can provide an answer. Admittedly it is hard for me not to think of it as somewhat of a cop out but I will try my utmost to take what you said at face value.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, what about MY question. You want me to explain the paradox of Obama saying he’s horrified at Sandy Hook but seemingly not giving a damn about the “babies who survive botched abortion attempts.” I can’t.

            But can you, as a Catholic, explain to me why so many Catholics are horrified at abortion, OUTRAGED about “paying for Fluke’s birth control,” but say nothing about the death penalty?

          • retired.military

            Bruce

            I can only speak for myself.

            Abortion is the death of the ultimate innocent life.

            Whereas the death penalty is for those who have been found guilty of heinous crimes and are the opposite of innocence.

            As a Catholic I admit I struggle with my feelings regarding the death penalty. At the same time, I honestly feel that justice isnt done by someone spending their life in prison. Not justice for the convicted or for their victims or for society.

            If you ask me about my opinion of how other Catholics feel on the death penalty I would say I believe that most feel about the same as I do.

            I spoke to my parish priest regarding “Catholic” politicians like Biden, and Pelosi who are definitely proabortion. he asked “well how about the death penalty” . We both basically agree that the scope of the issue isnt close. 200-300 deaths for the death penalty vs a million a year for abortion.

            It is sort of like the immigration issue. “Well what about the Canadian border” Well gee. We get (and throwing out figures here) a milliion illegal immigrants from Mexico and 100 from Canada. Where would the manpower do the most good? Obviously along the Mexican border.

            Hope that answered your question.

          • Brucehenry

            “I can only speak for myself.” ????? When I said basically the same thing it was a “cop-out” LOL. You see what I mean now?

            My point was that many people feel this way or that about abortion, or the death penalty, or gun control, and the positions they take may seem illogical when contrasted with the positions they take on other, related issues. Asking one person to explain why they think another person feels as they do is futile.

            I myself oppose the death penalty while supporting what is called, in shorthand terms, a “woman’s right to choose.” That may seem contradictory to you, but I guess it all depends on when one thinks “life begins,” doesn’t it? I oppose very-late-term abortions and support laws limiting those. I oppose the death penalty because it has so often been applied erroneously, or maliciously, or negligently, or because of prosecutorial misconduct.

            You should never make the mistake of assuming that I agree wholeheartedly with everything Obama says or does. Far from it. I voted for Obama, twice, because he wasn’t McCain and he wasn’t Romney. That’s all. I defend him a lot on Wizbang mostly by pointing out how over-the-top the anti-Obama rhetoric is around here.

          • retired.military

            Bruce

            I was willing to offer my opinion on What I thought others thought. You did not do that. In answering your question I made it clear that I was speaking only for myself (since you asked for my opinion) and I gave my opinion on what others thought (since you asked for that as well). I merely asked the latter from you.

            I said I can only speak for myself as I havent discussed the issue with other Catholics so I dont know what they think just like you dont know what Obama thinks. However I gave my opinion on what I think their (other Catholic’s ) reasoning is. You did not do that with Obama.

            Nor did I ever feel that you agree with Obama wholeheartedly.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Obama once described himself as a blank screen that people would project on what they wanted to see.

            That’s great if you’re a con man. Not so great when you’re supposed to be able to lead the country.

            I’d actually agree with you. You can’t tell what’s in his mind – any more than you can tell what color a screen is when the movie’s going.

  • retired.military

    Here Steve Crickmore. Since you are wondering what the founders thought

    “”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, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes
    and Punishment (1764).”

    Gee that sounds amazing like the argument that the right uses today to argue in favor of owning guns.

    “”No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or
    tenements).”–Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note
    added), 1776. Papers, 1:353″

    “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of
    other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
    (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

    Damn there is that word RIGHT in there. Didnt see any of the founders use the word RIGHT when it comes to abortion.

    Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in
    almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce
    unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and
    constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any
    pretense, raised in the United States” (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the
    Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution’, 1787, a pamphlet aimed at
    swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the
    Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

    No mention of slaves rebelling there. Simply the talk of the govt ruling over the people.

    “…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an
    army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the
    people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to
    them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…”
    (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

    Gee it talks about citizens being armed there and citizens defending their rights against a standing army.

    .”As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt
    to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to
    defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow
    citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and
    bear their private arms.” (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the
    Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian’ in
    the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

    No mention of slave uprising there. It does say people can own their PRIVATE ARMS.

    “The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of
    construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such
    a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state
    legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should
    attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” [William
    Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

    Gee talks about Congress cant disarm the people.

    "The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the
    United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel
    Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of
    Massachusetts, 86-87)

    Gee what is that steve Strike 14?

    "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, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and
    member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett,
    ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of
    Alabama Press,1975)..)

    "The great object is that every man be armed" and
    "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia
    Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other
    Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David
    Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot,
    Debates at 386)

    "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons.
    They are left in full possession of"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we
    cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between
    having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the
    management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms,
    in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us,
    as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State
    Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

    "The best we can hope for
    concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander
    Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

    "That the said Constitution
    shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of
    the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United
    States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams,
    Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
    at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

    "And what country can
    preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this
    people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of
    liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and
    tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from
    Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

    "Guard with jealous
    attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
    Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give
    up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates
    in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

    ah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates
    at 646)
    The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as
    a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas
    Jefferson)

    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution
    itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under
    independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events,
    occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness,
    the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of
    firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor
    with all that is good" (George Washington)

    "The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894])
    “…the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms” (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,)

    “Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people.” (Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697])

    “No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.” (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775])

    “Men that are above all Fear, soon grow above all Shame.” (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato’s Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects [London, 1755])

    “The difficulty here has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms, not to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes.” (Dwight, Travels in New-England)

    “What country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)

    (The American Colonies were) “all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. (European countries should not) be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them.” [George Mason, "Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company" in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill, 1970)]

    “To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed…to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless…If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country.” (Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and NewYork [London 1823]

    “It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it.” (James Madison, “Federalist No. 46″)

    “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.” (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833])

    “The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.” (Edward Abbey, “The Right to Arms,” Abbey’s Road [New York, 1979])

    “You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you….There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making cooperation impossible.” (Niccolo Machiavelli in “The Prince”)

    “You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must needs have recourse to the second.” (Niccolo Machiavelli in “The Prince”)

    “As much as I oppose the average person’s having a gun, I recognize that some people have a legitimate need to own one. A wealthy corporate executive who fears his family might get kidnapped is one such person. A Hollywood celebrity who has to protect himself from kooks is another. If Sharon Tate had had access to a gun during the Manson killings, some innocent lives might have been saved.” [Joseph D. McNamara (San Jose, CA Police Chief), in his book, Safe and Sane, (c) 1984, p. 71-72.]

    “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

    For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.” [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]

    ” `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.” [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

    “The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.” [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]

    “The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions.” [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]

    “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

    • retired.military

      And no response from Crickmore. Color me suprised.

  • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

    Great. Apparently the ’2nd Amendment=Keeping Slavery Going’ crap’s getting spread around.

    Danny Glover gave a speech at Texas A&M about it.

    “I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,” he said. “The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans.”

    http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4582