funkfool
12-16-2012, 18:21
I wrote a popular TV 'personality' a while back... I won't call the person a reporter, because that would infer impartiality.
I did, however, deconstruct the 2nd amendment and explain, in detail, each portion thereof.
Feel free to comment, constructively criticize and selectively reiterate these points verbatim.
I was watching your show recently, as I occasionally do and was surprised to see the emotion with which you derided those that would have the framers vision of the Second Amendment and its original intent.
To see you attempt to shame and bully others by declaring that if the Second Amendment were now followed as in the late 1800's, then blacks or the elderly would not be allowed Arms was ridiculous. You want to cast gun owners as insane, and if not insane, then racist. That was the real giveaway. I still believe you to be an intelligent person, but you clearly demonstrated that you are also an anti-gun bigot. Your bias is showing. I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever studied law or had the benefit of much higher education for that matter, yet even I know that no civil liberty protections of the original Bill of Rights were granted to blacks until the ratification of the 14th Amendment on July 9, 1868. I looked that up in case you were wondering. You should try it sometime, turns out it is very easy to do.
If I may, I would like to give you a short education in common sense that neither Duke nor Columbia Universities seem to have been able to accomplish.
Let me start with this:
To assume all articles of the Bill of Rights grant personal rights to the individual with the exception of the Second Amendment demonstrates a logical disconnect. It is as if you are saying that the numbers one through nine are all numbers except number two, which is a letter. Do you also propose to alter the old saying that “all men are created equal”, with the caveat that a man may be included, provided he can purchase and produce a government issued permit to prove that he is in fact part of the larger group you will now redefine as men as a whole?
Now, I shall divide, define and clarify it for you.
"A well-regulated”:
I cite the following examples courtesy of Brian T. Halonen (halonen@csd.uwm.eduand) (reprinted here http://chezjacq.com/well.htm): The following were taken from the Oxford English Dictionary and bracket in time the writing of the Second Amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it." It can, does and has been used to indicate something "of appropriate caliber” or "to be sufficiently armed".
Now let us move on:
"Militia": mi·li·tia n.
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
Courtesy: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Well now, how do you define “ordinary citizens” or “not part of a regular army”? Perhaps “civilians” is the best term. There you have it, the term Militia does not refer to the National Guard, and the National Guard was not established until The National Defense Act of 1916. Just so we are on the same page here, The National Guard serves both the state and nation in times of need, and soldiers and airmen in the Guard swear an oath to protect and defend not just the Constitution of the United States, but also of the State in which they serve. Remember the Constitution, you know, the one that has that pesky Bill of Rights? Let us not forget that most State Constitutions also guarantee a right to arms, clearly a conflict. Perhaps we should redefine what the term militia means. Shall we now define what "is" is?
And then:
"being necessary to the security of a free State":
I do not think even you can twist this to mean anything else other than what it plainly says. Only properly armed men are able defend the State at any time.
And of course:
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”:
This clearly signifies that “the people” should have access to the same common "Arms" as the organized military. In fact, the security of a free State requires it must be the same “Arms” as the common military arm, by which I mean up to and including the most common of military arm used by the U.S. armed forces; the M16A2 5.56mm rifle or the M4 5.56mm carbine. To truly guarantee a free State, you must make available the same common Arms as the military.
And finally:
“shall not be infringed”:
No authority can redefine or invalidate that which is reserved to be a right of the people. It is what you and many others are attempting to do. Will you next attack Americans freedom of religion?
In closing, let me say that as an ordinary, relatively uneducated citizen, I believe I have a far firmer grasp of the realties of this issue than you ever will. Do you deign to declare the rules as you see fit from your Ivory Tower? You have probably never had to walk home from your night job, through the bad part of town. Maybe because even though you do have a car, you do not drive much because you are trying to save for a house and gas has become a luxury item. On the other hand, maybe you have had to defend yourself from an armed attacker who would take your paycheck or life and surely your dignity. Being unable to provide for your family and their meager needs is a reality check I hope you never experience. I for one am sure glad my future is not in your hands. I am very happy however, that you have the individual right to voice any opinion you wish. Please do not forget that if a fledgling nation were to have been deprived the use of Arms, you most likely would not.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXX
I did, however, deconstruct the 2nd amendment and explain, in detail, each portion thereof.
Feel free to comment, constructively criticize and selectively reiterate these points verbatim.
I was watching your show recently, as I occasionally do and was surprised to see the emotion with which you derided those that would have the framers vision of the Second Amendment and its original intent.
To see you attempt to shame and bully others by declaring that if the Second Amendment were now followed as in the late 1800's, then blacks or the elderly would not be allowed Arms was ridiculous. You want to cast gun owners as insane, and if not insane, then racist. That was the real giveaway. I still believe you to be an intelligent person, but you clearly demonstrated that you are also an anti-gun bigot. Your bias is showing. I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever studied law or had the benefit of much higher education for that matter, yet even I know that no civil liberty protections of the original Bill of Rights were granted to blacks until the ratification of the 14th Amendment on July 9, 1868. I looked that up in case you were wondering. You should try it sometime, turns out it is very easy to do.
If I may, I would like to give you a short education in common sense that neither Duke nor Columbia Universities seem to have been able to accomplish.
Let me start with this:
To assume all articles of the Bill of Rights grant personal rights to the individual with the exception of the Second Amendment demonstrates a logical disconnect. It is as if you are saying that the numbers one through nine are all numbers except number two, which is a letter. Do you also propose to alter the old saying that “all men are created equal”, with the caveat that a man may be included, provided he can purchase and produce a government issued permit to prove that he is in fact part of the larger group you will now redefine as men as a whole?
Now, I shall divide, define and clarify it for you.
"A well-regulated”:
I cite the following examples courtesy of Brian T. Halonen (halonen@csd.uwm.eduand) (reprinted here http://chezjacq.com/well.htm): The following were taken from the Oxford English Dictionary and bracket in time the writing of the Second Amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it." It can, does and has been used to indicate something "of appropriate caliber” or "to be sufficiently armed".
Now let us move on:
"Militia": mi·li·tia n.
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
Courtesy: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Well now, how do you define “ordinary citizens” or “not part of a regular army”? Perhaps “civilians” is the best term. There you have it, the term Militia does not refer to the National Guard, and the National Guard was not established until The National Defense Act of 1916. Just so we are on the same page here, The National Guard serves both the state and nation in times of need, and soldiers and airmen in the Guard swear an oath to protect and defend not just the Constitution of the United States, but also of the State in which they serve. Remember the Constitution, you know, the one that has that pesky Bill of Rights? Let us not forget that most State Constitutions also guarantee a right to arms, clearly a conflict. Perhaps we should redefine what the term militia means. Shall we now define what "is" is?
And then:
"being necessary to the security of a free State":
I do not think even you can twist this to mean anything else other than what it plainly says. Only properly armed men are able defend the State at any time.
And of course:
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”:
This clearly signifies that “the people” should have access to the same common "Arms" as the organized military. In fact, the security of a free State requires it must be the same “Arms” as the common military arm, by which I mean up to and including the most common of military arm used by the U.S. armed forces; the M16A2 5.56mm rifle or the M4 5.56mm carbine. To truly guarantee a free State, you must make available the same common Arms as the military.
And finally:
“shall not be infringed”:
No authority can redefine or invalidate that which is reserved to be a right of the people. It is what you and many others are attempting to do. Will you next attack Americans freedom of religion?
In closing, let me say that as an ordinary, relatively uneducated citizen, I believe I have a far firmer grasp of the realties of this issue than you ever will. Do you deign to declare the rules as you see fit from your Ivory Tower? You have probably never had to walk home from your night job, through the bad part of town. Maybe because even though you do have a car, you do not drive much because you are trying to save for a house and gas has become a luxury item. On the other hand, maybe you have had to defend yourself from an armed attacker who would take your paycheck or life and surely your dignity. Being unable to provide for your family and their meager needs is a reality check I hope you never experience. I for one am sure glad my future is not in your hands. I am very happy however, that you have the individual right to voice any opinion you wish. Please do not forget that if a fledgling nation were to have been deprived the use of Arms, you most likely would not.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXX