Whitewashing the Second Amendment
As the Supreme Court reviews a historic gun-rights case, lost is the Second Amendment's controversial history—when it wasn't a bulwark against tyranny but a way of enforcing it.
Wed Mar. 19, 2008 11:00 PM PDT
Racial politics dominated the talk in Washington this week as Barack Obama called on Americans to stop ignoring the country's racist past and move forward. The message, apparently, didn't reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where the justices were busy ignoring race during a hearing on the biggest case of the year. On Tuesday, at the same time Obama gave his big speech, the court 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. Heller is mostly about gun ownership, but it is also about race—not that you would know that based on the oral arguments.
Advertisement
Advertisement
First, by way of background: The key issue in Heller is whether the Constitution guarantees an individual, as opposed to a collective, right to bear arms within the context of a well-organized militia. The plaintiff, Dick Anthony Heller, is an armed security guard who, with the help of some rich libertarians, brought the lawsuit against the District, arguing that the city's handgun ban illegally prevented him from keeping his work weapon at home. Last year, in a 2-to-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed and ruled that the city's gun-control law was an unconstitutional infringement on an individual's right to bear arms. Fearing a flood of new firearms into the city as a result, the District appealed to the Supreme Court.
Dozens of interest groups, from the Pink Pistols to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, have filed amicus briefs, offering their take on the Second Amendment. 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 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. (Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick counts pivotal swing-voter Kennedy making no fewer than four mentions of a mythical "remote settler," who Kennedy suggested would have needed a gun to "defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears, and grizzlies.")
Just as the court largely ignored the racist past of the Second Amendment, its focus on self-defense also glossed over the more obvious racial implications of the decision it was reviewing. The plaintiff, Heller, is a white man who lives in a 60 percent black city whose democratically elected leaders long ago decided that handguns were doing more harm than good to its citizenry. Indeed, while two of the original five plaintiffs in the Heller case are black women, not a whole lot of African Americans in the District appear to be out there clamoring to own more handguns for self-defense.
In an interview, Bogus says that polls consistently show that African Americans support gun control in much higher numbers than white people do, and probably for good reason: They're usually the ones looking at the wrong end of the barrel. As the NAACP points out in its brief on Heller, in D.C. in 2004, there were 137 gun-homicide victims. All but two of them were black. If the Supreme Court invalidates the city’s handgun ban, any ensuing uptick in gun violence is likely to have a disproportionate impact on African Americans, particularly young men.
Of course, it won’t only be young black men who suffer should the court decide that D.C. residents need more handguns. In fact, someone ought to remind Justice Kennedy about what happens when the wrong people get guns—namely the average, law-abiding D.C. residents who would supposedly benefit from the new gun ownership rights. With all his concern with grizzly bears, Kennedy has clearly forgotten about Carl Rowan Sr.
Back in 1988, the African American syndicated columnist shot an unarmed, 18-year-old white kid from Chevy Chase who'd gone for an unauthorized dip in Rowan's swimming pool. Rowan, who shot the kid in the wrist as he tried to flee, claimed he'd feared for his life and was only defending himself. Nonetheless, the columnist was prosecuted for illegally possessing a handgun. The trial ended with a hung jury and Rowan escaped punishment (though the teenagers were sentenced to community service), but the incident fueled a tremendous amount of racial tension in the city that might have been avoided if Rowan had just, say, called the cops.
Gun-wielding journalists who can’t shoot straight may not be the bulwark against tyranny libertarians had in mind. Yet they’re just one of the many scary scenarios the District faces should the court rely on language inspired by slavery and the libertarians’ whitewashed version of American history to restrict the ability of a majority black city to protect its citizens from gun violence.
Comments
That's playing the race card in a very creative and chickensh-t way! Everyone knows that the Second Amendment does guarantee an individual right. Even the people who hate it. But it takes a particularly sleazey scumbag to make claims like this.
Wow, first commenter! Coo, first time for that.
Motivations behind the contruction and implementation aside, the 2nd amendment clearly guarantees an individual the right to keep and bear arms. Presently, the most common reson for this is for self-defense.
For all your talk of 'white-washing' you seem to wash over the multiple motivations for the writing of the 2nd amendment. Were slave rebellions a cause for concern in the South? Certainly. But we had also just fought a very long, very hard war with a brutally opressive (effectively) foreign government and one of the major reasons we suceeded in expelling them was because of INDIVIDUALS bearing arms collectively defending the colonies.
The Framers were not short-sighted men. Perhaps their wording is considered awkward by today's standards, but keep in mind there has been 232 years of lingual evolution to get in the way. More importantly they emphatically, again and again in EVERY OTHER AMENDMENT very clearly specified an Individual's right to, say, free speech, not a collective. Doesn't make sense for all the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights to apply to individuals except for the 2nd, does it?
Finally, in regards to the 'flood' of guns you're concerned about coming into DC? Guess what? They're already there. As of 2004 D.C. had the 13th highest murder rate in the nation, and in the past has consistently held a similar position. All this despite a handgun ban.
Guess who the District of Columbia is penalizing with its gun ban? Law-abiding citizens, that's who.
ONLY CRIMINALS BREAK GUN LAWS.
It should seem obvious, but the overwhelming majority of gun crimes in D.C. and across the country are comitted with guns that were illegally purchased! Who'd have thunk it?
Get a grip on reality. Gun bans only make criminals more powerful and infringe upon Constitutional right every other state recognizes (yes, I know D.C. is not a state, but you get the point).
You got to ask yourself how can you enslave a race if that race is armed to the teeth?
There are many black organizations that wrote legal briefs in support of the 2nd Amendment. I would like to see the poll where "many blacks" support gun control.
Use some common sense and critical thinking skill. I know that some liberals still have it.
This issue of the "well regulated militia" can be easily reconciled by reading another document, 'The Federalist Papers' which was also written by the Founding Fathers. The "militia" is not an organ of government, but the common rabble. State militias and state police are specially provided for as "standing armies". The "militia" is comprised of all men between the ages of 17 and 44. It was later ratified to include anyone capable of loading, aiming and firing small arms. Isn't it absurd that we need a right to do something your government is going to force you to do anyway in time of war?: That's exactly what liberals want you to believe when interpreting the 2nd amendment as a collective "right".
Let's keep everything thing in perspective here. Some people will play the race card on absolutely everything thing they can. Some people will say that the 2nd Amendment is the medicine to cure all criminal ills. Others will say that the 2nd Amendment is the cause of criminal ills. What it really comes down to is this... you are unlikely to change the mind of a determined adversary in this type of forum. The people shooting (no pun intended) back and forth have already made-up their minds. The question is, regardless of what happens, what are you willing to do to protect what you believe? I for one, would become a so-called "criminal" in order to protect myself and my family if the 2nd Amendment were struck down. It has already been said (in another D.C. case) that the goverment, specifically the police, are not responsible for your safety. They are only responsible for the collective safety of the public. You and only you are responsible for your safety... one way or the other.
As far as this, protecting the black majority, thing goes for D.C., it sounds to me more like the black residents need the goverment to keep them under control. If the black people make-up 60% of the population of the city, and they are concerned about the sharp increase in violence with more guns, it sounds like they are the problem. You need only look at the number of murder victims in the city, but THEN look at the murderers. Yes, by far, most of the murder victims are black, but SO ARE THOSE DOING THE MURDERING!!!! The problem in D.C. is not the weapons available, although I think ALL citizens should have the right to bear arms, it is societal! The black community needs to start standing up against their own. They need to stop blaming whites or hispanics or whatever the flavor of the month is for their problems. Most black problems are created by blacks, and everyone else in the country needs to STOP paying for them!!!
Thanks, Jeff, for pointing out something I glazed over in my haste:
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)
Thanks Stephanie for that laughable stereotypical marxist rant. Stalin could not have done a better snow job of trying to divide and conquer. Black against white, consumer against seller, short against tall --- it all figures into the debate about the second amendment. Yeh, sure it does.
Wow, Ms. Mencimer, you are a total racist! You might try rereading your blather will an introspective eye. The gun control you advocate is racist too. Rich whites can afford private security, gated communities, fenced yards, safe locatoins expensive security systems and responsive police departments. Poor blacks get none of that. Remember also that Black freemen and poor whites were prohibited from owning firearms by the laws enacted by the wealthy whites of the post-slavery South. I am quite sure Ms. Mencimer will support high gun and ammunition taxation. Another great way to keep the Black man down.
Historically, the goal of firearms bans has always been to keep "the wrong sort of people" ( read, racial minorities ) from possessing guns. An armed man makes a poor slave.
Permitting "Cities with a high incidence of violence" or "urban overcrowding" to prohibit firearms is just modern code for the same racist claptrap. Everybody knows who lives in THESE cities. Blaming firearms for the results of the War on Drugs and economic conditions in the inner city distracts from their solution. Which is likely the point.
Unfortunately, some of it comes from black leaders, who seem to have a very poor opinion of those they "lead" and are either themselves armed, or have armed guards around.
Not to mention the "White man's burden" inplication that everyone should give up their second amendment rights just because a few minority males might misuse them. Talk about one more thing to drive a wedge between the racies.
Question to the author: How many persons in America were murdered by persons who legally possessed the firearm?
Question to the author: How many civilians who possessed concealed carry licenses have been arrested for weapons charges?
Question to the author: You quoted the highly inflammatory Carl T. Bogus. How many slave uprisings occurred before the bill of rights was written compared to after?
Question to the author: Wasn’t the fourteenth amendment created, in part, to protect the rights of freed slaves from southern state that were systematically disarming them?
Question to the author: Wasn't our Bill of Rights basically a re-write of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 sans the ideas of royalty and division by religion. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 gave Englishmen the freedom to have arms for their defense.
I would be interested to hear your comments.
Seeing here literary interests, how does Ms Mencimer think the Republicans got into the position where they can "block the courthouse door". It was by alienating the old Labor/liberal farmer labor wing with their ill-conceived elitist gun-control measures.
Look, you can take care of the widows, orphans and poor folks or you can try to take firearms away from people who are not inclined to misuse them anyway. But politically you cannot do both. Any polical faction that is too dumb to understand this is too damn dumb to run this country anyway.
Madison does tell us what the militia is for and it has nothing to do with what Bogus suggests. In Federalist 46, Madison maintians that it is safe to ratify the new constitution in spite of its authorization of a "standing army", the bane of liberty. He notes that the central government could only afford to raise 25K or so regular troops, max. These could be eaasily overcome by the 500K militia, ready to "spring to arms" should liberty be threatened.
At the time, the country had about 500K free males of miltary ages. So it is also clear whom Madison believed the militia to be.
SHUT THE F^CK UUUUUUUUUUUUP!
This is not about the second amendment, it is about the declaration of independence which reads "that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" none of which we would have without the ability to protect ourselves!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow. Wow. That is the best example of rejecting reality and substituting your own that I have ever read. Actually, I apologise. It is never constructive to resort to insults, and for that I sincerely apologise. Nevertheless, I will continue to heap scorn on an inexcusably foolish notion. You say the second amendment may have had a hand in propegating slavery? Sure. One of the times a Militia will be called into service is in the event of widespread disorder, which is what a slave revolt would have been seen as. So yes, it is plausible. But the sole intent? Tsk Tsk.
Historically speaking, the better armed the population is, the safer the population is. Take, for example, Great Britain. Before the enactment of that foolish ban (by itself a good enough reason to depose a government, in my opinion), before they relied exclusively on a professional police force (who, it is important to note, are not responsible for protecing you, after all, they aren't your personal bodyguard, and they are above reproach, even if their negligence causes you to be even more greivously injured), their crime rates were low. After the Ban, only criminals had guns, and their gun related crime increased by about 40%. So now, in America, while about one in five homes is armed (and about 9% of burglaries happen while the house is occupied), in Great Britain, no homes are armed (and about 67% of burglaries happen while the house is occupied). And you are safer in America. If you don't like guns, fine, don't buy them. But don't kid yourself by thinking you can stop Criminals from having Guns, and don't try legislate away my right to keep and bear arms. A right which is recognized to predate the constitution and the United States of America.
In point of fact, since you mention Racism as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment, did you know the earliest laws against carrying concealed weapons were aimed at freed slaves? And later, they simply removed race from the letter of the law, but it was simply understood that those laws would not be enforced against white people?
Just curious.
"and its interpretation could have far-reaching implications for state gun laws." is this really true? DC is not a state and its government is Congress (thats in the constitution). The fact that the second amendment may be held to apply to DC may not mean it is incorporated by the 14th amendment to apply to the states.
If you read a little more about the whole history of the D.C. issue, about Marion Barry and so forth, and the crime and the public corruption and the drugs and most likely millions of dollars gone 'missing'(do your own research there, just a hunch), I'd ten times rather see armed citizens than corrupt police having all the guns. Comma. Comma. Why would households not be allowed, if not required even, to go ahead and have some other kind of 'shootin iron' under their roof, by law? Main thing, though, is that the Public can lawfully arm themselves in their own defense of their homes, their possessions, their families, and so forth. When home invasions, theft, breaking and entering and so forth become a matter of playing dice with your life, I think that's a great crime deterrent. In Florida, and Texas, I think, they have what are called 'castle laws', meaning that if someone is attempting to forcibly enter your home, make off with your worldly possessions, assault you or your family, you're not required to flee your home, but rather are lawfully enabled to take reasoned steps in your own defense. I think there's a balance to be attained to, and part of that is maintaining the checks and balances that prevent run-amok ANYthing, including law enforcement with runaway authorities and budgets and so forth.
This article is so far off... it's not even wrong.
I should note at the outset that Carl Rowan was a notoriously noisy black, ANTI-GUN journalist who had advocated that anyone except police caught with a gun should go to jail.
Beyond that, the most clearly documented purpose for the Second Amendment was to permit the citizens to defend their free state - against invaders and against tyrants. Having just fought a war with the world's greatest superpower, the absolute necessity of an armed populace and the extreme danger of a standing army (which might be turned on the People) was foremost in their thinking.
The rest of the article is racist swill.
"NEGROES WITH GUNS"
The year was 1957. Monroe, North Carolina, was a rigidly segregated town where all levels of white society and government were dedicated to preserving the racial status quo. Blacks who dared to speak out were subject to brutal, sadistic violence.
It was common practice for convoys of Ku Klux Klan members to drive through black neighborhoods shooting in all directions. A black physician who owned a nice brick house on a main road was a frequent target of racist anger. In the summer of 1957, a Klan motorcade sent to attack the house was met by a disciplined volley of rifle fire from a group of black veterans and NRA members led by civil rights activist Robert F. Williams.
Using military-surplus rifles from behind sandbag fortifications, the small band of freedom fighters drove off the larger force of Klansmen with no casualties reported on either side.
Williams, a former Marine who volunteered to lead the Monroe chapter of the NAACP and founded a 60-member, NRA-chartered rifle club, described the battle in his 1962 book, "Negroes With Guns," which was reprinted in 1998 by Wayne State University Press.
According to Williams, the Monroe group owed its survival in the face of vicious violence to the fact that they were armed. In several cases, police officials who normally ignored or encouraged Klan violence took steps to prevent whites from attacking armed blacks. In other cases, fanatical racists suddenly turned into cowards when they realized their intended victims were armed.
Oddly, it appears that the organized armed blacks of Monroe never shot any of their tormentors. The simple existence of guns in the hands of men who were willing to use them prevented greater violence.
It is important to note that the guns were not used offensively. They were part of an overall strategy that relied primarily on peaceful protest like picketing or entering whites-only establishments. Williams demonstrated that the dignified and responsible use of firearms for self-defense was an important method to achieve justice for those denied fair treatment by all institutions of government.
The civil rights movement was deeply divided between those who espoused a pacifist, non-violent approach and those who believed that human beings had a right and a duty to use force in self-defense. Williams was the most influential leader of the self-defense wing of the movement.
His effort to provide guns and training to African-American civil rights supporters was alarming to white politicians. Most state gun control laws, not just in the South, were blatantly designed to keep guns out of the hands of blacks and other minorities. Those with racist beliefs were not pleased when blacks claimed the right to keep and bear arms that is guaranteed to all Americans.
The connection with the NRA might surprise some people who portray the organization as a haven for racist rednecks. Former NRA Executive Director Tanya Metaksa spoke with Williams before his death. She recalls, "He was very proud of being an NRA member and that the NRA sanctioned his club without question."
The civil rights organizations of today bear little resemblance to the deadly serious armed activists of Monroe. African-American leaders generally support the liberal white line that guns are evil and have no place in modern society. On the other hand, small numbers of responsible black gun owners continue to honor their heritage by practicing their marksmanship and joining gun rights organizations. The tradition of the black gun club still lives on in the Tenth Cavalry Gun club, led by Ken Blanchard in Prince Georges County, Maryland.
While researching this column, I contacted Don Kates, a civil rights attorney who went to North Carolina in 1963 to participate in the movement. I asked if he ever carried a gun during those days and he responded with a list of a half-dozen that were always within reach. Kates also suggested that I read a letter written by an old friend of his from those days, John R. Salter, Jr., who is now Professor Emeritus at the University of North Dakota. Here are two brief quotes:
"In the early 1960's, I taught at Tougaloo College, a black school in Jackson, Mississippi. I was a member of the statewide board of the NAACP and was Chairman of the Jackson Movement. No one knows what kind of massive racist retaliation would have been directed at grass-roots black people had the black community not had a healthy measure of firearms within it."
"During most of the 1960's I did civil rights work in various parts of the South and almost always had with me a .38 special Smith and Wesson 2-inch-barrel revolver - what you would now erroneously call a "Saturday Night Special."
In 1962 the Monroe freedom fighters were overwhelmed by a huge mob that converged on the town. The Justice Department and the state police ignored calls for help. The rabid racists were aided by law enforcement who branded Williams a communist and a dangerous schizophrenic.
Rob Williams eluded an FBI manhunt and fled to Cuba, which he erroneously believed to be totally free of racism. Within five years he realized that Cuba was not as he had imagined and moved on to China. There he was treated as a celebrity and returned to the United States in 1969 with the quiet blessing of Richard Nixon.
Williams worked as a China scholar at the University of Michigan and reportedly advised Henry Kissinger
It takes an intentionally disingenuous reading of the Second Amendment to read it as anything other than an individual right. If it read "Cold Beer being essential to a balanced diet, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" we wouldn't be having this discussion would we? But the grammatical construction is the same. That initial phrase is simply providing one possible justification or explanation for what follows. It doesn't modify it in any way. You could take it out completely and nothing would change.
It's all a moot point anyway, of course. Inalienable rights, such as my right to defend myself, do not come from the Constitution. The Constitution is simply one tool which purports to establish an entity that will help protect my rights. But ultimate responsibility for defense of my inalienable rights lies with me, period.
Luckily a lot of other people feel that way, and if the gun grabbers start coming to try and take our firearms, we will employ those firearms for the exact purpose for which they were intended.
Stephanie,
You missed one of the most stunning racial aspects of the entire gun-control debate, the same aspect those black Americans who support gun control miss. Most of the Gun Control laws in effect today can trace their origins back to Jim Crow laws. These laws were enacted originally to stop free black Americans from owning guns. So today, black Americans are basically supporting the same laws the KKK supported years ago. Shame Shame.
While the majority of gun owners in America are white, it is more of a cultural and urban/suburban difference as opposed to one based on race. Law-abiding black Americans need to become very pro-gun and realize the rights we are fighting for are theirs as well as ours. They have every right to protect themselves and their families from the evil in this world, and more need in the inner city.
Carl Rowan was charged under the very law HELLER seeks to overturn, a law which has increased the crime rate in DC dramtically. If you support Rowan, you should support Heller.
Working the race card into the second amendment? Come on...we as americans should be better than that. I wonder why race is still an issue in this country? Maybe its because people like the author keep picking open the scab instead of letting it heal.
The argument that "the right of the people" is subject to reasonable regulation and restriction tramples on the very words of the Second Amendment, reading the phrase--"shall not be infringed"--as if read "shall be subject only to reasonable regulation to achieve public safety."
No government deprives its citizens of rights without asserting that its actions are "reasonable" and "necessary" for high-sounding reasons such as "public safety." A right that can be regulated is no right at all, only a temporary privilege dependent upon the good will of the very government officials that such right is designed to constrain.
Your rag stinks of racism and hatred for our constitution. Your lucky you get to say what you say but you will have to live with the indignities your life gives to others. Grow up and get over what ever injustices you feel are being put upon your fortunate existence. Your an Idiot.
Even states that opposed slavery had right to keep and bear arms written into their state constitutions, so fear of slave insurrections could not have been more that one of many motivations for the 2nd Amendment. Perhaps the right protected the liberty of free citizens, even as the lack of the right for slaves protected slavery.
Now that we no longer have slavery, defense of liberty is the only remaining motivation for the right to keep and bear arms. The ability of citizens to kill criminals allows them to defend their right to privacy in the home, their right to control their own bodies, right to travel freel, and the freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures -- from infringement at the hands of burglars, muggers, carjackers, rapists and gay-bashers.
It is true that many of the early Americans did not believe that black people had the intelligence and emotional maturity to handle the responsibilities of citizenship. For example, in the Dred Scot case a Supreme Court justices writing for the majority warned that they dared not recognize the citizenship of free blacks lest they have the right to travel wherever they pleased and be armed wherever they went. It is distressing to me to hear contemporary black gun control advocates essentially admit that the early racists were right.
What else from Mother Jones but an article that would have done well in Pravda.
And the original author behind this silly hypothesis has the name to back it up - Bogus.
And it is just one more example of how the supposed "liberals" are really closet fascists - what better way to force their desire for a socialist utopia on the rest of us than to disarm us. The "gun-free" utopia of DC is the end result - where honest citizens live in fear of the criminal and the gov't. Statists like Ms. Mencimer have no use for the law-abiding.
But talk about revisionist history. It was the US gov't in Cruishank that tried to protect blacks rights to assemble and own firearms in the South after the civil war. The SC ruled against that setting the stage for Jim Crow laws. Both she and Bogus ignore that.
Both she and Bogus hate the idea of an individual right to arms - therefor they will both lie to try to destroy it.
Typical hoplophobic screed with a healthy dose of revisionist history. Sure, some southerners were worried about slave revolts, but how many southern states were there? 3 - VA, NC, and SC. A poor attempt to villify and diminish the importance of the entire framing of the Second Amendment. 2A was always about giving the citizens to protect their birthright...Sovereignty!
We are citizens, with inalienable rights, not subjects to be ruled. This right, as enumerated, is not granted by any local, state or federal authority. It is a recognized right, endowed by our creator, upon every freeborn citizen in this country. The right to keep and bear arms isn’t so that the citizens can hunt or target shoot. It is recognized so that they may protect this country, their state, their community, their families and themselves against those that may wish to do them harm, be it a foreign enemy, their own federal, state or local government…or some brutal thug.
I find it humorous for MJ to support gun bans: in socialist history gun bans produced dictatorships which have slaughtered millions. Can you never figure out this is wrong, or is it okay with you as long as the "right people" are getting hurt, like European Jews in 1943? Or Cambodians in 1976?
The only rights you really have are those you can defend. There is ample history predating the US and 2A about the human right of effective self-defense, and that no other right is secure without it. You can cherry pick one side of it, as above, but you are missing the operative point that disarming the law-abiding does not reduce crime in any way, whereas two decades of experience with "shall issue" concealed carry laws proves to reduce crime of all stripes. Too bad you are blinded ideology and hate those who disagree with you. No wonder you want to disarm them.
The wrong people in DC already have guns. Affirming Heller will get guns in the hands of the good guys.
Maybe the 2nd amendment does have a racist past - like it or not, the law was racist back then, and the militias were upholding it. That doesn't make the concept of upholding law wrong. Armed citizens are in a position to uphold the law than disarmed citizens are.
What seems to be at issue is the right of an individual to protect themselves in their home. DC not only bans handguns, but also mandates that shotguns or rifles be disabled, even in the home. DC is one of the most violent cities in the country, in spite of the ban, and still they want to prevent a person from having an effective defence. I don't advocate carry laws, or guns on campus, but I should have the right to be safe in my own home.
A more interesting case for the court would be one brought on behalf of a person murdered in their own home. One that holds the DC government to account, since if they chose to ban self defense, then they must take absolute responsibility to protect those they have made defenseless.
Stephanie and NAACP John Payton appear to be afraid of blacks being armed. With no means of defending themselves, they might be dependent on NAACP and the government. The 2nd Amendment is supposed to prevent infringement on the citizen's possession and use of arms.
Gun control was initially implemented and supported by racists to disarm blacks so they would continue to be victims of KKK and others.
It looks like there are still racists out there supporting gun control against law abiding citizens. They never seem to be interested in enhancing penalties for criminal use of guns, but prefer to make it easier for them to prey on their disarmed victims.
"As the NAACP points out in its brief on Heller, in D.C. in 2004, there were 137 gun-homicide victims. All but two of them were black." With that many shooting victims, irrespective of who they were, the question of gun control becomes moot. A gun ban is in effect already, how's that working for anybody?
Stephanie Mencimer is full of moose doo doo. She sounds just as racist as Barack Hussein Obama. Honey, I have not had a good month if I have not acquired another gun. The next one I buy I will dedicate to your stupidity. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. The nice thing is that when the hammer falls, all of these liberals will give us a target rich environment.
Sen Hutchinson and many other brave members of the U.S. Senate and House and V.P. Cheney, have filed friend of the court briefs calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the recent ruling that the District's ban on handguns is unconstitutional. The Commonwealth of Virginia, along with other states, have, or will, do the same. If victorious, I hope these gun rights advocates will make sure legislation is passed allowing the possession of handguns, or any firearm, in all Federal, Commonwealth and State buildings, chambers and offices to be legal and permitted at all times, as long as the bearer of such weapons is the legal owner and has the proper permits. These gun rights advocates should be exposed to the same risk of gun violence as the rest of us. The gun rights advocates who disagree should explain why to the victims of the recent gun violence in Kirkwood, MO, Los Angeles, CA, the families of the victims of the Lane Bryant store shootings in suburban Chicago, the families of the victims of the VA Tech shootings and the families of the victims of the NIU shootings. Don't be frightened by this suggestion gun rights advocates in state and Federal governments, after all, what is that saying you all and the NRA is is fond of? Something like guns don't kill people, people kill people......
I completely agree. Our
Submitted by Alpheus (not verified) on Thu Sep. 17, 2009 12:44 PM PDT.
I completely agree. Our rights to carry guns in Federal buildings should not be denied!
As for the victims who died or were injured in the Kirkwood, MO, Los Angeles, CA, the families of the victims of the Lane Bryant store shootings in suburban Chicago, the families of the victims of the VA Tech shootings and the families of the victims of the NIU shootings...if ONLY Missouri, California, Chicago, Virginia Tech, and NIU allowed their victims to be armed, then there would have been a lot less victims!
This part is particularly funny:
"Gun-wielding journalists who can’t shoot straight may not be the bulwark against tyranny libertarians had in mind. Yet they’re just one of the many scary scenarios.."
For every one story you can find of someone using guns in a stupid way, I bet you could find at least two stories of how someone could've protected themselves with one, but wasn't able to thanks to the gun ban. Your attitude seems to be that citizens can't be trusted to use their rights responsibly, so they shouldn't have them at all. With this mindset, you're a prime candidate to be dictator of a communist society. Hope you have fun with that, but it's not going to happen in the U.S., you should realize, so stop trying (and failing) to sway opinion this way to reach that goal.
Matthew R.M. brought up an interesting point, which I am sorry to say sounds a bit misguided. My wife is originally from London. The reason crime is higher there than here is due to the amazing density of the population. That is why public transportation works in their country, while here it is very expensive to implement, except in the largest cities. Places with higher densities tend to have more crime. This is why cities are considered more dangerous than rural settings. I do agree that banning guns does not stop them from entering the country. It worked the same during the years of prohibition. However, if you increase the amount of guns in homes it means you have a greater chance of someone stealing it and using it later or even perhaps using it on you. Also, if you ban guns I only think you will have more knife and other weapon related crime. This IS what has been the trend in the UK especially Scotland. I consider myself further left than right, but I still don't think banning guns would achieve anything. I do think gun owners should either lock up their weapons or at least have trigger locks. The other problem is that you can kill more people more efficiently with guns than you can with knives or any other hand-held weapon. In either case I don't think banning guns is an effective solution. Perhaps if our country took care of its citizens in terms of jobs, education, and healthcare instead of telling us how to run our lives we would be better off. I just wanted to add that it does worry me how many individuals posted quite ignorant if not racist remarks about crime being perpetrated by minorities. Goverments and multinationals kill far more people in the Third World so that all of us can live this Westernized lifestyle. It seems that most of us just want to be part of a group and parrot each others ideas and opinions. This is why I really can't consider myself liberal or conservative. They both spout a lot of garbage based on their emotional attachments to certain ideas. Anyway...enough of my rant.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
