What Anti-Gun Nuts Need to Learn

[bobevenson]

Constitutional Ignorance and Dereliction
By Walter Williams
Published July 1, 2015

The nation's demagogues and constitutionally ignorant are using the Charleston, South Carolina, AME church shooting to attack the Second Amendment's "right of the people to keep and bear Arms." A couple of years ago, President Barack Obama said, "I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations." That's a vision shared by many Americans, namely that the Constitution's framers gave us the Second Amendment to protect our rights to go deer and duck hunting, do a bit of skeet shooting, and protect ourselves against criminals. That this vision is so widely held reflects the failure of gun rights advocates, such as the NRA and Gun Owners of America, to educate the American people. The following are some statements by the Founding Fathers. You tell me which one of them suggests that they gave us the Second Amendment for deer and duck hunting and protection against criminals.

Alexander Hamilton said, "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed," adding later, "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government." What institution was Hamilton referring to when he said "the representatives of the people"?

Thomas Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." Who are the rulers Jefferson had in mind?

James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," said, "(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

George Mason, author of the Virginia Bill of Rights, which served as inspiration for the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, said, "To disarm the people — that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them," later saying, "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

Richard Henry Lee said, "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Here's a much more recent statement from a liberal, bearing no kinship to today's liberals/progressives: The late Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey said, "Certainly, one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. ... The right of the citizen to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."

There are some historical anti-gun statements that might please America's gun grabbers. "Armas para que?" (Translated: "Guns, for what?") That's how Fidel Castro saw the right of citizens to possess guns. There's a more famous anti-gun statement: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." That was Adolf Hitler.

At the heart of the original American ideal is the deep distrust and suspicion the founders of our nation had for Congress, distrust and suspicion not shared as much by today's Americans. Some of the founders' distrust is seen in our Constitution's language, such as Congress shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, violate or deny. If the founders did not believe Congress would abuse our God-given rights, they would not have provided those protections.

Maybe there are Americans who would argue that we are moving toward greater liberty and less government control over our lives and no longer need to remain an armed citizenry. I'd like to see their evidence.

Dr. Walter Williams is an American economist, commentator, and academic. He is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, as well as a syndicated columnist and author known for his libertarian views.

[henry quirk]

"What Anti-Gun Nuts Need to Learn"

Not a goddamned thing.

Even if they were capable of learning sumthin', they wouldn't (their ideology wouldn't permit such a thing).

Same goes for the pro-gun nuts.

I'll say it again: if, like me, you have one, good on you...practice, stay safe, fly low.

If, on the other hand, you don't have one, good on you...stay safe, fly low.

Either way: avoid the nutjobbery of both sides.

Don't let folks with agendas camp out in that most valuable real estate, that being the inside of your head.

[bobevenson]

You must not have read the article or you wouldn't talk such nonsense, but than again, maybe you would.

[henry quirk]

"nonsense"

As you like 'prophet'.

[bobevenson]

"nonsense"

As you like 'prophet'.

You don't have to be a prophet to understand what Williams is talking about, and he documents what he is saying. Unfortunately, gun rights advocates don't have the slightest idea what they're talking about. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with protection against criminals unless you're talking about a criminal government, and your response doesn't help educate people on the subject.

[henry quirk]

"your response doesn't help educate people on the subject"

Wasn't intended to educate.

Bluntly, Bob: I don't give a flip about the second amendment...I have my shotgun, I'm keeping my shotgun, and I don't care what lawmakers, the public, or constitutionalists have to say on the subject.

Any time folks start droning on about 'rights' they really mean 'privileges".

Let's suppose (for example), as unlikely as it might be, a successful constitutional convention were called and, as unlikely as it may be, the second amendment was heavily edited or even abolished: I should give up my gun cuz the powers that be say I should?

Screw that noise.

The view 'government giveth, government taketh away' (or, 'the people giveth, the people taketh away) while common, is, to me, wrong-headed and I will not abide.

But, Bob, if banging the drum of *governmental reformation is your thing, then have at it.









*in my view, the only real reformation required is including a binding None Of The Above option on every ballot of every election from the national all the way down to the municipal...make NOTA viable and binding and watch American governance change for the better...it'll never happen, though...the powers that be will never allow that much power to be in the hand of citizens...*shrug*...friggin' mook's game no matter how you cut it.

[bobevenson]

"your response doesn't help educate people on the subject"

Wasn't intended to educate.

Bluntly, Bob: I don't give a flip about the second amendment...I have my shotgun, I'm keeping my shotgun, and I don't care what lawmakers, the public, or constitutionalists have to say on the subject.

Any time folks start droning on about 'rights' they really mean 'privileges".

Let's suppose (for example), as unlikely as it might be, a successful constitutional convention were called and, as unlikely as it may be, the second amendment was heavily edited or even abolished: I should give up my gun cuz the powers that be say I should?

Screw that noise.

The view 'government giveth, government taketh away' (or, 'the people giveth, the people taketh away) while common, is, to me, wrong-headed and I will not abide.

But, Bob, if banging the drum of *governmental reformation is your thing, then have at it.

*in my view, the only real reformation required is including a binding None Of The Above option on every ballot of every election from the national all the way down to the municipal...make NOTA viable and binding and watch American governance change for the better...it'll never happen, though...the powers that be will never allow that much power to be in the hand of citizens...*shrug*...friggin' mook's game no matter how you cut it.

Maybe the day will come, when the Second Amendment is abolished and the government throws your ass in jail, when you can reevaluate what your godforsaken attitude should have been.

[henry quirk]

"when the Second Amendment is abolished...when the government throws your ass in jail"

Silly, rabbit: folks like me don't go to jail...we get shot (and killed).

No, jail is for evangelicals like yourself...a jail house preacher: that's you, Bob.

[bobevenson]

You'd rather have the government shoot your ass rather than stand up for the Second Amendment. More power to you, fool.

[henry quirk]

No, I'd rather just live my life, and leave you to live yours.

How unfortunate folks like you make that almost impossible.

Folks like you, believing you all know better, constantly butt in, tell people like me what we should or shouldn't do and think (and when we respectfully decline to abide, folks like you try to 'educate' [forcibly] the idiosyncrasy right out of us...and when that doesn't work, well, folks like you have the pine boxes ready and waiting).

I'm certain you see yourself different, Bob, but to me you're just another garden-variety communitarian (just about the worst thing a person can be, in my book...ranks right down there with child molesters and rapists).

'nuff said.

[bobevenson]

No, I'd rather just live my life, and leave you to live yours.

How unfortunate folks like you make that almost impossible.

Folks like you, believing you all know better, constantly butt in, tell people like me what we should or shouldn't do and think (and when we respectfully decline to abide, folks like you try to 'educate' [forcibly] the idiosyncrasy right out of us...and when that doesn't work, well, folks like you have the pine boxes ready and waiting).

I'm certain you see yourself different, Bob, but to me you're just another garden-variety communitarian (just about the worst thing a person can be, in my book...ranks right down there with child molesters and rapists).

'nuff said.

No, it's not 'nuff said, get out of your cave.

[henry quirk]

For me, on this topic, with you, yeah 'nuff said.

[bobevenson]

For me, on this topic, with you, yeah 'nuff said.

Let's see, most people rate a 10 on the 0 to 10 ignorance scale regarding gun control, but you rate a 10 on the stupidity scale. On second thought, I give you an 11.

[Ginkgo]

Constitutional Ignorance and Dereliction
By Walter Williams
Published July 1, 2015

The nation's demagogues and constitutionally ignorant are using the Charleston, South Carolina, AME church shooting to attack the Second Amendment's "right of the people to keep and bear Arms." A couple of years ago, President Barack Obama said, "I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations." That's a vision shared by many Americans, namely that the Constitution's framers gave us the Second Amendment to protect our rights to go deer and duck hunting, do a bit of skeet shooting, and protect ourselves against criminals. That this vision is so widely held reflects the failure of gun rights advocates, such as the NRA and Gun Owners of America, to educate the American people. The following are some statements by the Founding Fathers. You tell me which one of them suggests that they gave us the Second Amendment for deer and duck hunting and protection against criminals.

Alexander Hamilton said, "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed," adding later, "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government." What institution was Hamilton referring to when he said "the representatives of the people"?

Thomas Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." Who are the rulers Jefferson had in mind?

James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," said, "(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

George Mason, author of the Virginia Bill of Rights, which served as inspiration for the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, said, "To disarm the people — that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them," later saying, "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

Richard Henry Lee said, "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Here's a much more recent statement from a liberal, bearing no kinship to today's liberals/progressives: The late Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey said, "Certainly, one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. ... The right of the citizen to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."

There are some historical anti-gun statements that might please America's gun grabbers. "Armas para que?" (Translated: "Guns, for what?") That's how Fidel Castro saw the right of citizens to possess guns. There's a more famous anti-gun statement: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." That was Adolf Hitler.

At the heart of the original American ideal is the deep distrust and suspicion the founders of our nation had for Congress, distrust and suspicion not shared as much by today's Americans. Some of the founders' distrust is seen in our Constitution's language, such as Congress shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, violate or deny. If the founders did not believe Congress would abuse our God-given rights, they would not have provided those protections.

Maybe there are Americans who would argue that we are moving toward greater liberty and less government control over our lives and no longer need to remain an armed citizenry. I'd like to see their evidence.

Dr. Walter Williams is an American economist, commentator, and academic. He is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, as well as a syndicated columnist and author known for his libertarian views.

Perhaps we can start with Williams' first paragraph. Firstly, I think Williams need to appreciate that the so called, "demagogues" are not the political leaders as such. When it comes to handing down decisions from the bench, the Second Amendment is the most heavily regulated. In historical terms, this particular amendment is not the domain of politicians.

If you don't believe me research the relevant decisions handed down by SCOTUS over the past past two hundred years.

[bobevenson]

When Williams talks about demagogues, he is talking about a wide range of people, not just politicians. However, it is ironic that he mentioned President Obama since Obama taught Constitutional law, apparently with little or no knowledge of the background and events leading to the Second Amendment.