The Smallest Minority

The Smallest Minority

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand

"I don't just want gun rights... I want individual liberty, a culture of self-reliance....I want the whole bloody thing." KdT

Wahabism Delenda Est









Hey, FEC!

BITE ME!
I'm a Member of
the McCain-Feingold
INSURRECTION!




"Jeez, Kevin... calling you an asshole would be a huge understatement, wouldn't it?"
-Jack Cluth, The People's Republic of Seabrook
(Coming from you, Jack, it's an honor.)



email:
gunrightsAT
comcastDOTnet


INVITATION: If you have never shot a firearm, regardless of
your position on the right to arms,
and if you live near or visit the
Tucson, AZ
metropolitan area, I invite you
to go shooting for a day.

I will provide the arms, ammunition, targets,
safety equipment, range fees and instruction.

All you have to do is show up.

4 Takers To Date

DO YOU LIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE and want to try shooting?
Click HERE



Proud Gun-blogging member of the Pajamahadeen since May, 2003!

An Invitation to My Readers

Debates:

"The Commentary"
A OLD discussion on gun control between me and an Irishman living in London
Start here.
UPDATED! Now with archive!

Post #1 by Alex, a Guest
A multi-post discussion hosted here at TSM

My short exchange with
Professor Saul Cornell
of the Second Amendment Research Center

Best Posts:

The "Rights" Discussion:

What is a "Right?"

What is a "Right"? Revisited, Part I

Part II

Rights, Morality, Idealism & Pragmatism, Part I

Part II

Part III

Part IV

The United Federation of Planets

Is the Government Responsible for Your Protection?
Part I & Part II

1975 in Washington, D.C. vs. 2004 in Canton, Ohio

Go Ahead, Rely on the Government for Your Protection

The Other Side

Liberal vs. Conservative: Both are Necessary

The Blog
that Ate Poughkeepsie


Updated and restated as:

Of Laws and Sausages

Militias

A Mistake a Free People Get to Make Only Once

This is NOT What I Wanted to Read

TRUST

The Lying "News" Media, Pt. II

Say WHAT?

Bias? What Bias?

Agenda? What Agenda?

The Church of the MSM and the New Reformation

Let's See if I Can "Germinate an Intelligent Thought" Here

The ACLU Hasn't Changed its Tune

They Never EVER Stop

It is Not the Business of Government

Five Reasons Why It ISN'T

They Keep Making Better Fools

Five Month Investigation, 10 Tracer Rounds, Two Felony Convictions

That Sumbitch Ain't been BORN!

On Guillotines and Gibbets

England Slides Further Towards Bondage

Pressing the "RESET" Button

Freedom's Just Another Word for Nothin' Left To Lose

A Terrible Resolve

The Courts Will Not Save Us Trilogy:

The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions

"Game Over, Man. Game Over."

An Important Question

And the denouement:

Hudson Was Wrong

The Dangerous Victims Trilogy:

"(I)t's most important that all potential victims be as dangerous as they can"

Violence and the Social Contract

Governments, Criminals, and Dangerous Victims

In the same vein:

Those Without Swords Can Still Die Upon Them

The True Believers Trilogy:

True Believers

March of the Lemmings
Reasonable People

Also in the same vein:

Tough History Coming

Technical Dissertations

Why Ballistic Fingerprinting Doesn't (And Won't) Work

Spin, Spin, Spin

Speaking of Teddy Kennedy...

This is the Kind of Thing That REALLY IRRITATES ME

Questions from the Audience?

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?


Monday, August 15, 2005
 
Round 1 of the Debate by Guest Poster Alex:.

Ok, just a warm up:

"What did the Second Amendment mean when it was ratified, and does it matter today?"

Let me answer the first part of the question with the only definitive answer we will likely produce in this debate: “Nobody knows”. We cannot presume to know what the “single intent” of hundreds of people attending the state ratifying conventions ever was (even they probably couldn’t agree on that). There were few records kept so all we have is, ultimately, speculation. Any idea that we can somehow divine the “true intention” of either the framers, or those that ratified it is quixotic task, and doomed from the start.

Which gets to the second part of the question, “does it matter today?” My answer is, obviously not. Relying on someone’s personal beliefs from 1787 as the basis for governance in a modern society is a recipe for disaster. We look back on the founding fathers as mythic heroes, infallible in thought, and always noble in purpose. Now these were, indeed, great men with inspired ideas. And I recognize the benefit the world has since seen from the ideals they brought forth.

But the same genius of Jefferson that saw so much in the power of freedom and liberty, was oblivious to the inequality of slavery- mankind’s greatest affront to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What does it say if the mightiest mind of that time (a biased opinion for sure, but one I’ll support) could be so ignorant as to allow this atrocity to remain legal? They also (many of them at least) supported the subjugation of women, many restrictions that kept the unwashed masses in their place, and other practices that we would find objectionable by any modern standard.

No, I am not bashing on these guys. Again, I do appreciate the gift their democracy adds to my everyday world 200+ years later. But to revere them as some demi-gods who had it all figured out seems so woefully naive as to be begging for a trip to the loony bin. They were flawed human beings, just like you and me. They did their best, and put down a remarkable foundation. But it wasn’t perfect, and it never will be.

Regarding the Second, for the strict literalists, I would offer these points. First, to re-ignite a well worn argument, the fact that they add in “A well regulated Militia” in the first part of the sentence shouldn’t be dismissed. If they wanted unlimited, no holds barred, everyone gets guns the second would read: “the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. But it doesn’t. They added a modifying clause. It must mean something or they wouldn’t have bothered to put it in, right? Why add it unless it restricted the other phrase? The other phrase is clear, easily understood, and unrestricted, so the only point to monkeying with it is to tone it down. Therefore, since the literalists believe so much in every word in the constitution, logic holds that they must have wanted some limitation on the second, or they wouldn’t have tossed in that modifying phrase. Second, the entire concept of “arms” represents an evolving technology, and trying to say that anyone in the 1800’s had the foggiest idea of what we have now in this arena is ludicrous. So anybody writing a law about muskets, might have a different intent when faced with a sub-machine gun.

Now we can go round and round on what the term Militia means, what the purpose of that phrase is, and what is the “intent” of the whole thing. But like I said, it doesn’t matter. What matters is how to interpret the law today, given what “arms” mean in this society.

(Posted by Kevin because Alex did this as a comment.)

Next Post in the series.

Labels:


|




Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I use such material in an effort to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is used without profit. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.