I wish someone would smack some common sense into the minds of our elected representatives when it comes to the Second Amendment and everything that goes with it.
In the wake of the Uvalde, Texas school shooting where 19 children and 2 adults were shot dead by a lone gunman, the gun haters came out in full force, virtue-signaling innocent Americans who happen to own a gun.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was blasted on the Internet for allowing the US Senate to adjourn for Memorial Day recess after he bragged about blocking a Republican bill on school safety.
Schumer, in his usual despicable way, tried to vilify Republicans for resisting gun control regulation after the Texas school shooting, yet many people thought it was bloviating at best because Democrats went on a week-long recess.
The Democratic Majority Leader argued that he wanted to allow negotiations to have a chance to work out before forcing a vote on gun control. I call bullschtein. Schumer got scooped by the GOP and he didn’t want the narrative to go with the Republicans on gun control.
“If these negotiations do not bear any fruit, the Senate will vote on gun safety legislation when we return. But our hope, even amidst our deep skepticism, is that during this week Democrats and Republicans at long last will come to agree on something meaningful that will reduce gun violence in a real way in America,” Schumer said on the Senate floor.
Schumer also implied there wasn’t going to be gun control legislation and that people instead should vote for Democrats in the November midterm elections. He politicized the death of 19 children.
“A plague, a plague upon this nation, a plague of gun violence that has taken over the country,” Schumer said in a speech blaming Republicans for opposing legislation that the House passed to expand background checks for gun purchases, probably because it would be an infringement which is banned by the Second Amendment.
“The problem in the Senate is simple: Too many members on the other side of the aisle are disconnected from the suffering of the American people. Too many members on that side care more about the NRA than they do about families who grieve victims of gun violence,” he said.
First off, the Second Amendment ends with the words, “shall not be infringed.” Anything the Senate comes up with is an infringement. Why do Democrats think that some gun control is not an infringement?
Here is the definition of Infringe:
Even a Democrat should be able to understand it.
There is one measure that we could take that would absolutely make a difference in mass school shootings. That would be to get rid of Gun-Free School Zone laws which make our children sitting ducks in a classroom. Gun-Free School Zone laws make it so that a shooter can go into a school and shoot as many people as he wants, knowing that there will be no responsible adults around with a firearm to shoot back at him.
Instead, we should put signs like this outside every school, and we should mean it:
I can guarantee you that reversal of policy will cause mass shooters to think twice.
The truth of the matter is, Schumer wants the Democrats to get the proverbial “glory” of doing a gun control law that violates the Second Amendment and he didn’t want to miss his vacation because working to make sure only Democrats got the credit would creep into his time off.
Twitter wasn’t nice to Schumer after he attacked Republicans and then ran off for vacation.
Erick Erickson tweeted: “Democrats are already rejecting calls for more security and single entry points for schools (refusing to concede single points of entry with multiple exits is possible). They only want gun control, which won’t pass the Senate. That means they want the issue, not a solution.”
Democrats are already rejecting calls for more security and single entry points for schools (refusing to concede single points of entry with multiple exits is possible). They only want gun control, which won’t pass the Senate. That means they want the issue, not a solution.
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) May 26, 2022
Andrew Pollack, whose daughter was a shooting death victim in the Parkland School shooting, tweeted, “Chuck Schumer wants more school shootings to benefit his fundraising.”
Chuck Schumer wants more school shootings to benefit his fundraising.
Schumer blocks Senate GOP school safety bill, angering Republicans | Fox News https://t.co/OEtR3qk6hY
— Andrew Pollack (@AndrewPollackFL) May 26, 2022
A big argument brewing online is that the Founders did not create the Second Amendment as an individual right but for militias, and you know the rest. They never change their arguments, even though they’ve all been debunked for years.
So, I thought you might like to know how the framers of the Constitution and the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights thought about gun ownership.
The first quote is to remind everyone that when politicians try to rewrite history, it’s always a good idea to refer to the original intention of what the Founders meant.
- “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit – manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” – President Thomas Jefferson admonishing Supreme Court Justice William Johnson
- “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.” – Thomas Jefferson, US. President, Signer of the Declaration
- “No citizen shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands.” – Thomas Jefferson, US. President, Signer of the Declaration
- “Inalienable right – a right ‘which God gave to you and which no inferior power has a right to take away.’” – Constitution signer John Dickinson
- “Resistance to sudden violence for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I never surrendered to the public by the compact of society and which, perhaps, I could not surrender if I would…. The maxims of the law and the precepts of Christianity are precisely coincident in relation to this subject.” – John Adams, US. President, Signer of the Declaration, One of the two signers of the Bill of Rights
- “The said Constitution should be never construed … to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration, Father of the American Revolution
- “The right … of bearing arms … is declared to be inherent in the people.” – Fisher Aims, A Framer of the Second Amendment in the First Congress
- “The great object is that every man be armed…. Every one who is able may have a gun. But have we not learned by experience that, necessary as it is to have arms, . . . it is still far from being the case?” – Patrick Henry, Governor, Patriot Leader
- “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright right force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” – Patrick Henry, Governor, Patriot Leader
- “The advantage of being armed is an advantage which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…. In the several kingdoms of Europe … the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” – James Madison, US. President, Signer of the Constitution, A Framer of the Second Amendment in the First Congress
- “Arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. 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…. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.” – Thomas Paine, Patriot, Author
- “A people who mean to continue free must be prepared to meet danger in person, not to rely upon the fallacious protection of… armies.” – Edmund Randolph, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention, Secretary of State under President George Washington
- “A free people ought … to be armed.” – George Washington, US. President, Signer of the Constitution, Commander of the Continental Army
- “No man should scruple or hesitate a moment to use arms in defense.” – George Washington, US. President, Signer of the Constitution, Commander of the Continental Army
- “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed – as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of the people are armed.” – Noah Webster, Revolutionary Soldier, Legislator, Responsible for Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution
In DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, otherwise known as the Heller decision, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said, among other things, the following:
“The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, ‘Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.’ See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).
The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘weapons of offence, or armour of defence.’ 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’ 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).
The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: ‘Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.’ See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing ‘arms’). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited ‘arms’ (as opposed to ‘weapons’) to ‘instruments of offence generally made use of in war,’ even that source stated that all firearms constituted ‘arms.’ 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language37 (1794) (emphasis added).
From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that ‘bear arms’ had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, ‘bear arms’ was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment : Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to ‘bear arms in defense of themselves and the state’ or ‘bear arms in defense of himself and the state.’ 8 It is clear from those formulations that ‘bear arms’ did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense ‘of one’s person or house’—what he called the law of ‘self preservation.’ 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (‘Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution’); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that ‘bear arms’ was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.”