The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience, or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
Samuel Adams, Massachusetts’ U.S. Constitution Ratification Convention, 1788
Here’s one Sam Adams to start you off on your weekend. You’ll have to buy the rest on your own.
This is what gets to me about the anti-gun crowd who want to intepret the Second Amendment as a regulation arming only State Militias.
ALL of these chumps, and yes, I’ll call them chumps no matter how many law degrees they have from no matter which institutions of higher legal learning, seem to conveniently overlook ALL the speaking and writing of the Founders on the subject of permitting an armed citizenry.
There are dozens, if not hundreds, of statements like Adams’, and NONE that I’ve ever read which so limits the Second as these GFWs desire it to be limited.
Just what part of the intent of the Founders is unclear here?
The entire anti-gun position is simply a case of wishful thinking on the part of the GFWs (they WISH that the Founders had limited the Second), and an application of Karl Marx’s Big Lie Technique (tell a big lie often enough and people will begin to believe it from it’s momentum).
So, we should be using Joe Huffman’s “One Big Question” technique, which says to boil the argument down to it’s basic (winning) element, and put THAT in the form of a question to be posed to the opposition.
That question would be, “Which Founder (Founders) said specifically that the Second Amendment was intended to provide ONLY for militia armaments?”
When the answer to that question is refused, or obfuscated, the question should be firmly repeated until answered, and if not answered, the individual should be immediately and pubicly put down for his or her false presentation and/or un-Constitutional conspiracy to disarm the citizens.
This is OUR history, and OUR Constitution with OUR Second Amendment in it. If WE allow these people, regardless of their legal pedigree, to deny that history, WE have only ourselves to blame if they enact un-Constitutional laws to disarm us.
It behooves us to learn OUR history, and be prepared to use it in our defense. We must stop being afraid of these “respected” constitutional lawyers who have pulled their interpretation of this section of the Constitution, not out of it’s original document, nor the support for it from it’s original supporters and writers, but out of their ass.
They are liars, and we may call them on it. They put their pants on one leg at a time, just like us. When one of them looks down his nose at a non-lawyer and says “who are you to challenge me, you aren’t a lawyer?” we need to stay in their face and say, “no, I’m not, and neither were many of the Founders. They were simply men with a strong concept, freedom, a stong desire to see that concept succeed and so am I. You, sir, are still a liar.”
Don’t take this crap from these lawyers. This argument needs to be restored to honest, ringing debate on streetcorners, not so-called “scholarly” debate hidden away from from everyone in marble-floored rooms.
Besides, it’s a good way to get to know those streetcorners, a handy bit of knowledge that will be useful when armed restoration of the Constitution becomes necessary.