Lawrence Hunter Explains the 2nd Amendment

[Merkava_4]

From Lawrence Hunter, in his words:

Forbes.com
Lawrence Hunter, Contributor
December 28, 2012


It is time the critics of the Second Amendment put up and repeal it, or shut up about violating it. Their efforts to disarm and short-arm Americans violate the U.S. Constitution in Merriam Webster’s first sense of the term—to “disregard” it.

Hard cases make bad law, which is why they are reserved for the Constitution, not left to the caprice of legislatures, the sophistry and casuistry of judges or the despotic rule making of the chief executive and his bureaucracy. And make no mistake, guns pose one of the hardest cases a free people confronts in the 21st century, a test of whether that people cherishes liberty above tyranny, values individual sovereignty above dependency on the state, and whether they dare any longer to live free.

A people cannot simultaneously live free and be bound to any human master or man-made institution, especially to politicians, judges, bureaucrats and faceless government agencies. The Second Amendment along with the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent individuals’ enslavement to government, not just to guarantee people the right to hunt squirrels or sport shoot at targets, nor was it included in the Bill of Rights just to guarantee individuals the right to defend themselves against robbers, rapers and lunatics, or to make sure the states could raise a militia quick, on the cheap to defend against a foreign invader or domestic unrest.

The Second Amendment was designed to ensure that individuals retained the right and means to defend themselves against any illegitimate attempt to do them harm, be it an attempt by a private outlaw or government agents violating their trust under the color of law. The Second Amendment was meant to guarantee individuals the right to protect themselves against government as much as against private bad guys and gangs.

That is why the gun grabbers’ assault on firearms is not only, not even primarily an attack merely on the means of self-defense but more fundamentally, the gun grabbers are engaged in a blatant attack on the very legitimacy of self-defense itself. It’s not really about the guns; it is about the government’s ability to demand submission of the people. Gun control is part and parcel of the ongoing collectivist effort to eviscerate individual sovereignty and replace it with dependence upon and allegiance to the state.

Americans provisionally delegated a limited amount of power over themselves to government, retaining their individual sovereignty in every respect and reserving to themselves the power not delegated to government, most importantly the right and power to abolish or replace any government that becomes destructive of the ends for which it was created. The Bill of Rights, especially the Second and Ninth Amendments, can only be properly understood and rightly interpreted in this context.

Politicians who insist on despoiling the Constitution just a little bit for some greater good (gun control for “collective security”) are like a blackguard who lies to an innocent that she can yield to his advances, retain her virtue and risk getting only just a little bit pregnant—a seducer’s lie. The people either have the right to own and bear arms, or they don’t, and to the extent legislators, judges and bureaucrats disparage that right, they are violating the U.S. Constitution as it was originally conceived, and as it is currently amended. To those who would pretend the Second Amendment doesn’t exist or insist it doesn’t mean what it says, there is only one legitimate response: “If you don’t like the Second Amendment, you may try to repeal it but short of that you may not disparage and usurp it, even a little bit, as long as it remains a part of the Constitution, no exceptions, no conniving revisions, no fabricated judicial balancing acts.”

Gun control advocates attempt to avoid the real issue of gun rights—why the Founders felt so strongly about gun rights that they singled them out for special protection in the Bill of Rights—by demanding that individual rights be balanced against a counterfeit collective right to “security” from things that go bump in the night. But, the Bill of Rights was not a Bill of Entitlements that people had a right to demand from government; it was a Bill of Protections against the government itself. The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights.

That is why the most egregious of the fallacious arguments used to justify gun control are designed to short-arm the citizenry (e.g., banning so-called “assault rifles”) by restricting the application of the Second Amendment to apply only to arms that do not pose a threat to the government’s self-proclaimed monopoly on the use of force. To that end, the gun grabbers first must bamboozle people into believing the Second Amendment does not really protect an individual’s right to own and bear firearms.

They do that by insisting on a tortured construction of the Second Amendment that converts individual rights into states rights. The short-arm artists assert that the Second Amendment’s reference to the necessity of a “well-regulated militia” proves the amendment is all about state’s rights, not individuals rights; it was written into the Bill of Rights simply to guarantee that state governments could assemble a fighting force quick, on the cheap to defend against foreign invasion and domestic disturbance. Consequently, Second-Amendment revisionists would have us believe the Second Amendment does little more than guarantee the right of states to maintain militias; and, since the state militias were replaced by the National Guard in the early twentieth century, the Second Amendment has virtually no contemporary significance. Gun controllers would, in effect, do to the Second Amendment what earlier collectivizers and centralizers did to the Tenth Amendment, namely render it a dead letter.

The truth is, the Founders understood a “well regulated” militia to mean a militia “functioning/operating properly,” not a militia “controlled or managed by the government.” This is clearly evidenced by Alexander Hamilton’s discussion of militias in Federalist #29 and by one of the Oxford Dictionary’s archaic definitions of “regulate;” “(b) Of troops: Properly disciplined.”

The Founders intended that a well-regulated militia was to be the first, not the last line of defense against a foreign invader or social unrest. But, they also intended militias to be the last, not the first line of defense against tyrannical government. In other words, the Second Amendment was meant to be the constitutional protection for a person’s musket behind the door, later the shotgun behind the door and today the M4 behind the door—a constitutional guarantee of the right of individuals to defend themselves against any and all miscreants, private or government, seeking to do them harm.

The unfettered right to own and bear arms consecrates individual sovereignty and ordains the right of self-defense. The Second Amendment symbolizes and proclaims individuals’ right to defend themselves personally against any and all threatened deprivations of life, liberty or property, including attempted deprivations by the government. The symbolism of a heavily armed citizenry says loudly and unequivocally to the government, “Don’t Tread On Me.”

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence said, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

Both Jefferson and James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, also knew that their government would never fear a people without guns, and they understood as well that the greatest threat to liberty was not foreign invasion or domestic unrest but rather a standing army and a militarized police force without fear of the people and capable of inflicting tyranny upon the people.

That is what prompted Madison to contrast the new national government he had helped create to the kingdoms of Europe, which he characterized as “afraid to trust the people with arms.” Madison assured his fellow Americans that under the new Constitution as amended by the Bill of Rights, they need never fear their government because of “the advantage of being armed.”

But, Noah Webster said it most succinctly and most eloquently:

“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, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”

That is why the Founders looked to local militias as much to provide a check—in modern parlance, a “deterrent”—against government tyranny as against an invading foreign power. Guns are individuals’ own personal nuclear deterrent against their own government gone rogue. Therefore, a heavily armed citizenry is the ultimate deterrent against tyranny.

A heavily armed citizenry is not about armed revolt; it is about defending oneself against armed government oppression. A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government.

LINK

[thewitt]

Thank you Mr Hunter.

Unfortunately most of the readers on this website will not understand this, as they have already decided to cede all of their choices to the government so they can be "taken care of" rather than take personal responsibility for themselves.

[unlinked]

Interesting argument against a standing army but I don't think most Americans will buy into it.

[rdowns]

Just another extremist who thinks in black and white in a world dominated by gray. This holds for extremists at both ends.

[Chundles]

How is everyone having guns going to stop a tyrannical government? Especially when that government has access to nukes?

The proper solution is to just give everyone nukes.

[Zombie Acorn]

Originally Posted by Chundles

How is everyone having guns going to stop a tyrannical government? Especially when that government has access to nukes?

The proper solution is to just give everyone nukes.

What does a government do after it nukes all its people and the US is a nuclear wasteland/

The US military cannot take down a 300 million armed guerilla army, they couldn't even handle Vietnam.

[citizenzen]

Solution is simple.

Get rid of the standing army.

I'm all for it.

[Zach Vega]

I'm tired of governments trying to violate rights such as these.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Solution is simple.

Get rid of the standing army.

I'm all for it.

hahaha. Me too. It never will happen though. Republicans love their military and the illusion of feeling "protected" and "free".



This article is a bunch of tin-foil hat garbage. The US government isn't becoming a tyranny in the 21st century. It's not happening. Anyone who thinks this needs to get their head checked out and shouldn't have access to firearms anyways due to mental instability.

The 2nd amendment does have limits. Civilians have the right to bear arms, but it's not unlimited. It's not like you can legally own ICBMs with thermonuclear warheads or a stockpile of RPGs to "protect" yourself from the "evil government".

Time to move on, gun nuts. It's not 1789 anymore, it's almost 2013. There's no place for civilians to own most of these assault weapons (and similar high capacity semi-auto guns) in a modern society. We are already falling behind the rest of the first world in terms of health care, education, and many other issues, and if we don't fix this we'll only fall further behind.

Originally Posted by Zach Vega

I'm tired of governments trying to violate rights such as these.

I'm tired of waking up EVERY morning to news of another shooting in this country and people pointlessly losing their lives. There comes a point where the greater good of the population becomes more important that your individual right to pretend you're living in a call of duty video game.

[samiwas]

Oh jeez...this again? Is there really a subset of people who think the government is going to enslave them and that the only way we will keep this from happening is to give everyone guns? Seriously? If you believe this, I think you're a wackjob.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by zioxide

This article is a bunch of tin-foil hat garbage. The US government isn't becoming a tyranny in the 21st century. It's not happening. Anyone who thinks this needs to get their head checked out and shouldn't have access to firearms anyways due to mental instability.

Originally Posted by samiwas

Oh jeez...this again? Is there really a subset of people who think the government is going to enslave them and that the only way we will keep this from happening is to give everyone guns? Seriously? If you believe this, I think you're a wackjob.

Totally agree.

It's ironic how some people apply circular reasoning to this issue ...

We have to have our guns to keep the government from becoming tyrannical.

But we can't get rid of our standing army because then we'll be vulnerable to our enemies.

Paranoia applied both internally and externally has resulted in many hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.

Who needs tyranny?

Freedom has proven it can be just as deadly.

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by Chundles

How is everyone having guns going to stop a tyrannical government? Especially when that government has access to nukes?

The proper solution is to just give everyone nukes.

the insurgents in Afghanistan have done a good job of standing up to us..

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by glocke12

the insurgents in Afghanistan have done a good job of standing up to us..

True, but Gandhi did a pretty good job of standing up to the British without violence.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by glocke12

the insurgents in Afghanistan have done a good job of standing up to us..

They've done a much better job of killing Afghanistan civilians than U.S. troops.

The Taliban and other anti-government elements have been blamed for 2,332 of the 3,021 civilians who were killed in Afghanistan last year - a rise of 8% on 2010. In 2011, UNAMA documented 2,332 civilian deaths and 3,649 injuries by the Taliban for a total 5,981 civilian casualties, an increase of 10% in deaths and injuries attributed to anti-government forces compared to 2010. This accounted for 77% of all deaths whereas Nato and government forces totalled 410 civilian killings and 335 injuries.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...ies-statistics

It's amazing how some gun advocates romanticize insurgency when it's evident that fellow citizens bear the brunt of the violence.

[Iscariot]

He's right that anyone who really wants to restrict access to firearms needs to accept that they have to address the constitution and states rights.

Every other word out of his mouth is sheer lunacy.

Guns aren't making you safer, and anyone with two braincells to rub together that isn't a total partisan hack is capable of recognizing that. I'm not going to put forth the idea that it's as simple as adopting Australian-style gun policies (only ~22 million people with no borders) but to pretend that there isn't a problem or position it as a problem wherein the solution to too many guns is somehow more guns is willful stupidity. It's not a question of left vs. right or ideology vs. ideology, it's a question of the constitution vs. ~31 000 dead people.

It's not guns vs. the government, or guns vs. bad guys, it's guns vs. obituaries. You've got a legitimate constitutional right to own a gun, and your choice is to give that up and see less people dying of gunshot wounds, or simply come to terms with the fact that the price you pay for your gun is blood. Man up and admit that your constitutional right is worth a certain amount of innocent blood* and shut up about the contrived, ridiculous anti-government conspiracy theories or hollywood-esque self-defense narratives. Because they are nonsense and they are not furthering your position. They only serve to position you as someone with a tenuous-at-best grasp of reality.

________
*note: only a certain number of victims of firearm violence are "innocent," and the number who are "random" is even smaller. Not that criminals getting shot to death is necessarily a good thing, but that so many murder victims are criminals themselves implies a certain assumed risk.

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by Iscariot

Man up and admit that your constitutional right is worth a certain amount of innocent blood* and shut up about the contrived, ridiculous anti-government conspiracy theories or hollywood-esque self-defense narratives. Because they are nonsense and they are not furthering your position. They only serve to position you as someone with a tenuous-at-best grasp of reality.

Bravo!

[DakotaGuy]

Originally Posted by zioxide

There's no place for civilians to own most of these assault weapons (and similar high capacity semi-auto guns) in a modern society. We are already falling behind the rest of the first world in terms of health care, education, and many other issues, and if we don't fix this we'll only fall further behind.

I'm tired of waking up EVERY morning to news of another shooting in this country and people pointlessly losing their lives. There comes a point where the greater good of the population becomes more important that your individual right to pretend you're living in a call of duty video game.

For all of you who are screaming that an "assault rifle" ban will fix all the problems you should probably do a little research and see what firearms produce the most casualties. Let me tell you it's not even close. Handguns are BY FAR the biggest cause of problems, however we don't hear anything about them do we? Gotta get those assault rifles away from people and then no one will ever get shot again right?

By the way just so we are clear about what an assault rifle is let me show you two pictures.

This is NOT an assault rifle...



This IS an assault rifle...



Any questions?

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by DakotaGuy

Any questions?

Yes.

What value is your "no true Scotsman assault rifle" argument?

I just don't get it.

[DakotaGuy]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Yes.

What value is your "no true Scotsman assault rifle" argument?

I just don't get it.

Because people keep saying "We have got to ban assault weapons" but as you can see in the case of the AR-15 if you simply remove the "assault" features it is now just a regular semi-automatic rifle. Even if the ban names the AR-15 by model name a couple specs can be changed and it can be re-branded the AR-20 or whatever and it is good to go without the scary "assault features" of course.

Instead of banning the cosmetic features, why not require a tool to remove the magazine and limit the magazine size? That is all I am trying to say is that people keep going on and on how terrible these assault weapons are and how they think they are killing more people then all other firearms combined, but check the stats and you will see that is so far from the truth it isn't even funny.

So the value of this information is to show people that the so-called assault weapon is all about cosmetics. That's it. I see it as just another rifle, however I assume you see it as a SBG (Scary Black Gun).

[unlinked]

Originally Posted by DakotaGuy

Any questions?

Why are you saying assault rifles? Assault rifles and assault weapons are two different things.

[DakotaGuy]

Originally Posted by unlinked

Why are you saying assault rifles? Assault rifles and assault weapons are two different things.

How so? Please educate me. The AR15 can either be a plain old rifle or an assault weapon by changing it's cosmetics and removing features. That was the only point I was trying to make. As far as I know all fully automatic weapons are already illegal so please tell me what other semi-automatic weapons are an assault weapon and cannot be made into a regular weapon by changing cosmetics or deleting features?

[unlinked]

Originally Posted by DakotaGuy

How so? Please educate me. The AR15 can either be a plain old rifle or an assault weapon by changing it's cosmetics and removing features. That was the only point I was trying to make. As far as I know all fully automatic weapons are already illegal so please tell me what other semi-automatic weapons are an assault weapon and cannot be made into a regular weapon by changing cosmetics or deleting features?

Not having too much interest in guns aside from fps I don't know of a definitive reference but it is my understanding that assault rifles are by definition automatic and thus have been highly regulated in the US since before they were even invented.

"An assault rifle (as opposed to weapon) refers to a specific type of firearm designed – fully automatic, lightweight and reliable"

http://www.guns.com/2012/12/18/edito...ent-tragedies/

[DakotaGuy]

Originally Posted by unlinked

Not having too much interest in guns aside from fps I don't know of a definitive reference but it is my understanding that assault rifles are by definition automatic and thus have been highly regulated in the US since before they were even invented.

"An assault rifle (as opposed to weapon) refers to a specific type of firearm designed – fully automatic, lightweight and reliable"

http://www.guns.com/2012/12/18/edito...ent-tragedies/

Well unless you want to go through a huge amount of hurdles to try an obtain an automatic weapon legally as a civilian in our country then it is illegal. There are many lightweight weapons on the market and if it's not reliable chances are most people wouldn't buy it.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by DakotaGuy

Because people keep saying "We have got to ban assault weapons" but as you can see in the case of the AR-15 if you simply remove the "assault" features it is now just a regular semi-automatic rifle. Even if the ban names the AR-15 by model name a couple specs can be changed and it can be re-branded the AR-20 or whatever and it is good to go without the scary "assault features" of course.

Instead of banning the cosmetic features, why not require a tool to remove the magazine and limit the magazine size? That is all I am trying to say is that people keep going on and on how terrible these assault weapons are and how they think they are killing more people then all other firearms combined, but check the stats and you will see that is so far from the truth it isn't even funny.

So the value of this information is to show people that the so-called assault weapon is all about cosmetics. That's it. I see it as just another rifle, however I assume you see it as a SBG (Scary Black Gun).

I've been around a lot of black guns and they've always tended to behave...maybe it was just a fluke?

Originally Posted by unlinked

Not having too much interest in guns aside from fps I don't know of a definitive reference but it is my understanding that assault rifles are by definition automatic and thus have been highly regulated in the US since before they were even invented.

"An assault rifle (as opposed to weapon) refers to a specific type of firearm designed – fully automatic, lightweight and reliable"

http://www.guns.com/2012/12/18/edito...ent-tragedies/

An automatic firearm resembling the modern AR15 (Colt M4) is not available for civilian ownership in the US. Automatic firearms are forbidden if made after 1983, and in order to buy a pre-ban, you are looking at an extensive background check, fingerprinting, a few month wait, waiver of certain Constitutional Rights (specifically search and seizure), and thousands of dollars. For an older version of a fully automatic AR, 15 grand is usually a steal. The 'black guns' being attacked by congress now are all semiautomatic. Making a semiautomatic into a fully automatic firearm in the US will put one in federal prison for a few decades, and I know of no one who's ever done it.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by DakotaGuy

Because people keep saying "We have got to ban assault weapons" ...

People tend to speak in generalities.

Is the semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 used to kill 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook and 2 firefighters in Webster N.Y. an "assault weapon"?

Does it really matter what that weapon is technically called?

I frankly couldn't care less what category the weapon falls in to.